Last week, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) published its aid spending for nutrition report, showing that the UK Government decreased its funding for nutrition by a staggering 61.3% in 2021. The report further reveals that the number of FCDO-run nutrition programmes decreased for the third year in a row, with total nutrition spending slashed to its lowest proportion of the overall budget in over ten years.
We cannot afford to cut nutrition spending. Between 2019 and 2022, as many as 150 million more people became undernourished, with 345 million expected to face acute hunger in 2023. Nearly half of these people are children. Increased regional conflict, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the worsening effects of climate change are all driving these changes, creating a compounding crisis that puts millions at risk.
The UK has historically been a champion of global nutrition funding and programming, and helped found Nutrition for Growth (N4G), a process that brings together governments, philanthropic organisations, businesses, and NGOs to tackle malnutrition, and which led to a 33% uplift in global nutrition spending after its inaugural summit in 2013. However, the decision to cut the UK’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) budget in 2021 has hit nutrition programming disproportionately hard, as the over 60% reduction in spending in 2021 confirms.
The effects of these cuts go beyond their direct impact on malnutrition. Good nutrition is a cornerstone of development, and leads to improved child and maternal health, stronger immune systems, and lower risk of non-communicable diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Good nutrition also promotes cognitive development, improving children’s educational outcomes and economic prospects. In fact, better nutrition promotes healthier economies overall – currently, the world loses US $3 trillion every year to malnutrition-related productivity loss. Meanwhile, for every $1 invested in nutrition, the economy sees up to $35 in return.
Of course, the economic argument pales in comparison to the fact that we have a moral obligation to our fellow human beings. For example, in the Horn of Africa, millions of people face severe food insecurity, a result of conflict and years of drought brought on by the rapidly changing climate – a climate that is changing overwhelmingly not because of the actions of these most-affected countries, but by the ‘Global North,’ of which the UK is part. With the world facing this many challenges to nutrition, now is not the time to pull back, especially on interventions which have the power to improve lives in so many ways.
Minister for International Development Andrew Mitchell has shown an understanding of both the practical and moral arguments for nutrition spending, and international development more broadly. He voted against cuts to ODA, and since his appointment to his current post has come out as a strong voice for nutrition. Mitchell has spoken out on the urgent need for more action, and recently announced plans to host an event in London later this year on how to bring stakeholders together to tackle malnutrition. However, it is difficult to see how meaningful action can be taken to end the malnutrition crisis if current rates of spending continue.
To address this, the UK must frontload its most recent Nutrition for Growth financial commitment, ensuring that current levels of need are met. It must also look beyond emergency measures that tackle the symptoms of the crisis rather than the causes, such as investing in sustainably transforming food systems, and working with countries to implement climate-resilient, community-focused programming.
The current state of nutrition is dire, and continuing to reduce the UK’s spending and involvement will only contribute to a worsening crisis. However, by showing genuine leadership, engaging in partnership and solidarity with affected countries, and meeting its financial commitments, the UK has the ability to contribute to long-lasting solutions for a well-nourished world.