How UK aid cuts will impact women’s health

The United Kingdom’s decision to reduce spending on health is risking an increase in disease burden and deaths, according to its own assessment. The U.K. is slashing its spending as part of a long-term plan to cut its aid budget between now and 2027, significantly reducing its commitment to allocate 0.5% of its gross national income on aid to just 0.3%. Both of these targets are a downgrade from the U.K. government’s previous commitment of spending 0.7% of its GNI on aid. The latest figures from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, or FCDO, which accounts for the majority of U.K. aid, revealed that health spending for 2025-2026 will go down by almost 46% to £527 million compared to £974.8 million for 2024-2025. An equalities impact assessment, which the office published last week, provides a partial view of where these cuts are falling. In Africa, the U.K. government is reducing its spending in women’s health, health systems strengthening, and health emergency response in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia. Aid spending for programs targeting women and children; water, sanitation, and hygiene; and nutrition has also been reduced. One example is the Ending Preventable Deaths Support Programme, which is focused on ending the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns, and children by 2030. According to the assessment, the budget for this program “will require reduction and prioritisation of the technical assistance provided to 11 flagship countries at a time when demand is likely to be high given other funding cuts.” The assessment concludes that “any reductions to health spending risk an increase in disease burden and ultimately in deaths, impacting in particular those living in poverty, women, children and people with disabilities,” although “overall the proposed 2025 to 2026 ODA [official development assistance] allocations protect against disproportionate impacts on equalities.” Civil society welcomed the publication of the assessment. But said the lack of details means they remain in the dark on what specific programs will be cut or discontinued, including those focused on sexual and reproductive health and rights, or SRHR. They said additional details would be useful for them to verify that gender equality and women and girls are not disproportionately impacted by the cuts — which was the case the last time cuts were made to the U.K. aid budget. Bekky Taylor, SRHR policy and advocacy manager at Plan International UK, told Devex that flagship programs such as What Works, which is preventing violence against women and girls, as well as the Women’s Integrated Sexual Health program that expands access to sexual and reproductive health services for women and girls across Africa and Asia, appear to be protected in the current financial year, but their future beyond 2025-2026 is uncertain. The fate of other programs that also focus on SRHR is also unclear. According to Bethan Cobley, director of external affairs and partnerships at MSI Reproductive Choices, the U.K. government has been a leader in supporting gender equality, women and girls, and SRHR as a core pillar of its wider development strategy and priorities. It has often supported neglected areas such as safe abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, and efforts to help end female genital mutilation. “We hear that they’re wanting to continue that political leadership, which is great, but with the continued reduction in investment, it feels quite hollow, to be honest. And it feels that this is going to impact women and girls, which we already know is very undersupported [and] often the lowest on the list of priorities,” she told Devex. The reductions also come at a time when other donors are pulling back, when progress in reducing maternal mortality has stalled, and there’s “much more coordinated anti-rights, anti-gender, SRHR opposition,” she said. A recent analysis published by the Guttmacher Institute shows that a 30% reduction in U.K. aid for family planning would lead to 1.1 million more unintended pregnancies and an additional 1,170 maternal deaths. A 70% reduction would more than double these numbers. “We know that all governments, including the U.K., have lots of tough choices … [But] now is not the time to step back,” Cobley said. “It’s very frustrating to think that all that investment is at risk at just such a critical point when governments are stepping into the role of providing health services, and we’re just asking for a couple more years to sustain the gains that have already been made,” she added. And while members of civil society support gender mainstreaming across U.K. aid programs — something that the U.K. government seems to want to do more of — they said the government needs to make sure it’s not a tick-box exercise. “We would fully, fully support FCDO to increase gender mainstreaming across all of its work. But it’s also alongside recognizing that you do need … [that] focused attention, like on safe abortion or adolescents,” Taylor said. “[In] so many health programs, adolescent unmarried girls are often just missed out because it’s too hard, too difficult. And so if you’ve not got anything targeted, they’re just going to be left behind even further.” The assessment only covers the impact of the cuts for the current fiscal year, which runs until March 2026 — and beyond that remains uncertain. But members of civil society are expecting more significant and devastating cuts to come, with cuts anticipated to lead to a decrease of over £3 billion by 2028. The U.K. government is expected to reveal the details of the full extent of the aid cuts covering the fiscal years 2026, 2027, and beyond in the next few months.