LONDON — Keir Starmer’s recent decision to support a significant new defense initiative by drastically reducing overseas aid has raised concerns about the implications for Britain’s international climate goals. The announcement, made by Prime Minister Starmer at the end of last month, is expected to result in a cut of over £6 billion annually from the aid budget starting in 2027.
In the week following the announcement, government officials have struggled to clarify the potential repercussions of this cut on international climate finance, which plays a crucial role in the U.K.’s green diplomacy. This financial support is aimed at assisting developing nations in establishing cleaner energy infrastructures and adapting to climate change effects. Energy Minister Philip Hunt admitted during a session in the House of Lords, “It’s too early to be able to respond,” pointing to the upcoming government spending review in June for more information.
Uncertainty in climate policy
Last year, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband pledged that the U.K. would step up to fill a leadership void in global climate policy. However, inquiries regarding whether Miliband or his department were consulted prior to the aid cuts announcement have gone unanswered by government officials. Miliband, who represents the U.K. at international climate forums, oversees significant foreign aid allocations, amounting to £440 million in 2023.
“This cut was made in Number 10,” said Nick Mabey, chief executive of the E3G climate think tank, highlighting that it was a high-level political decision.
Parliament’s cross-party International Development Committee has criticized the cuts, warning of detrimental effects on efforts to combat poverty, inequality, and climate change. Despite Hunt’s assurances that the U.K. would maintain its climate leadership and humanitarian commitments, former Development Minister Anneliese Dodds expressed in her resignation letter that, “It will be impossible to maintain these priorities, given the depth of the cut.” Members of Parliament are set to debate the implications of these cuts on Wednesday afternoon, led by Labour backbenchers Sarah Champion and Emily Thornberry.
Impact on global climate negotiations
The reduction in climate finance is expected to hinder the U.K.’s influence in climate negotiations globally, according to Dodds, who noted in her resignation that such cuts would weaken Britain’s negotiating position. Experts are concerned that the government will need to adjust its international climate strategy to align with the new spending priorities dictated by the Prime Minister.
Mabey commented, “Though defense spending needed to be increased, this was probably the most diplomatic- and influence-expensive way of doing it. It was a very damaging move.” The government has reaffirmed its commitment to delivering £11.6 billion in climate aid from 2021 to 2026. However, uncertainties loom regarding the status of this funding after the proposed cuts take effect in 2027.
Labour came into power with promises to restore Britain’s leading role in climate initiatives. In November, Miliband set new targets for carbon emission reductions required under the Paris Agreement and played a key role at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, which aimed to triple climate finance flows to developing countries over the next decade. Mabey expressed doubt, saying, “We can’t believe — given the scale of the cut — that the increase in climate finance we were hoping to see following Baku … will be taken forward.”
Former Tory minister Alok Sharma, who oversaw the COP26 climate conference, has repeatedly questioned the government about maintaining existing commitments, including the £11.6 billion target established by the previous Conservative administration.
“It is hard to see the cuts as anything but a retreat from the U.K.’s international responsibilities,” remarked Catherine Pettengell, executive director of Climate Action Network UK. She emphasized the unacceptability of balancing domestic budgets at the expense of the world’s most vulnerable populations.
These cuts follow significant reductions in U.S. aid under former President Trump and similar shifts in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Finland, where defense has become a priority. Mabey argues that the U.K. must undertake a comprehensive reform of its aid strategies, suggesting that sharing technical and financial expertise would yield greater value for money.
“All the developing countries we speak to would really value that,” he added. “They want to talk to the people who run our grid, not someone employed by our development finance [agency] who is a consultant.”