Future of UK aid and development assistance 

Written evidence – The HALO Trust 

Friday 14th November 2025 

__________________________________________________________________

 

Summary of Key Recommendations 

 

 

 

How should the Government be prioritising UK Official Development Assistance in the coming years? 

The Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget is having to meet pressing global challenges that are threatening livelihoods around the world. We are currently experiencing the highest levels of conflict since WWII with 56 in active conflict1, and violence is now costing the global economy nearly $20 trillion a year.2 That is equivalent to 11.6 percent of global GDP and is greater than China’s GPD in 2024. At the same time, eleven OECD DAC members have cut their ODA budget for the period 2025-27. According to the OECD, these countries account for nearly three quarters of global ODA, and 2024 marked the first time since 1995 that the four largest providers – France, Germany, United Kingdom and United States – all decreased their ODA budgets.3 

 

  1.                Prioritising value for money programmes. The UK Government’s flagship demining programme the Global Mine Action Programme (GMAP) is instrumental in saving lives, improving livelihoods, and driving up international standards in mine clearance globally. It enables other activities, including infrastructure projects, and other key economic drivers in partner countries. Since 2014, it has helped to clear 200,000 football pitches worth of land and return them back to communities. Since 2023, under the most recent GMAP, 25.4 million square metres of land has been cleared, and over 27,000 devices have been safely disposed. This work spans across twelve countries where the UK is making an enormous difference to people’s lives and livelihoods. While continuing to build UK soft power and strong relations between UK Embassies and counterparts in-country.  These secondary benefits to ODA-funded programmes are further evidence of the value for money that can be achieved.  

 

  1.                Long-term, predictable, and flexible funding. This is essential in programme planning, design, and implementation. In Humanitarian Mine Action, long-term, predictable and flexible funding ensures that staff can be employed, upskilled, and provided with professional development opportunities. Shorter-term contracts that are less predictable makes it more difficult to retain staff, operational planning is impacted, and reduces the overall impact being achieved on the ground.  

 

  1.                Investing in human security. The UK should adopt a human security centred approach. The Government should ensure it focuses its resources into areas where there is risk to the lives and security of communities. This will require effective coordination, alongside thorough analysis of conflict and post-conflict dynamics. This is particularly important in post-conflict settings where risks continue to exist for affected communities, even during periods of ceasefire. E.g. in Yemen, the 2022 ceasefire led to a decrease in overall casualties in the country, but the number of explosive ordnance casualties in that same time period increased by 50%. Indicating that during ceasefire, most likely due to movement of people, that threats to life continue. Such insights should inform programming in contexts like Gaza and other fragile settings to ensure assistance is effectively targeted. 

 

  1.                Focusing on UK Comparative Advantage. The United Kingdom is a global leader in Humanitarian Mine Action. In 2023, two British organisations, The HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group (MAG) were jointly responsible for 69 percent of global anti-personnel landmine clearance. At the diplomatic level, the UK was a founding signatory to the Ottawa Treaty in 1997, with Robin Cook stating that “When the Government came to power, one of our first acts was to ban landmines unilaterally”. Today, the United Kingdom remains an influential actor in shaping norms, driving up standards and practices in global humanitarian mine action, as both chair of the Mine Action Support Group (MASG) and one of the leading donors each year to landmine clearance.  

 

  1.                Recognising secondary economic benefits that ODA can bring.  ODA spending generates significant secondary economic benefits for both partner countries and the UK economy. Humanitarian Mine Action organisations, like HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group (MAG) create jobs and stimulate procurement through global supply chains. HALO, for instance, prioritises in-country procurement - vehicles, protective equipment, tents, and services - wherever possible. When this is not feasible, HALO spends approximately £8.5 million annually in the UK, issuing over 2,500 purchase orders that support British manufacturing and services.  

 

How does the UK’s delivery approach for a) development and b) humanitarian assistance need to adapt to the changing funding and values landscape? 

  1.                Adopting a dual approach to humanitarian assistance and development. This approach must ensure that shorter-term humanitarian assistance can be provided where it is required. But in other fragile and conflict-affected countries, where current humanitarian need is less acute, there remains a longer-term approach that is centred around building human security, preventing recurrence of conflict, and enabling partner countries to get on a sustainable and resilient path towards development. These are often lower cost interventions that avoid future conflicts or crises leading to cycles of humanitarian response.  

 

  1.                Leveraging ODA for UK soft power. A withdrawal in the UK’s presence in particular countries risks diminishing British influence, soft power, and ability to be trusted partners with our international partners. In Zimbabwe, we are seeing significant reductions in donor support, that is despite Zimbabwe targeting 2030 as the year they will become mine-impact free. This will be a diplomatic and soft power success story for the UK, if they can help to remove the remaining 70,000 landmines that many decades later are still restricting access, limiting trade into Mozambique, and restricting the use of pastoral land for agricultural purposes. 

 

  1.                Integrating programming across sectors. Integration in the context of Humanitarian Mine Action includes several opportunities that will improve delivery, outcomes, and value for money. These include in humanitarian contexts where an explosive ordnance (EO) threat exists, ensuring that explosive ordnance disposal capacity is built into the programme design. This supports the delivery of all activities where EO could slow down progress from delivery of aid, to creating new access routes, or building emergency health facilities – that EO capacity is embedded and can be rapidly stood up to respond and remove threat. This would improve the safety, efficiency and value for money of humanitarian responses. Standalone thematic funding to EO is also crucial, but integrating and embedding EO capacity into all other activities will ensure delays are avoided, conflict responses are most efficient, and a joined up approach can be achieved. 

 

  1.            Embracing integration in conflict and nutrition responses. By embracing a more integrated model, the UK can deliver transformative impact for vulnerable communities while advancing its foreign policy, development, and humanitarian goals. This approach is especially critical in tackling the intertwined challenges of conflict and malnutrition. In conflict-affected areas, improved nutrition acts as a stabilising force, an economic catalyst, and a cornerstone of sustainable peacebuilding. The Government should scale up support for nutrition services in conflict and post-conflict settings, prioritising high-impact interventions such as Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF). UK-funded nutrition strategies should also embed Humanitarian Mine Action, enabling joint programming where integrated referral systems link explosive ordnance risk education with malnutrition services—ensuring coherence across humanitarian and development responses. 

 

  1.            The Government should ensure the Integrated Security Fund (ISF) is empowered to fund activities that deliver upstream security outcomes, including conflict prevention and response. It has been a tenant of consecutive National Security Strategies that conflicts overseas threatens UK security. However the Integrated Security Fund, formerly the CSSF, has shifted closer to domestic security priorities and reduced its focus on tackling conflict and upstream threats. HALO has seen a significant reduction in the level of funding we receive through the ISF since it was reorganised from the CSSF. The shift in policy prioritisation has made it more challenging for posts to fund activities that deliver upstream security in areas that don’t exhibit a strong direct link to UK security. The Government should widen its approach to national security to encompass activities that are aimed at prevention, mediating, and responding to conflict or security concerns upstream. This will ensure that we are not only addressing the symptoms of conflict, but its root causes. 

 

4