Impact assessment

FCDO multi-year Official Development Assistance programme allocations 2026–2027 to 2028–2029: equality impact assessment

Published 19 March 2026

Purpose, scope and usage

FCDO policy and legal commitments require a proportionate assessment of equalities impacts at every point of decision making. This includes applying the Public Sector Equality Duty to decision making, considering impacts on people with protected and relevant characteristics^{[footnote 1]} and consideration of the desirability of providing development assistance in ways that reduce gender inequality in accordance with the International Development Act 2002. The primary purpose of all FCDO’s ODA development assistance is to contribute to reducing poverty.

FCDO’s ODA allocations are informed by and contribute to a major reset in the UK’s approach to development. To set ODA allocations, the FCDO has prioritised investing in the most effective multilateral organisations and prioritised bilateral geographic ODA where humanitarian needs are most acute. The UK will move towards modern development partnerships, underpinned by 4 essential shifts, from donor to investor; service delivery to system support; grants to expertise, and international intervention to local solutions. FCDO’s bilateral Centrally Managed Programmes (CMPs) will be rationalised, to deliver through ‘Communities of Expertise’, innovation through our Research & Development (R&D) portfolio, and investment vehicles. A full explanation of the FCDO’s ODA allocations is set out in the Written Ministerial Statement.  

This assessment details the expected equalities impact of allocations of the FCDO’s ODA programme budget for the 2026/27, 2027/28, and 2028/29 financial years. Allocations have been made at a geographic and thematic level. Specific decisions have been taken on some multilateral programmes, but in most cases, decisions on individual programmes are yet to be finalised. Programme allocations will be confirmed via updates to the Development Tracker in due course. Accordingly, this assessment is largely based on risks and potential impacts of indicative programme plans at a specific point in time. It also sets out how equalities impacts will be monitored going forward. It does not attempt to assess the likely equalities impact of FCDO development efforts beyond ODA spending or compare the impacts between multilateral and bilateral channels of spend.

The reduction of ODA to 0.3% of GNI will inevitably have negative impacts for many programme beneficiaries. The aim of this assessment is to set out expected impacts where possible, and to assess whether overall allocation decisions disproportionately affect people according to protected and relevant characteristics. This is a limited assessment given the availability of data and stage of decision making; details of individual programmes are being fully worked through as part of standard operating procedures.

Ministers received advice on equalities impacts throughout the ODA allocations decision-making process, and which they used to inform their decisions. Three principal mitigations against potential disproportionate equalities impacts were agreed:

1. An additional £82 million^{[footnote 2]} per annum was allocated on top of initial allocations principally to FCDO’s Human Development Directorate, which runs FCDO’s policy and central programmes on gender and equalities, health and education. While the exact details of how this additional allocation will be spent are yet to be finalised, this funding will enable FCDO to:

• fully protect^{[footnote 3]} central spending on preventing Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI) and Women Peace and Security (WPS) at 2025/26 levels and funding for Education Cannot Wait (matching our current pledge)
• relatively protect^{[footnote 3]} the Women’s Integrated Sexual Health – Dividend (WISH-D) centrally managed programme in Africa
• invest in a new education Community of Expertise (CoE) and programmes to support partners to strengthen national education systems to improve learning outcomes, including through technology and AI where effective, and keep children learning in emergencies
• avoid disproportionate reductions to combined funding across groups led by and for marginalised populations: LGBT+, Women’s Rights Organisations and Organisations of People with Disabilities

2. Ministers considered the share of country programme allocations going to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Least Developed Countries (LDC)^{[footnote 4]} and Fragile and Conflict- Affected States (FCAS)^{[footnote 5]}. Ministers decided to allocate a greater share of geographical funding to FCAS, where people living in extreme poverty will increasingly be concentrated.

