The government may drop its promise to ensure that at least 80% of the Foreign Office’s bilateral programmes include gender equality, raising concerns for women and girls worldwide.
An exclusive from The Guardian has revealed the government is considering dropping a promise to make gender equality a focus of most UK foreign aid spending. Campaigners warn this could weaken support for women and girls in some of the world’s poorest countries and add to a growing global pushback on women’s rights.
The pledge was introduced in 2023 and set a target for 80% of the Foreign Office’s bilateral aid programmes to include gender equality by 2030. Bilateral aid is money spent directly on projects in developing countries, such as health clinics, schools, or peacebuilding work, rather than given to organisations like the UN.
Earlier this year, Labour ministers said they would keep the pledge. That was despite aid being cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP to allow more spending on defence. In March, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty confirmed the target was still in place. But since then, foreign secretary David Lammy has told MPs the policy is being reviewed and he is not bound by decisions made by the previous government.
The UK spent £15.3bn on foreign aid in 2023, with £10bn going to bilateral projects. Provisional figures for 2024 show the total dropped to £14.1bn, with £11.3bn for bilateral aid, an 8% cut overall.
A government report in July set out the effect of those cuts. In Africa, which receives about half of the UK’s bilateral aid, funding for women’s health services and emergency response has already been reduced in countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. The report warned this could lead to more illness and death, particularly for people living in poverty, women, children and people with disabilities.
Girls’ education programmes have been scaled back in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Projects that help women take part in peace negotiations have also been cut in countries such as Ukraine and Sudan.
Aid organisations say removing the 80% gender equality target would make things worse. They point to similar moves in the US, where, under Donald Trump, funding for international reproductive health services was removed and, more recently, contraception bought for low-income countries was destroyed.
Sarah Champion, who chairs the international aid committee, said the UK’s promises to women and girls are “a lifeline” for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. “When we look at conflicts, climate impact and nutrition, it is always women and girls who bear the brunt,” she said.
Alex Farley from Bond, a network of UK charities, said gender equality work has already been hit harder than other areas during aid cuts. She warned that at a time when women’s rights are under attack globally, the UK should be showing leadership, not stepping back.
Amelia Whitworth from Plan International UK said anti-gender movements are gaining ground while humanitarian and climate crises are getting worse. “Girls and women are being hit hardest,” she said, adding that with other donors retreating, the UK should be strengthening its commitment to gender equality.
Why is this important? Aid funding can determine whether a pregnant woman has access to safe medical care or whether survivors of sexual violence receive support in countries outside the UK. Cuts reduce services, which in turn means they remove choices and protections that can change the course of someone’s life. As an example of what could be at stake, Guttmacher estimates that in 2024, UK family planning funding of £107 million enabled contraceptive access for 11 million people, preventing 3.7 million unintended pregnancies and averting nearly 3,910 maternal deaths. A 30% funding cut would mean 3.3 million people lose contraception access, and 1,170 additional maternal deaths go unprevented.
The Foreign Office says it is “carefully reviewing” all commitments but insists women and girls are still a priority. It pointed to steps such as appointing a special envoy for women and girls and expanding access to energy for millions of women.
Multilateral commitments to UNFPA, UN Women and UNAIDS are being maintained; humanitarian spend and spend in Sudan, Ukraine, and Gaza is protected, and the EIA argues the proportion of equality-focused spending in the bilateral budget is being maintained even as totals fall.
The decision on the 80% target will be an early sign of whether the UK plans to keep a leading role in promoting gender equality globally, or whether it will join the growing list of countries pulling back.
