Rich countries had already made the largest cut to ODA this century in 2024, but 2025 brought a seismic shift with the largest cut in the history of ODA and even further cuts of 5.8 per cent are expected by the OECD in 2026. 

ODA has been deprioritised but also repurposed. Donors have turned against international development cooperation, using its resources for other geo-strategic and commercial considerations and putting the global aid architecture into question. The fallout from these disastrous measures has begun to show and current estimates of lives lost due to the discontinuation of vital programs are still not painting a full picture of the harm done. 

While DAC members committed more than half a century ago to spending 0.7 per cent of their Gross National Income (GNI) on aid, they continue to fall short of this. DAC members instead only spent 0.26 per cent of their GNI, the lowest in two decades and down from 0.34 per cent in 2024. Only four countries reached the target, namely Denmark (0.72 per cent), Luxembourg (0.99 per cent), Norway (1.03 per cent), and Sweden (0.85 per cent). 

Rich countries need to understand that slashing ODA and that delivering poor quality aid is no budget saving measure. Nor will it help increase the efficiency of an already constrained aid system. Instead it puts global preparedness, human security and the credibility of rich countries as partners on the global stage at risk. Development Cooperation must be aligned with the development effectiveness principles. In particular, it needs to be inclusive and locally-led, to serve local development priorities.

ODA has delivered decades of progress in human development and has become a measure of global responsibility taken on by donors. But unfortunately, they are now revealing their latest decisions on ODA spending as conditional and unpredictable. Rich countries must realign ODA with its intended purpose of reducing poverty and inequalities.

Recognising existing commitments means dedicating 0.2 per cent of GNI to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) instead of the USD 23.5 billion or about 0.035 per cent of GNI in 2025. Aid to sub-Saharan Africa continued to fall to 24.5 billion, down by 26.3 per cent from the previous year. 

Concessional finance and grants are crucial when it comes to reaching those furthest left behind in the poorest, fragile and conflict-affected countries. Aid quality remains a key factor in addressing continued ODA inflation. For years, donors have been labelling funds dedicated to domestic purposes as ODA, such as hosting refugees in donor countries. In-donor refugee costs amounted to US$ 23 billion in 2025, down from the previous year.  

Faced with the war on Ukraine, donors have been continuing to support reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, accounting for nearly 26 per cent of total ODA in 2025 or US$ 44.9 billion, of which US$ 34.6 billion were provided by EU institutions. With violent conflicts raging around the world, rich countries’ attention and dedication is needed to help the most at-risk conflict zones across the globe. 

DAC providers have held on to the notion of providing assistance as a means of goodwill and have continued to control all political decision-making on the governance of ODA. The outcome of the fourth UN Financing for Development conference in Sevilla last year has, for the first time, opened up this discussion in the donor space. The OECD DAC civil society reference group has been engaging in the resulting OECD DAC review process and will continue to do so. At this critical juncture for the global aid architecture, donors have the unique opportunity to shape a new approach. But this means that they must reverse the cuts urgently. Abandoning or deprioritising aid is not an option.

Global Responsibility signed this statement by the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad)

Link