Here we take a closer look at the potential impact of the recently announced cuts to the UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget, as well as exploring pathways to limit the damage of this decision.
Since we learned last week that the UK Government will be cutting Official Development Assistance (ODA) from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 to finance an increase to the defence budget, many SIDA members have released public statements criticising the decision. You can read some of those responses in our recent article.
The announcement prompted the resignation of Anneliese Dodds MP as Minister for International Development and for Women and Equalities.
In her resignation letter, Anneliese Dodds expressed her support for the pursuit of peace and support for Ukraine, but criticised the Prime Minister’s decision to divert funds from ODA, noting:
“the cut will likely also lead to a UK pull-out from numerous African, Caribbean and Western Balkan nations – at a time when Russia has been aggressively increasing its global presence…
“It will likely lead to a withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank; the UK being shut out of numerous multilateral bodies; and a reduced voice for the UK in the G7, G20 and in climate negotiations…
“All this while China is seeking to rewrite global rules, and when the climate crisis is the biggest security threat of them all […] Ultimately, these cuts will remove food and healthcare from desperate people – deeply harming the UK’s reputation…
“the reality is that this decision is already being portrayed as following in Trump’s slipstream of cuts to USAID”
See the full letter here.
SIDA’s CEO Frances Guy published an article in the Sunday National where she also criticised the move as following in the footsteps of President Trump’s USAID freeze, which is already causing devastating effects in vulnerable regions including Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Chad.
“In cutting the overseas development budget to pay for increased defence spending, Keir Starmer posed a false choice. Our security, our wellbeing in Scotland and elsewhere depend totally on the wellbeing of others all over the world and on all countries of the world playing their part to protect the future of the planet,”
On a practical note, Frances outlined how the UK could make the aid budget go further, despite the cuts, without dipping into public funds:
“the Government could support global moves to a UN tax convention ensuring that the world’s largest multinational corporations pay a fair share of tax and adhere to minimal standards while doing so […] The UK could (still) take the lead on encouraging debt relief and could go further and explore how to ensure private creditors don’t undermine any global agreements on debt relief,”
“As ever, there are alternatives; a tweak to capital gains tax would raise much more funds than cutting the development budget. A small wealth tax could do even more.”
“Scotland’s role as a responsible global citizen could be more important than ever, but for Scotland too that means courageous decision-making on fossil fuels and carbon budgets, as well as continuing to use its small development fund wisely.”
“Let’s be clear – this is about all our futures. Much of US (and indeed UK) funding has been on global health. We don’t need much reminding of the potential devastating effects of pandemics to understand that global security depends on more than defence spending.”
Read the full article in the Sunday National.
In an open letter to the UK Government, Bond (the UK network for organisations working in international development), called for the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to cut the UK aid budget, citing the risk to a significant number of programs supporting marginalised communities facing poverty, conflict and climate change.
In the letter, signed by 138 leaders of organisations in the UK INGO sector, the message is clear:
“No government should balance its books on the backs of the world’s most marginalised people.”
The letter continues:
“We recognise that the safety and security of the people of Britain should always be a priority of the government. But using the UK aid budget to do this is both strategically and morally wrong.”
“UK aid, which is only just over 1p in every £1 of public spending brings a huge return on investment. It builds peace and prevents conflict and instability, forced migration, provides access to clean water and sanitation,”
“[the cuts] will devastate the UK’s development and humanitarian work supporting communities around the world, its global reputation and the UK’s own national security interests.”
Calling for the urgent publication of an impact assessment, the letter reiterates the bottom line, saying
“These cuts are going to have a direct and devastating impact on the most marginalised communities in the lowest-income countries. The government needs to explain how it intends to support people facing poverty, conflict, and climate change and honour its existing global commitments.”
The full open letter is available here.