3. The Foreign Secretary is clear that women and girls are at the heart of our foreign policy priorities. This work will be supported by an ambitious gender mainstreaming approach to accelerate progress on women’s and girls’ rights using all foreign and development policy levers. The new gender mainstreaming approach includes an increase to the gender equality ODA target so that by 2030 at least 90% of FCDO bilateral ODA programmes have a focus on gender equality. This in an increase on the earlier target of 80%. FCDO will launch a new Community of Expertise on women and equalities to support the network and partners including through innovative finance, support to women’s rights organisations, and new programmes to protect women and girls from violence. Spending teams will be instructed to embed gender equality objectives and targeted interventions into existing programmes, particularly programmes under the themes of humanitarian, climate, health, education in crisis, and growth and jobs, and to strengthen the delivery of multilateral institutions on their commitments to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The assessment that follows relates to the final allocations, accounting for Ministerial decisions to mitigate the impact on equalities. Some details relating to sensitive programme decisions yet to be announced publicly have been redacted from this published version. This does not affect the main conclusions.

Methodology

Three main factors were assessed across multilateral and bilateral delivery channels where data allowed^{[footnote 6]}. These were identified by internal analysts as the best available proxies with which to make a proportionate assessment and best estimate of the impact on people with protected and relevant characteristics.  We have used terms such as “may,” “likely,” and “expected” to indicate our level of confidence in the impacts identified, in increasing order of probability. The wording used reflects informed judgement rather than strict thresholds such as those used by the probability yardstick.

1. Estimated spend on equalities-targeted programmes. We assessed the implications of ODA allocations for programmes marked as having gender equality or disability inclusion as a “principal” aim, based on OECD criteria. We refer to these programmes as ‘equalities-targeted’^{[footnote 7]}. Programmes marking gender equality or disability inclusion as ‘significant’ (referred to as ‘equalities-mainstreamed) were not systematically assessed^{[footnote 8]}. Core contributions to multilaterals are exempt from OECD criteria on equalities markers, and so the multilateral analysis draws on qualitative analysis.

2. Estimated spend on social sectors. We define these as health, education (primary and secondary) and social protection. These sectors were chosen on the basis that they typically aim to provide direct benefits for people according to protected and relevant characteristics. Health spend includes maternal, child and sexual and reproductive health; education aims to benefit children including girls and children with disabilities; and social protection spend aims to benefit the poorest and most vulnerable^{[footnote 9]}.

3. Allocations to SSA, LDCs, and FCAS. The multilateral analysis considers how multilaterals target their spend and work in SSA, LDCs and FCAS. The bilateral analysis considers FCDO’s country and regional ODA allocations. Each dimension is considered as a proxy for how ‘pro-poor’ the allocations are^{[footnote 10]}.

This methodology has limitations. FCDO programme markers only cover 2 of the protected characteristics. The focus on social sectors is based on a judgement about the relative ‘equalities’ focus of these sectors compared to others like economic development. Shares of allocations to SSA, LDCs and FCAS are inevitably imperfect measures of how well allocations are targeted to people living in poverty.

Because this is an assessment of financial budget allocations, judgements are made based on estimated volumes of spend rather than aggregated estimates of impact, though examples of potential impact are identified where possible. We consider both absolute reductions in spend, and percentage reductions against the 2025/26 baseline, assessing whether these are proportionate against wider ODA reductions across multilateral and bilateral channels.

This assessment uses available data from FCDO systems, and qualitative analysis undertaken internally. These data and judgements have not been independently quality assured and are not official statistics. Going forward, work is underway to enhance data and systems to assess equalities impacts.

It is not possible for this EIA to assess external factors that may mitigate or compound equalities impacts. This includes conditionality placed on funding by other donors, which may impact the potential benefits of our multilateral investments for those with protected characteristics. Aid reductions by other donors, alongside debt crises and low domestic revenues in ODA recipient countries, may limit the ability to fill these gaps left by the reduction of UK bilateral ODA.

Key conclusions

Multilateral spend has been prioritised. UK multilateral spend will deliver positive impact, though in total the impact will fall due to absolute reductions in spend. Overall, reductions are not expected to impact disproportionately according to protected or relevant characteristics.

Bilateral ODA has been cut more heavily than multilateral ODA and reductions will have negative impact. Ministerial decisions have prevented disproportionate reductions to centrally managed spend that is equalities-targeted and in the social sector. The risk of disproportionate reductions to equalities-targeted and social sector spend in country and regional programme portfolios is subject to future final decisions on individual programmes. The proportion of FCDO country and regional bilateral spend that is allocated to SSA will decrease by 8 percentage points. The proportion of spending in Fragile and Conflict Affected States (FCAS) will increase by around 13 percentage points to over 70% of all country and regional spending by 2028/29 and the proportion of spending in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) will remain at broadly the same proportion as in 2025/26 (47% down from 48%).

