UK cuts contribution to Aids, tuberculosis and malaria fund by £150m

The United Kingdom has reduced its contribution to a prominent fund dedicated to combating preventable diseases by 15%, a decision that has caused significant dismay among aid organizations. These groups warn that this reduction will tragically lead to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths worldwide.

For the 2027-29 funding period, the UK will commit £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. This figure represents a decrease from the £1 billion pledged by the previous Conservative government for the last funding round. While the announced sum is slightly higher than the £800 million initially discussed by senior officials, aid groups still consider it a substantial setback for global efforts against these diseases.

The total financial commitments from all nations to the global fund will be revealed later this month during an event co-hosted by the UK on the sidelines of the G20 summit in South Africa, which Keir Starmer is expected to attend. Aid organizations had previously warned that a significant cut to UK funding, following a 30% reduction in the previous funding round and coupled with former President Donald Trump's cuts to US aid, would severely impact global health initiatives.

Government officials contend that this commitment demonstrates ministers are prioritizing the global fund despite broader reductions in overseas aid, which has fallen from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income, with a further decrease to 0.3% projected for 2027. They argue that given other pressing aid commitments, such as those to Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine, the 15% reduction still signifies a strong vote of confidence in the global fund.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper described the commitment as "an investment in our shared security and prosperity." Nevertheless, the decision has caused considerable concern among many Labour MPs. A group of seven MPs, who have previously served as ministers under Starmer, wrote to the Prime Minister last week, warning that a reduction would constitute a "moral failure" and a strategic disaster.

One former minister, Kerry McCarthy, acknowledged the necessity of "tough decisions" within the context of a reduced aid budget, noting that the additional £150 million required to maintain the previous commitment would need to be sourced elsewhere. She emphasized the direct correlation between support for the Global Fund and lives saved, citing her personal observations in Uganda and Malawi regarding the program's transformative impact.

The One campaign, an organization focused on development in Africa, has calculated that the 15% cut could result in 255,000 preventable deaths, disproportionately affecting children. While acknowledging the commitment to collective efforts against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, the campaign urged ministers to increase their support further.

Joanna Rea from the UK branch of UNICEF expressed concern that the cut "jeopardises vital partnerships that protect children from preventable diseases." She added that it is a disappointing decision, especially as the UK prepares to co-host a replenishment conference and should be encouraging other donors.

Malaria No More UK stated, "This is a disappointing step-back from the UK’s long-held leadership in the fight against malaria, just as a perfect storm of threats already risk an historic resurgence."

Kitty Arie, chief executive of Results UK, a prominent aid advocacy group, described the reduction as "deeply concerning" and a significant setback in efforts to end AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. She recognized the challenging fiscal environment but highlighted that this marks the first instance in the Global Fund's history where a host country has decreased its pledge, potentially setting a worrying precedent for other donor governments. Arie concluded that this decision moves in the wrong direction, undermining decades of progress and weakening the ability to respond to future threats.

Mike Podmore, chief executive of the StopAIDS campaign, warned that the cut "threatens the real possibility of ending Aids by 2030." He explained that while the contribution remains substantial, the reduction could impede the global fund's capacity to sustain current progress and conduct its life-saving work. Podmore elaborated that these reductions would have immediate and devastating impacts on lives worldwide, potentially denying marginalized communities access to prevention services and disrupting essential medicines for people living with HIV.