Alex Vines, Director of the Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), speaks to Vatican News about cuts to bilateral funding for African countries and the risk that this will negatively impact schools, hospitals, and healthcare. “Withdrawing that support,” he says, “risks leaving vulnerable populations without basic provision.”
By Davide Dionisi
The United Kingdom is reducing aid to Africa by 56% to finance increased defense spending. In recent days, the British government has announced cuts of more than £6 billion to fund rearmament, and the largest share of these reductions concerns the world’s poorest countries. By 2028–2029, bilateral funding will fall by nearly £900 million, a 56% cut. All of this will translate into fewer schools, hospitals, and essential services.
Cuts affecting vulnerable populations
“Cuts of this scale…are likely to increase fragility,” explains Alex Vines, Director of the Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). “UK aid has traditionally supported frontline services such as schools, clinics, and humanitarian programmes: withdrawing that support risks leaving vulnerable populations without basic provision. Evidence from impact assessments already suggests reduced access to education and healthcare in countries such as Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Somalia, which can deepen grievances and weaken already fragile state structures.”
Threats to security
So does reducing aid to unstable countries like Somalia risk fueling the very security threats that military spending aims to counter? For Alex Vines, a former executive at Chatham House, the prestigious independent think tank based in London, “the justification that these cuts are necessary to fund defence spending appears strategically questionable. Development spending and security are closely linked: reducing aid in places like Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan risks worsening the underlying drivers of conflict – poverty, weak governance, and lack of opportunity. Even within the UK government and among its MPs, there is scepticism about whether the trade-off meaningfully strengthens UK security, particularly given delays and uncertainty around actual defence spending plans. This policy risks undermining long-term stability investments in pursuit of short-term fiscal reallocation.” Bilateral aid to Africa will fall from £818 million in 2026 to £677 million in 2029.
Countries suffering the most severe consequences
Alex Vines identifies the countries and regions in Africa that will face the most severe and least reversible consequences: “The heaviest and most enduring impacts are likely to fall on the poorest and most aid-dependent countries in sub-Saharan Africa,” he notes, adding that “countries such as Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan are particularly exposed, as are fragile states in the Horn of Africa. In these contexts, aid cuts are not easily reversible: reductions in health services, education access – especially for girls and children with disabilities – and disease prevention programmes can have generational consequences. The scaling back of support for initiatives like polio eradication and pandemic preparedness further increases long-term vulnerability.”
Risk of sidelining development goals
Seventy percent of funds will be allocated to conflict zones by 2029. Will this northward shift in British spending mark the definitive end of Africa as a strategic development priority for the UK? According to Vines, “the shift toward allocating 70% of funding to conflict-affected areas reflects a broader pivot toward crisis response and geopolitical priorities, including Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East. This does not amount to a complete withdrawal from Africa, but it does represent a move away from sustained, long-term development engagement toward more reactive, security-driven spending. In practical terms, it risks sidelining broader development goals across large parts of the continent in favour of a narrower focus on immediate instability and migration-related concerns.”
Multilateral mechanisms unable to fill gap
Finally, Alex Vines considered whether there is a mitigation plan or whether the UK is entirely delegating this responsibility to multilateral agencies. “There is limited evidence of a fully developed mitigation strategy to offset these cuts. Instead, the UK is increasingly shifting resources toward multilateral channels such as the World Bank, the African Development Bank, and global health initiatives like Gavi. While this may preserve some level of support, it reduces the UK’s direct role and flexibility in shaping programmes on the ground. At the same time, the scale of the reductions – combined with pressures such as the diversion of aid funds to cover domestic asylum costs – suggests that multilateral mechanisms are unlikely to fully compensate for the loss of bilateral engagement.”