Impact assessment

Multilateral

Multilateral spend has been prioritised. Ongoing spend will deliver benefits at scale for all beneficiaries, including those with protected and relevant characteristics, though these will reduce due to absolute reductions in spend. On average, FCDO multilateral ODA spend is being reduced by approximately 22%^{[footnote 11]}, compared with a 31% reduction to total FCDO ODA Programme spend. This reflects strategic decisions to prioritise investments in effective multilateral organisations with a focus on sectors relating to health (including SRHR), humanitarian need, climate change and economic growth.

• contributions to Multilateral and Regional Development Banks (MDBs and RDBs) have been fully protected in nominal terms. The UK’s impact is enhanced by leveraging much larger volumes of finance; for example, every £1 contribution to the World Bank International Development Association (IDA) translates into £4 in lending to recipient countries. UK contributions to the African Development Fund (AfDF) 17th replenishment will help support 10,000 women‑owned firms to access finance
• multilateral investments in Global Health will reduce by approximately the same proportion (23%) as the wider multilateral portfolio (22%). The prioritisation of these investments will deliver clear positive impacts, including across protected and relevant characteristics. For instance, UK support to Gavi will help immunise up to 100 million children between 2026 and 2030, while ongoing UK support to United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) will continue to meet the family planning needs of up to 11 million women, with the potential to avert up to 4.3 million unintended pregnancies and prevent up to 10,000 maternal deaths per year
• core multilateral contributions to humanitarian multilateral agencies will reduce by approximately the same proportion (25%) as the wider multilateral portfolio (22%). Contributions will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to those most in need, including vulnerable groups
• funding to other UN development agencies will reduce by approximately the same proportion (19%) as the wider multilateral portfolio (22%). This includes funding to UNICEF (development, not humanitarian), UN Women, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Ongoing contributions are expected to support delivery of inclusive programming on poverty eradication and governance, child protection, social protection, education, health, and gender equality including though policy reform and economic initiatives
• the UK will continue to meet its legal obligations to the EU under the Withdrawal Agreement, which includes participation until closure of the 11th European Development Fund (EDF). The EDF will continue to deliver results with positive impacts on equalities. For example, it will continue education investments in Somalia, which have already‑ reached around 133,000 learners (44% girls), strengthened classroom teaching and learning, and delivered new and rehabilitated facilities that make schooling more accessible and inclusive
• full details on FCDO’s multilateral investments in climate and education will be set out in due course

Reductions in funding to some multilateral organisations will have negative impacts on beneficiaries. These are not expected to impact disproportionately according to protected or relevant characteristics. Against the 3 factors identified in our methodology, we make the following assessments:

1. Equalities-targeted Programmes: Core contributions to multilateral organisations are exempt from OECD criteria on equalities markers. A qualitative assessment of the planned multilateral allocations indicates that decisions have not generated negative impacts which are disproportionate according to protected and relevant characteristics. MDBs and RDBs are judged to have strong gender mainstreaming approaches; all funds except IDA and EDF have gender mainstreaming targets of between 85% to 92% of programmes and run several relevant targeted programmes. 93% of IDA19 projects identified and took action to address a gender gap^{[footnote 12]} and IDA21 aims to embed gender considerations across all projects and policy, with a focus on addressing gender-based violence, access to sexual and reproductive health services and rights, and women’s economic participation. Funding to agencies that target women and girls UNICEF, UN Women, UNFPA) will be reduced at the same levels as multilateral spend. We will provide transitional funding to UNAIDS in 2027, as an agency that targets people with a disability, as it reconfigures into a smaller agency. This will be through the UK’s investment in the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria (the Global Fund), and the Global Fund Accelerator Programme. Approximately 50% of the UK’s contributions to the Global Fund will target HIV/AIDS.

