UK Aid Cuts to African Countries Announced
The UK government has announced a significant reduction in its bilateral aid to African countries, which supports essential services such as schools and clinics. The foreign secretary outlined plans for a nearly £900 million cut by 2028-29, representing a 56% decrease as part of over £6 billion in overall aid reductions. These cuts are intended to fund increased defence spending.
Aid organizations have criticized the reductions, describing them as the steepest among G7 nations and warning that they will damage the UK's international reputation while contributing to a more unequal and unstable global environment.
Labour MPs have expressed doubts privately about the effectiveness of these cuts in achieving their goal of enhancing UK military capabilities, especially given delays in the defence investment plan and additional spending demands following the Iran-US conflict.
Scope and Focus of Aid Reductions
The 40% reduction in UK aid spending, approved by MPs last year, will result in cuts to all G20 countries except Turkey. The majority of remaining aid will be concentrated on conflict zones, primarily Palestine, Sudan, and Ukraine.
Spending for Lebanon will be maintained this year, a decision confirmed by officials due to the intensity of the ongoing Israeli offensive. By 2029, 70% of all UK aid support will be directed to the most fragile and conflict-affected states.
Countries including Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen will face cuts, although the foreign secretary stated they will continue to receive funding through multinational aid agencies. Mozambique and Pakistan will see almost all their development aid replaced by investment partnerships.
The humanitarian crisis reserve has also been reduced from £85 million to £75 million, a smaller cut than initially anticipated. The foreign secretary emphasized that this decision was a difficult but necessary response to international threats.
“This for us is not an ideological step – it is a difficult choice in the face of international threats,” Cooper said.
Reactions from Aid Organizations and MPs
Romilly Greenhill, CEO of the UK network for NGOs, highlighted the disproportionate impact on Africa and the Middle East, regions home to some of the world's least-developed countries.
“Africa and the Middle East, both home to some of the world’s least-developed countries, will be forced to pay the highest price because of the reduced budget.”
Bond, an NGO network, analyzed the government's impact assessment and found that the cuts would increase vulnerability among children, people with disabilities, and older adults in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia. In South Sudan, fewer girls and children with disabilities will have access to education.
Programs in Somalia, one of the world’s most unstable countries, are expected to suffer, particularly affecting women and children's access to health services.
Shift in Aid Strategy
The most significant impact will be in Africa, where bilateral overseas development aid is projected to decline from £818 million in 2026 to £677 million by 2029. This reduction is part of a strategic pivot towards multilateral contributions through institutions such as the World Bank and African Development Bank.
The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) will phase out all bilateral funding for G20 countries except for a small allocation to refugee-hosting efforts in Turkey. No direct aid will be provided to countries like Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa.
Development Minister Jenny Chapman noted that some of the poorest African nations affected by the cuts, including Malawi, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone, have preferred partnerships focused on expertise, financial system stability, and clean energy over traditional aid programs.
“I think the concern that happened a year ago around the cuts was that people thought we were doing this because we lost faith in the agenda, we were turning our backs on the world … that this was a values shift. It’s absolutely not,” she said.
“We’ve undertaken this task … in a very collaborative way with our global south partners. We’ve been very open about it. We’ve listened hard to what people have told us. We’ve been present. We’ve shown up just about everywhere we can, to have these conversations internationally.”
However, some Labour MPs criticized the approach. Fleur Anderson, MP for Putney, stated:
“The government has on one hand increased defence spending in response to a more dangerous world, but on the other cut the investment that helps build stability before crises emerge.
“A serious approach must place development spending at the heart of global resilience and security. Without this, we are not preventing crises; we are simply waiting for them.”
Government Position and Future Plans
Foreign Secretary Cooper acknowledged the difficulty of the decisions but affirmed that the UK is expected to remain the fifth-largest global aid donor. She did not specify the exact level of cuts in her statement, with detailed information available only in the equality impact assessments.
The FCDO stated that the changes will prioritize geopolitical security and conflict, as well as funding larger multinational agencies like the vaccine program Gavi. Funding will also be maintained for the British Council and the BBC World Service.
The UK has allocated £240 million annually until 2029, alongside billions in loan guarantees for Ukraine, and is maintaining current aid levels for Palestine and Lebanon, with the latter specifically funded to address drivers of irregular migration.
The cuts will end UK aid to some major initiatives, including polio eradication and the Pandemic Fund.
Additionally, the cost of housing asylum seekers in UK hotels, which amounts to approximately £2 billion annually, is drawn from the aid budget. Consequently, by 2027-28, UK aid spending on overseas programs is expected to reach its lowest level since records began in 1970, at just 0.24% of gross national income.
Chapman described the changes as a comprehensive overhaul of aid spending following the decision to reduce the aid budget despite the legally enshrined 0.7% target. Cooper indicated the government intends to gradually return to this target when feasible.
Adrian Lovett, UK executive director of the ONE Campaign, commented on the impact of the cuts:
“Today’s figures lay bare the true scale of these cuts and the damage they will do. Slashing bilateral aid to Africa, where need is greatest, will have a devastating impact.
“These choices will leave millions without access to basic healthcare, education and urgent humanitarian support, and risk a resurgence of deadly diseases we’ve spent decades trying to fight.”
