The government has been urged not to slash humanitarian aid spending for a second time this year, after the Treasury signalled that more cuts could be on the way for the world’s poorest.
Rishi Suank in July announced a £2.9 billion cut to the aid budget, justifying the move by saying the UK economy had shrunk and that the promise of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on it could be met with a smaller contribution.
But ministers now say they are prepared to cut development spending further if the economy performs even worse than expected – which aid agencies say could have a damaging impact on healthcare, water, sanitation, education and food availability across developing countries.
“Arrangements are in place to tailor our spend further during the remaining months as we start to gain a clearer economic picture,” Treasury minister John Glen said in a written answer to a parliamentary question about the possibility of further cuts.
Bond, the umbrella organisation for aid agencies whose members include Oxfam, ActionAid, British Red Cross, Cafod, and Christian Aid, warned that cuts to programmes would be coming at exactly the wrong time and that poverty-reduction plans should be left alone.
“The midst of a pandemic is not the time to be scaling back effective programmes those most in need,” Simon Starling, policy direct at Bond said.
The Independent revealed this week how the coronavirus crisis had left charities, including aid NGOs, “fighting for their very survival” because of a sharp fall in private donations, set to be compounded by the further government cuts. Anti-poverty charity Oxfam is thought to be losing around £5 million a month in lost income from retail and fundraising events.
Labour’s shadow international development secretary Preet Kaur Gill, who wrote to ministers last month to ask them the basis for the £2.9 billion cuts, told The Independent that the government had “repeatedly refused to disclose the evidence behind cutting the aid budget by almost 20 per cent”.
“We do not believe it is necessary or reasonable,” she said, adding: “We accept some savings could be made, but this must never be at the expense of tackling poverty and delivering value for money for British taxpayers.”
Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrats’ foreign affairs spokesperson said the government needed to “wake up”.
“No one will be free from this virus until we are all free. UK aid plays a major role in bringing us closer to making that a reality, as well as helping to eradicate poverty globally,” she said.
“The UK government must commit to protecting the aid budget in real terms, and prioritise this spending on economic development and poverty eradication. Now is not the time to roll back on our support for the most vulnerable.”
The 0.7 per cent GNI target dates back to 1970, when the UN general assembly passed a resolution calling for donor countries to adopt one. The UK has met the target since 2013, and it has been legally binding since 2015.
The cuts imposed by the Treasury are not automatic: in 2015 the UK spent 0.71 per cent of GNI on aid without cutting programmes, but under Mr Suank the 0.7 per cnet has been treated like a ceiling, with the shrinking economy leading to cuts in aid spending.
World news in pictures
Show all 50
Bond’s Mr Starling told The Independent: “We need to protect the most effective programmes that are up and running and ensure that the FCDO has the flexibility to adjust aid spending whilst continuing to meet the needs of those most affected by crisis now.
“We have asked that the government restrict any necessary cuts to programmes that are not explicitly focused on people or reducing poverty.
“UK aid that has been called out for being ineffective in terms of poverty alleviation includes that going to the CDC Group – the UK’s development finance institution, the Prosperity Fund and the Newton Fund.
“Non-essential funding promised in advance to CDC and multilateral institutions should instead be reallocated towards programmes that are already delivering healthcare, water and sanitation, education and food.”
Neither the Department for International Development nor the Treasury responded to repeated requests for comment on this story.