2. Social Sectors: Health multilateral spend will reduce by approximately the same proportion as the wider multilateral portfolio. A decision not to provide further funding to Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) and the Pandemic Fund will inevitably have some negative effects, including heightened risks of disease outbreaks that, as COVID-19 showed, are likely to affect the most vulnerable disproportionately. This prioritisation has enabled the relative protection of funding to education and health agencies that target women and girls (UNICEF and UNFPA). Children will continue to be immunised against polio through UK ODA – for example through our support to Gavi which will help immunise up to 500 million children, including against polio, between 2026 and 2030. Social protection is a very small proportion of the UK’s multilateral ODA budget,^{[footnote 13]} so an assessment is not made. Full details on education multilaterals will be set out in due course.

3. SSA, LDCs and FCAS: UK multilateral ODA is assessed to be relatively ‘pro-poor’ in its geographical distribution. In 2023, over 50% of the UK’s ‘Imputed Multilateral Share’ (IMS) was reported in African countries, while 48% (of country-specific) spend was reported in Low Income Countries^{[footnote 14]}. Decisions to fully protect commitments to IDA (IDA-eligible countries account for 7 in 10 of those living in extreme poverty and over two-thirds of lending goes to Africa^{[footnote 15]}) and the AfDF are likely to increase how ‘pro-poor’ the UK’s multilateral spend is in future years, as measured by the IMS.

Bilateral

Bilateral ODA has been cut more heavily than multilateral ODA. FCDO bilateral ODA will reduce by an estimated 37%^{[footnote 16]}. Within this, Financial Transactions^{[footnote 17]} (FT) CDEL expenditure – the majority of which is bilateral – will reduce by 57%, in line with the ringfence set by HMT at the 2025 Spending Review. Research and Development (R&D) will be reduced by 44%^{[footnote 18]}. ODA spent through country and regional programmes will be reduced by approximately 36%. Centrally managed programmes will be reduced by approximately 42%^{[footnote 19]}. These changes reflect strategic prioritisation as well as operational decisions.

Ministerial decisions have prevented disproportionate reductions to centrally managed spend that is equalities-targeted and in the social sector. Risks of disproportionate reductions to equalities-targeted and social sector spend in country and regional programme portfolios are subject to future final decisions on individual programmes. Against the 3 factors identified, we make the following assessments:

1. Equalities-targeted Programmes: The ministerial decision described above to allocate additional funding on top of initial allocations to (principally) the FCDO’s Human Development Directorate is expected to prevent combined equalities-targeted CMPs from being disproportionately reduced. These programmes include CMPs which: tackle VAWG; prevent sexual violence in conflict^{[footnote 20]}; support SRHR; promote Women Peace and Security; strengthen inclusive education systems and keep children, especially girls, learning in emergencies; and that fund groups led by and for marginalised populations such as LGBT+. Safeguarding spend will disproportionately reduce, with women and children particularly affected. We will continue to require that all organisations we fund meet international safeguarding standards. Ongoing programming will continue to support FCDO partners to adopt and implement SEAH policies aligned with the 2024 Common Approach to Protection from SEAH (CAPSEAH) and provide support to wider international agencies. Most individual programme decisions are yet to be taken.

A new Women and Equalities Community of Expertise (CoE) will be launched to provide technical expertise and research across areas such as identifying what works to end violence against women and girls; supporting inclusive government systems that meet the needs of women and girls; and supporting partners to leverage more sustainable financing to deliver gender and equalities work.

Across country and regional programmes, there is a risk of disproportionate reductions to equalities targeted programmes. Indicative planning assumptions suggest that some equalities targeted programmes in DRC and Tanzania may close because of reductions. Posts with smaller budgets are likely to move to a gender mainstreaming approach when current targeted programming ends. A pipeline equalities targeted programme may no longer be delivered in South Africa. Final decisions on all individual programmes have not yet been taken, and so these conclusions may change. The ministerial decision to prioritise country allocations to FCAS provides opportunities to mitigate some potential equalities impacts in these countries, where indicative planning included reductions to funding for VAWG-related services in South Sudan and Somalia.

