Cody Butler: Get past the myths, and Development Aid that demonstrates its value is an investment

Cody Butler is the Chair of the One Nation Conservative Network, a grassroots organisation dedicated to advancing pragmatic and compassionate conservatism.

Official Development Aid must demonstrate its value, and with the upcoming reduction to 0.3 per cent of GNI, the level of funding should be sufficient.

It is widely accepted that states like Britain should improve conditions in less wealthy countries. But, as many will argue, you can’t give what you don’t have, and the Conservatives’ plan to cut foreign aid to just 0.1 per cent of the country’s income shows this.

The British people must always come first. It is a difficult argument to make to families struggling to put bread on the table or small businesses at risk under Starmer’s tax on working people, while millions of pounds are sent to projects in other countries.

What we need is smart fiscal conservatism.

The easy assumption is that cutting foreign aid reduces costs, but maintaining aid at 0.3 per cent of GNI actually minimises long-term fiscal exposure. By investing in aid, we reduce future spending on defence, asylum, humanitarian crises, and post-conflict reconstruction. Further cuts may offer only small short-term savings while creating much larger costs down the line, which I will address in more detail later. Beyond the fiscal argument, foreign aid also advances the UK’s strategic interests and it is a moral prerogative given that some estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of children’s lives could be at stake over time because of cuts to health and vaccination programmes;  for example, analysts from the ONE Campaign have warned that cuts to UK funding for global vaccination efforts such as Gavi could result in about 365,000 additional deaths and 23 million fewer children vaccinated over the next five years compared with maintaining previous aid levels.

Chatham House has similarly warned that cutting development assistance risks undermining international security, by weakening conflict prevention and stabilisation efforts in fragile states.

Aid is increasingly focused on countries hosting refugees from neighbouring conflict-affected states, because private development finance often avoids the most unstable environments. For example, Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided €3 million through AICS to meet urgent food needs for Sudanese refugees and Libyan host communities.

Cuts to aid in these frontline states can paradoxically worsen displacement pressures, deepen regional instability, and drive further migration rather than containing it.

While aid cannot eliminate migration driven purely by income, it can be used strategically. Italy has directed an estimated €32.6 million since 2017 to the Libyan Coast Guard for training, vessels, and equipment, under a government led by the right-wing Brothers of Italy party.

UK aid is not just charity; it can be smart long-term economic policy. The Overseas Development Institute found in 2017 that every £1 of UK bilateral aid generates around 22p in additional UK exports, supporting 12,000 British jobs across sectors from engineering to business services. A sizeable percentage of aid contracts also go to UK companies, effectively returning development spending to the domestic economy. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact in 2017 found that Britain was one of a small group of donors to award more than 90 per cent of contracts to its own country’s suppliers, compared to an OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) average of 39 per cent.

When the UK cut foreign aid to 0.5 per cent of GDP in 2020, Tobias Ellwood warned that Britain could no longer claim to be a truly global power, “when our hard power is not matched by soft power.”  At a time when many countries are succumbing to authoritarian populism, scaling back aid risks making this claim a reality. When democratic states retreat, others move in. Rather than promoting stability, withdrawal creates opportunities for Russia and China to expand their influence, weakening the UK’s global position.

For the Conservatives, this presents a clear opportunity to draw a dividing line with Reform UK. A serious governing party should be unapologetic about internationalism as a tool of national security, not retreat into isolation or protest politics. By defending strategic aid and overseas engagement, Conservatives can distinguish themselves from those who argue for withdrawal while also demonstrating to voters drifting towards Labour or the Liberal Democrats that we remain the party of competence, alliances, and global responsibility.

That distinction has real consequences. Reductions to UK aid have reportedly included cuts of around 40 per cent to some allocations of the Integrated Security Fund, which plays a direct role in countering malicious cyber-attacks by Russia and supporting democratic institutions in the Western Balkans.

And then there is the question of climate change and net zero. Critics are often quick to argue that “my country only emits 1 per cent of global emissions,” presenting this as a reason to disengage altogether. Yet if that argument is taken seriously, the logical response is not withdrawal but engagement: supporting climate initiatives in other countries where emissions growth is fastest and the impact of intervention is greatest.

UK International Climate Finance has demonstrated the potential value of this approach. It has helped reduce or avoid an estimated 145 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and prevented the loss of 717,000 hectares of ecosystem. Public support for such an approach also exists across the political spectrum. Polling published in December 2024 by the Conservative Environment Network found that 54 per cent of voters who could be persuaded to vote Conservative wanted increased government investment in tackling climate change, while separate CEN polling showed that 82 per cent of current Conservative voters support a cross-party consensus on the issue. Sensible, well-managed climate funding can therefore attract both liberal-minded voters and fiscally cautious conservatives.

That said, it is right to acknowledge that oversight, accountability, and reform are essential. Some past spending has raised legitimate concerns. For example, £69 million of taxpayer funds were reportedly spent on providing contraceptives in the central African region of the Congo to ease “demographic pressures on forests,” a use of aid many would regard as difficult to justify. Similarly, the Green Urban Growth programme in Somalia raises questions: why are we investing in a green project in a failed state whose capital is at risk of falling under the control of a terrorist group?

These failures, however, argue for reform rather than retreat. There is reason for optimism in how climate funding could be better aligned with UK interests. The Bright Blue report,  The Right Road: The Future of the European Centre-Right,  recommended linking climate finance to cooperation on immigration and border agreements, rewarding constructive partnerships. Climate funding need not be villainised; if properly targeted and disciplined, it can be strategically leveraged to advance both global stability and British interests.

There is a real opportunity now for a revival of Global Britain.

With the Trump administration having already cut $66.5 billion from the U.S. foreign aid budget, the United States is retreating from its traditional global role. Charities and countries alike are feeling the strain, searching for leadership and support. In this context, the UK, well-positioned as a Western leader with strong diplomatic ties and a reputation for pragmatic international engagement, could step into the void, offering aid, stability, and influence where it is most needed. We may not be able to match the U.S. budget, but we can at least hold fast. By doing so, Britain can reassert itself as a constructive global actor.

As Theresa May once put it: “We have the greatest soft power in the world, we don’t need, as I sometimes hear people say, to ‘punch above our weight.’ Because our weight is substantial enough already.” And to be clear, that wasn’t an endorsement to lose any more weight.