UK aid cuts are yet another setback in the fight against HIV and AIDS. They should be reversed

Over the last few years, my colleagues and I have braced ourselves whenever the UK makes an announcement about its development budget – not only in preparation for further cuts as a whole but also for where the specific cuts to key institutions and programmes will hit.

The bottom line we ask ourselves is – what impact will they have on the health of the poorest and most marginalised around the world and how much will they undermine the incredible possibility the world has to end AIDS as a public health threat in the next few years? The foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper’s announcement on overseas aid spending has sadly included cuts to some of the most impactful multilateral organisations in the HIV response and we believe this will jeopardise this opportunity.

The UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget now sits as 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI). The global retreat from ODA funding by the UK and other major donors was clearly fuelled by Donald Trump’s catastrophic aid cuts in January last year. But now, following pressure from congress, even many of the US cuts have been reversed.

Shockingly, this leaves the UK as the country that has made the biggest percentage cuts to ODA of the whole G7 – how far we have fallen from the development leader we once were. The foreign secretary indicated that the budget will return to 0.7 per cent when “fiscal circumstances allow”, which is little reassurance for many of us who believe the cuts to be a political choice rather than a fiscal necessity.

The UK’s ongoing commitment to global health as a priority area of funding is a welcome one. However, even in this context, the overall reductions to ODA mean that major cuts are still being made to some of the most impactful and cost-effective health organisations.

It is deeply concerning that the commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria has been heavily back-loaded. This reduces the Global Fund’s ability to invest now in early uptake of life saving innovations like lenacapavir, a game-changing HIV prevention treatment. It sets a bad example to other donors, particularly as co-host of the last replenishment.

It also risks the UK not meeting its full pledge of £850 million if the UK further reduces ODA from 0.3 per cent of GNI. In this announcement we also learned that Unitaid, an organisation crucial for negotiating the affordability of lenacapvir, has had its funding reduced by 21 per cent.

We still await information on how these cuts will impact UNAIDS and direct funding to communities through the Robert Carr Fund. These four institutions collectively form the backbone of the HIV response. Through investments in prevention, treatment, innovation and health systems strengthening, they have helped save millions of lives and dramatically reduce new HIV infections worldwide.

Beyond the health impacts, these cuts are also economically short-sighted. Effective HIV responses strengthen health systems, protect workforce productivity, and support the stable and resilient societies in which trade and economic growth can flourish. As the UK seeks to deepen partnerships with countries across Africa, projected to represent around a quarter of the world’s population by 2050, investing in strong health systems and sustained HIV responses will remain essential to shared prosperity and long-term economic development.

The changes in the global order have demonstrated the critical importance of building sustainability and country ownership of health systems that deliver wellbeing and health for all, particularly the poorest and most marginalised. However, this can only be achieved with ongoing global co-operation, partnership and solidarity from those countries most able to provide it through public funding.

The UK has made some important steps in recognising some of the needed shifts in its approach to development co-operation but the level of funding it provides remains critical to achieving impact. The UK therefore must recognise this and make a political decision to reverse the ODA cuts.

Only then can we really ensure key global health institutions and programmes have the funding they need to help make goals like ending AIDS a reality.

Mike Podmore is chief executive officer of STOPAIDS

This article has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project