2. Social sector spending: Centrally Managed Programme (CMP) allocations have been set thematically, with a mixed impact on social sectors. Health CMPs support lifesaving health services, including maternal and newborn health and SRHR. The Women’s Integrated Sexual Health (WISH) programme, supporting SRHR in African countries, has been relatively protected with 30% reductions, against the bilateral reductions of 37%, which will allow continued last mile delivery in 10 of the 13 countries with the most acute humanitarian need. This will require a responsible and phased exit from last mile delivery in some settings, shifting to focus only on system strengthening. WISH will avert an estimated 9,500 maternal deaths and prevent 1 million unsafe abortions and 3.6 million unintended pregnancies in FCAS in Africa (at 25/26 levels of funding WISH would be expected to prevent 11,900 maternal deaths and 1.6 million unsafe abortions). Of the 2 CMPs focused on social protection, Gender-Responsive Social Protection (GSP) will close as scheduled in 2025/26 and Better Assistance in Crises (BASIC) has been extended and will now close in 2026/27. Future social protection programming is planned at a smaller scale. Education CMPs will be relatively protected under the Community of Expertise for Education which will support partners to strengthen education systems, including in humanitarian settings.

It has not been possible to assess whether reductions across country programmes will disproportionately affect social sectors, given the large number of programmes in this category and the fact that final thematic decisions are yet to be made within country programme portfolios. Qualitative assessment and examples suggest there will be reductions in these sectors, particularly in, but not limited to non-FCAS, with potential negative impacts on many beneficiaries. For example, it is likely that FCDO stops delivering ODA programmes with health objectives in Sierra Leone and Malawi. In Malawi, this would be expected to result in approximately 250,000 adolescents losing access to modern methods of family planning each year and an expected 20,000 children becoming at risk of dropping out of school because of an end to school feeding. In Africa, expected reductions in social protection provision through country programmes will affect poor households vulnerable to shocks, children, and people unable to work (for instance, people with disabilities and older people) including in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia.

Ministerial decisions to prioritise country allocations to FCAS provides opportunities to mitigate some potential negative equalities impacts in these countries. While detailed programming decisions are not yet final, reductions are likely to lead to fewer women, girls and boys accessing lifesaving health services (Somalia), and fewer girls and children with disabilities receiving education cash transfers which support school attendance (South Sudan).

3. Geographic footprint of ODA: The proportion of country and regional bilateral spend that is allocated to SSA will decrease by 8 percentage points^{[footnote 21]}. The proportion of spending in Fragile and Conflict Affected States (FCAS) will increase by around 13 percentage points to over 70% of all country and regional spending by 2028/29 and the proportion of spending in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) will remain at broadly the same proportion as in 2025/26 (47% down from 48%); some key humanitarian contexts that we are prioritising including Palestine and Ukraine are not LDCs. The proportion of spend allocated to Low Income Countries (LICs)^{[footnote 22]} – a slightly different group from LDCs - will rise by 3 percentage points. This geographic footprint reflects Ministerial decisions to fully protect funding to Palestine, Sudan, and Ukraine and to relatively protect funding to other FCAS. The geographic distribution of CMP spend was not assessed due to data availability at the time of the assessment.

Disproportionate impacts on individuals according to protected or relevant characteristics are not expected within Financial Transactions (FTs) and Research and Development (R&D) expenditure. FTs spend will be reduced by 57% compared to 2025/26. Reductions will reduce the overall volumes of finance generated, including for gender and equalities focused investments. FCDO’s FT Steering Board (FTSB) has recommended programme allocations for the multi-year period. FT instruments have their own gender and equalities strategies and the FTSB has recommended that these are reviewed to see how they could be strengthened. Research and Development (R&D) spend will be reduced by 44%. Key investments will continue to include research on what works to prevent gender-based violence, strengthen sexual and reproductive health and rights, women’s economic empowerment, assistive technology for people with disabilities improvements to agriculture that benefit women, and girl’s education. Reductions are not expected to have disproportionate impact according to protected or relevant characteristics.

International Climate Finance (ICF) spans multilateral and bilateral ODA. Therefore, it was not assessed separately from other spending channels. All new ICF programmes will, where possible, have gender equality as a significant or principal aim and consider the inclusion and empowerment of people with disabilities in programme design and delivery, consistent with a Gender Equalities Disability and Social Inclusion Empowering approach. This will help ensure women, children, people with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and other marginalised groups benefit from the positive impact of climate investments and protections against climate risks. FCDO’s intention and commitment under the Paris Agreement is to maintain balance between mitigation and adaptation spend and focus. This balance ensures spend on the world’s poorest people and places and supports them to manage and recover from climate shocks through resilient livelihoods, social protection and improved access to essential services. 

