UK aid cuts are yet another setback in the fight against HIV and AIDS. They should be reversed
HEOver the last few years, my colleagues and I have braced ourselves every time the UK has made an announcement about its development budget; We prepared not only for more cuts generally, but also for where specific cuts to key institutions and programs would impact.
The bottom line we ask ourselves is: What impact will these have on the health of the poorest and most marginalized people in the world, and how much will they undermine the incredible possibility that the world will end AIDS as a public health threat within the next few years? Secretary of State Yvette Cooper’s announcement on overseas aid spending unfortunately includes cuts to some of the most effective multilateral organizations in the fight against HIV, which we believe will jeopardize this opportunity.
The UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget currently stands at 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI). The global withdrawal of ODA funding by the UK and other major donors was clearly driven by Donald Trump’s disastrous aid cuts in January last year. But now, under congressional pressure, even most of the cuts in the US have been reversed.
Surprisingly, this makes the UK the country with the biggest cut in ODA out of all the G7 countries; How far we have come from the development leaders we once were. The foreign secretary stated that the budget would return to 0.7 percent “when fiscal conditions permit”; This is hardly reassuring for many of us who believe the cuts are a political choice rather than a financial imperative.
The UK’s ongoing commitment to global health as a priority funding area is welcome. But even in this context, across-the-board reductions in ODA mean that large cuts are still being made to some of the most effective and cost-effective healthcare facilities.
It is deeply concerning that the commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has been heavily backlogged. This reduces the Global Fund’s ability to invest early in life-saving innovations such as lenacapavir, a game-changing HIV prevention treatment. He sets a bad example for other donors, especially as co-host of the last supply.
There is also a risk that the UK will not be able to meet its full £850 million commitment if it reduces ODA from 0.3 per cent of GNP. In this announcement we also learned that Unitaid, a key organization for negotiating the affordability of lenacapvir, had its funding reduced by 21 percent.
We are still awaiting information on how these cuts will impact UNAIDS and direct funding to communities through the Robert Carr Fund. Together, these four institutions form the backbone of the fight against HIV. Through investments in prevention, treatment, innovation and strengthening health systems, they have helped save millions of lives and significantly reduce new HIV infections worldwide.
Beyond their health impacts, these cuts are also economically shortsighted. Effective HIV interventions strengthen health systems, maintain workforce productivity, and support stable and resilient societies where trade and economic growth can thrive. As the UK looks to deepen its partnerships with countries across Africa, which are projected to represent around a quarter of the world’s population by 2050, investing in strong health systems and sustainable HIV responses will remain fundamental to shared prosperity and long-term economic development.
Changes in the global order have highlighted the critical importance of building sustainability and national ownership of health systems that provide well-being and health for all, especially the poorest and most marginalized. But this can only be achieved through continued global cooperation, partnership and solidarity of those countries most able to deliver through public financing.
The UK has made some important steps in recognizing some of the changes needed in its approach to development cooperation, but the level of funding it provides remains critical to delivering impact. The UK must therefore accept this and make a political decision to reverse the ODA cuts.
Only then can we truly ensure that key global health institutions and programs have the funding they need to help make goals like ending AIDS a reality.
Mike Podmore is the CEO STOPPERS
This article was produced as part of The Independent. Rethinking Global Aid project
