Future of UK Aid and Development Assistance

Submission by Muslim Charities Forum (November 2025)

About Muslim Charities Forum

Founded in 2007, the Muslim Charities Forum (MCF) was established in response to the growing number of Muslim-led charities working for social good in the UK and abroad. MCF serves as a collective network for the Muslim voluntary and community sector (VCS), supporting over 350 organisations. Through our network, we aim to collectively build a more accountable, transparent and efficient British Muslim VCS, to contribute towards a more just and sustainable world.

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

A key area to which UK aid should be strategically directed is toward populations facing overlapping crises of displacement, conflict, and poverty, including refugees, internally displaced people, and victims of violence. As of April 2025, 122 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced, with Sudan, Syria, and Afghanistan – three Muslim-majority states – among the top countries of origin, highlighting the disproportionate impact of protracted conflict and instability in the Global South.[1]

In the immediate term, UK aid should target acute emergencies in Gaza, Sudan, and Yemen, while continuing support for countries such as Pakistan, Syria, and Ethiopia, which rely on foreign assistance to address poverty, malnutrition, and gaps in education and healthcare. Long-term development challenges, including political instability and vulnerability to climate change, underscore the consequences of cutting foreign aid to these states.

How can the UK’s approach to development be sufficiently flexible to respond to what its development partners need the most?

Localisation is central to ensuring flexibility, because organisations embedded in affected communities are best placed to identify shifting needs and adapt programmes rapidly. To operationalise localisation effectively, the UK should look to providing multi-year funding to local partners to help create meaningful, long-term solutions. This includes assisting with organisation’s core activities (finance, safeguarding, due diligence systems), which will not only create strong foundations, but also help overcome critical financial access issues which plagues organisations working in high-risk areas. A flexible development approach must recognise that many local partners face severe financial access constraints, including the closure of bank accounts, delays in transfers, and heightened compliance burdens linked to global derisking trends.

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

FCDO cuts reflect a broader global pattern in shrinking ODA, even as the pace and scale of global crises and humanitarian needs are increasing. Oxfam International has described these cuts as a “death sentence” for the most vulnerable, highlighting the severity and urgency of needs[2]. This makes it critical for the UK to re-evaluate its approach, including a clear, timebound path to restoring aid to 0.7% of GNI, while deepening partnerships with civil society, not only to support the delivery of aid but also to engage in policy design and strategic decision-making.

What should the future of Government engagement with UK based International NGOs be going forward?

The UK should adopt a strategic, long-term partnership model with UK-based INGOs, treating them as partners in shaping policy, programme design, and aid effectiveness rather than merely implementers. Muslim-led charities bring vital expertise through local connections, enabling efficient, culturally informed responses to humanitarian crises and long-term development needs.

To strengthen collaboration, the government should establish regular, structured engagement with NGOs and networks such as Bond and MCF, leveraging sector-wide insights to inform decision-making. Such partnerships would enhance transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness in aid strategy, ensuring policies are locally grounded, evidence-based, and responsive to the priorities of affected communities.

Where can complementarity be found between the UK’s aid philosophy and obligations, and its wider foreign policy objectives of economic growth and national security?

The UK can find complementarity between its aid obligations and foreign policy by prioritising a needs-based, principled approach to development and humanitarian assistance, rather than politicising aid through short-term strategic considerations. Cuts that appear driven by domestic or political pressures risk undermining both impact and credibility, while principled aid enhances soft power, allowing the UK to influence global development outcomes, strengthen partnerships, and maintain leadership in international forums. This approach aligns closely with MCF’s remit, emphasising effective, ethical delivery and policy engagement, and demonstrates how UK aid can serve broader national interests indirectly, through reputation and sustained, high-impact partnerships.

What needs to change to realise the goal of moving from paternalistic models and relationships to partnerships?

The UK’s development model has historically been shaped by top-down, donor-driven approaches. To move toward genuine partnerships, several interlinked reforms are required. Central to this transition is localisation, empowering local actors to lead the design, implementation, and decision-making of development programmes.

