Action Against Hunger warns that investor and growth-led approaches may not be suited to the most fragile and conflict-affected contexts. In protracted crisis settings where formal systems have collapsed and humanitarian need is greatest, it is vital to prioritise and adequately resource humanitarian response and longer-term recovery.
Action Against Hunger welcomes the focus on fragile and conflict-affected contexts, including Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Palestine and Lebanon. However, while the share of ODA (Official Development Assistance) allocated to these contexts is increasing, they are still facing cuts of around 25 percent, while non-fragile contexts face reductions of up to 60 percent. This significantly narrows the UK’s global footprint, at a time when crises across the Middle East and Africa – including under-reported situations such as the DRC and Syria – continue to intensify.
This is particularly concerning given the scale of global need. According to the latest Global Report on Food Crises, 295 million people are experiencing acute food insecurity globally, with conflict the primary driver for nearly half of them. The UN’s The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report for 2025 projects that 512 million people could be chronically undernourished by 2030. Almost 60 percent of those will be in Africa.
Against this backdrop, the scale of regional reductions is especially stark. Programmes in Africa alone are set to be cut by £1.9 billion over the next three years, a reduction of around 50 percent.
The Government’s own equalities impact assessment raises serious concerns. It acknowledges that the full consequences of these decisions are not yet understood, while confirming that social protection programmes which support poor households, children and people unable to work, will be scaled back significantly.
Reducing ODA to 0.3 percent of GNI at a time of escalating global need is fundamentally short-sighted. The UK should set out a clear pathway back to 0.7 percent and ensure that, in the interim, humanitarian funding is sufficient to keep up with rising needs. Finally, in a context of reducing ODA and rising global needs, the UK should reduce the share of the ODA budget spent on domestic refugee costs, which remains at around 20 percent, to increase the investment in fragile and conflict-affected settings.