The UK is under fire for its diminished role at a landmark global summit on development finance, as critics label its stance “hypocritical” in light of sweeping aid cuts and minimal official presence.
The controversy erupted during the fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4), currently underway in Seville, Southern Spain. The event, held once every ten years, gathers global leaders to address long-standing financial obstacles facing developing nations.
While prominent figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian central banker Mark Carney, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attended, the UK was represented only by Baroness Chapman, Minister for International Development.
Many development advocates saw this as a stark contrast to the UK’s self-professed leadership role in supporting lower-income nations. “A level of ambition from the UK government would have been demonstrated clearly by sending higher level participation such as the prime minister or Foreign Secretary,” stated Lydia Darby, senior policy advisor at Save the Children.
Baroness Chapman, in her remarks, called for a “new era for global aid and development,” highlighting plans to support developing countries in building tax systems and attract more private-sector investment.
However, that call has been met with skepticism, particularly because the UK had previously reduced its foreign aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI)—a cut that could shrink foreign assistance by £6.2 billion by 2025.
“If the UK truly cares about fair finance, it must honour its overseas aid commitments, tackle unfair debts, and pay its fair share in addressing the climate crisis,” said Hannah Bond, Co-CEO of ActionAid UK. “Without this, talk of fair finance is nothing more than empty PR.”
Criticism of the UK’s approach extended to its reliance on the private sector to fill funding gaps left by aid cuts. Alex Farley of Bond, a civil society coalition, stated it was “impossible” to see how Britain could meet its development goals, respond to humanitarian emergencies, and address climate change under the current budget.
Michael Jacobs of the ODI think tank echoed those sentiments, dismissing the idea that private sector investment could replace public aid as “silly at best, disingenuous at worst.” He added, “The private sector wants returns, while much aid—for health, schools, sanitation, climate adaptation—doesn’t make a profit, so is not investable.”
UK Stance Falls Short, Say Observers
Baroness Chapman’s pitch for tax reforms and private investment did little to quell frustration among development advocates. Catherine Pettengell, head of Climate Action Network UK, remarked that Britain had “failed to sufficiently support developing countries’ calls for fairer debt, tax, international cooperation, and climate finance.”
“It’s a crushing blow that only compounds the recent UK aid cuts,” she noted.
Despite the discord, the conference produced a final agreement known as the Compromiso de Sevilla. This document includes pledges to improve international tax cooperation and initiate a new intergovernmental process on sovereign debt—key wins for some negotiators.
Ms. Darby acknowledged that the agreement contained “notably positive language” but admitted it fell short of “the transformative ambition that civil society and vulnerable communities worldwide had called for.”
Although the UK and EU were accused of diluting reform priorities for low- and middle-income nations, they were not the only ones under scrutiny. The United States fully withdrew from the talks after refusing to accept the inclusion of “sustainable development” in the final text.
As such, the UK’s diminished influence and ambiguous messaging at FfD4 have left civil society leaders unconvinced of its commitment to fair development finance, raising questions about its global credibility moving forward.