How should UK ODA best be deployed to empower local delivery of aid and decision making around development?

• Direct funding to local actors: Shifting a larger proportion of ODA directly to local organisations reduces dependency on intermediaries and strengthens accountability to affected communities.
• Flexible, multi-year support: Local organisations need predictable funding to plan, adapt, and build internal capacity, including for governance, finance, and compliance.
• Co-design of programmes: Decisions around objectives, modalities, and monitoring should be made collaboratively with local actors to ensure context-appropriate solutions.
• Capacity-strengthening: Investment in financial management, safeguarding, and operational systems ensures local partners can manage funds effectively and meet donor standards.

What are the opportunities and challenges with making this a reality?

Opportunities:

• More sustainable, locally owned development outcomes
• Enhanced resilience and agility in response to crises
• Strengthened legitimacy and trust among communities

Challenges:

• Compliance and due diligence: Local organisations often face barriers in meeting complex donor requirements, particularly in fragile contexts.
• Financial access and derisking: Banking restrictions and risk-averse financial systems limit timely funding for local partners.
• Capacity gaps: Smaller organisations may lack systems or experience in large-scale programme management.
• Risk appetite: Donors may perceive higher risk in devolving decision-making, requiring careful balance between oversight and autonomy.

How can the UK contribute to the coordinating of relief and development efforts?

The UK can strengthen coordination by centring local knowledge, lived experience, and cultural expertise in planning and delivery. Effective coordination requires including those who best understand affected communities, not just convening actors.

• Engaging organisations with lived experience: Diaspora-led and community-based groups provide critical insights into local needs and culturally sensitive approaches.
• Leveraging shared language and cultural knowledge: Local actors improve communication, participation, and programme uptake.
• Supporting inclusive coordination platforms: Fund networks that include smaller, local, and diaspora organisations alongside larger INGOs and UN agencies.
• Aligning humanitarian and development objectives: Ensure continuity between short-term relief and long-term development, empowering local participation.
• Capacity building for local actors: Provide support for compliance, financial management, and risk mitigation to enable full engagement.

Embedding these principles ensures coordination is inclusive, locally grounded, culturally responsive, and maximises impact while reinforcing localisation and partnership.

How should the Government be communicating the results of UK aid, and its importance, to the public? What is needed to facilitate this?

Effective communication of UK aid is crucial for public trust, accountability, and support for ODA. The Civil Society Covenant emphasises transparency, open information sharing, and best practice to strengthen trust[3].

The UK can enhance public understanding by linking aid to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), using clear metrics, case studies, and evidence-based reporting to demonstrate progress in areas such as health, education, and humanitarian response. Robust monitoring, evaluation, and capacity-building for civil society partners are key to documenting and communicating impact.

Public communications should also highlight localisation and partnership, showcasing co-designed programmes with local and diaspora-led organisations. Sharing success stories through multiple channels reinforces accountability, demonstrates collaborative delivery, and shows that UK aid empowers communities rather than imposing top-down solutions.

How can the UK Government align its development work with taxpayers expectation, and ensure value for money? How can equity and accountability be better embedded into the way the UK Government delivers its aid budget?

Public trust is central to aligning UK ODA with taxpayer expectations and ensuring value for money. Many perceive aid as a zero-sum trade-off, reducing domestic funding for priorities like healthcare or defence[4]To address this, the UK must demonstrate tangible impact, linking spending to the SDGs, showing benefits for both global communities and UK strategic interests. Case studies from local and diaspora-led organisations can illustrate efficient, community-driven results and build public confidence.

Equity and accountability should be ensured through inclusive partnerships and localisation, empowering local actors and reaching marginalised communities. Proportional compliance, support for core functions, and transparent reporting allow smaller organisations to participate effectively. By combining impact-focused communication with locally-led programming, the UK can strengthen trust, counter zero-sum perceptions, and ensure ODA delivers both value for money and principled outcomes.