Britain's foreign aid: Where does the money go?

LONDON - Over 100 British NGOs have called on the Labour government to take bold action in the autumn budget next month to maintain UK overseas aid at current levels and avoid withdrawing vital services from millions of vulnerable people worldwide.

Britain's Conservative government had reduced overseas aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) in 2020 to free up cash for domestic spending during COVID-19, slashing billions from programmes supporting the world's poorest.

The Labour government pledged to restore overseas development spending to 0.7% of economic output but has given no timeframe due to "quite difficult" fiscal circumstances, development minister Anneliese Dodds told Reuters in July.

NGOs, including ActionAid UK, Oxfam GB and CARE International UK, signed an open letter urging the government to reduce the amount of aid being spent domestically on refugees and asylum seekers, maintain current levels of 0.58% of GNI, and urgently set out new plans for how and when the government will return to 0.7%.

They warn that overseas development spending will drop to its lowest levels since 2007 if the government does not act in the autumn budget, which will be released on Oct. 30.

Here are the details of Britain's foreign aid spending:

How much does Britain spend on overseas aid?

In 1970, Britain pledged to spend at least 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid as part of a United Nations pact.

It is among 30 wealthy countries including the United States, Germany and Japan that vowed to meet this minimum commitment each year.

Britain spent $19.11 billion in Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2023 - including domestic spending such as refugee programmes - according to preliminary data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

How does other countries' aid spending compare?

Several countries have exceeded the U.N. aid target including Germany (0.79%), Luxembourg (0.99%), Norway (1.09%), Sweden (0.91%), and Denmark (0.74%) according to the OECD data.

The United States was the biggest cash donor in 2023. It spent $66.04 billion, followed by Germany ($36.68 billion), EU Institutions ($26.93 billion), Japan ($19.6 billion) and Britain.

How could recipients of UK aid be impacted by cuts?

Britain's aid cuts impacted almost all international programmes dealing with global health and humanitarian work, charities have said.

Sexual health programmes across Africa faced a 60% cut in funding as a result, according to an assessment by the International Development Committee (IDC) of lawmakers last year.

About 230,000 children would miss out on education after funding was reduced by 87%, the assessment said, and more than 25,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition in South Sudan would not get treatment.

Other programmes impacted by sharp cuts included initiatives to deter female genital mutilation (FGM) in Somalia, support women and girls under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and to vaccinate children.

What does Britain plan to spend its aid money on?

In the Labour Party pledged to rebuild Britain's "reputation" for international development in its manifesto.

It said the government will aim to tackle poverty and the climate crisis, with priority areas including empowering women and girls, supporting conflict prevention, and unlocking climate finance.

Dodds said the new government would not divert development funding to help house migrants and refugees in Britain.

In 2023, £4.3 billion of ODA was spent on refugee costs in the UK, 27.9% of total ODA spending, according to data from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).

The ministry has announced £84m of funding over the next three years to address the factors driving people to migrate unofficially to Britain in small boats, including cash for jobs and education programmes for Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon and more aid for displaced people in Sudan.

This article was updated on August 15, 2024 to include pledges from the new Labour government.

(Reporting by Lin Taylor and Beatrice Tridimas; Editing by Helen Popper and Sonia Elks and Lyndsay Griffiths.)