Monitoring of impacts

We will continue to track the 3 factors that form the methodology for this assessment. We are updating our Inclusive Data Charter Action Plan and considering further improvements to our data collection approach to track and aggregate the impacts on people, including according to protected or relevant characteristics.  The FCDO value for money framework includes equity as a core dimension and will continue to be an important way of ensuring that equity is considered in programming decisions. Annual Public Sector Equalities Duty assessments by each directorate will continue to be a key tool in monitoring the extent to which we give due regard to protected or relevant characteristics across all our work including any mitigations in case of assessed negative impact. For ICF spend, a new Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning programme will support monitoring and accountability for inclusive delivery of climate finance.

1. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Equality Act) lists the protected characteristics as age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. People with HIV diagnosis automatically meet the disability definition. FCDO may also consider broader characteristics particularly relevant to international contexts such as economic status and geography, where relevant. ↩

2. On average. Some planned payments have been reprofiled into 2027/28 and 2028/29, out of 2026/27. ↩

3. Where planned spend is maintained in absolute terms we consider equalities impacts to be fully protected. Where reductions in spending plans are less than overall reductions to the relevant channel (multilateral, bilateral - country and regional programmes and bilateral CMPs), we consider equalities impacts to be relatively protected. Where planned reductions are commensurate with their channel, we consider equalities impacts to be proportionately negative. Where spend reductions are higher than the channel to which they belong, we consider equalities impacts to be disproportionately negative. Spend comparisons are all in nominal, not real, terms. When comparing reductions to baseline reductions within a channel, a margin of error of 3 percentage points is used. ↩ ↩²

4. The UN list of Least Developed Countries (2024) includes Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia. Bangladesh, Laos, and Nepal are expected to graduate from LDC status in calendar year 2026. LDC share figures reflect current UN classification of Bangladesh and Nepal as LDCs. However, both are expected to graduate from LDC status in November 2026. ↩

5. This covers the World Bank list of Fragile and Conflict-affected Situations (FY26) (PDF, 106 KB) which includes Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Congo, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe. ↩

6. This assessment does not generally compare across types of spend (multilateral and bilateral, or specific HMT-set Research and Development (R&D) and Financial Transaction (FT) ringfences. ↩

7. 62 bilateral ‘equalities-targeted’ FCDO ODA programmes were in delivery during 2025/26. As far as possible, indicative plans for these individual programmes were assessed. ↩

8. This was on the grounds of proportionality, given 407 equalities mainstreamed programmes were in operation. ↩

9. On grounds of proportionality, we did not commission detail on all the 217 programmes coded against these sectors. ↩

10. LDCs are a list of 44 countries designated by the United Nations, based on an income criterion, a human assets index, and an economic and environmental vulnerability index. In 2023, more than half of all people living in extreme poverty (ie about 380 million) lived in LDCs (PDF, 646 KB). In the future, extreme poverty is forecast to become increasingly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa and FCAS. The World Bank report on Poverty, Prosperity, and Planet Report 2024: Pathways Out of the Polycrisis notes that “[By 2030], The share of poor in FCS and/or Sub-Saharan Africa will have grown from one-quarter to more than four-fifths.” ↩

11. This has been calculated based on internal budget allocations and will be different to what will be reported in the Statistics on International Development. Figures are adjusted due to planned reprofiling and adjusted for differing replenishment dates across major multilateral funds. ↩

12. According to the IDA, published here IDA19 Retrospective, International Development Association - World Bank. ↩

13. According to the UK IMS data, published here Statistics on International Development: final UK ODA spend 2024 - GOV.UK, from 2017-2023 only 3% on average of UK Multilateral ODA was reported against sector code 16010. ↩

14. Statistics on International Development: final UK ODA spend 2024 - GOV.UK. The LICs figure is reported in the Additional Tables. The Africa share has been calculated for this assessment. ↩

15. World Bank. 2024. Poverty, Prosperity, and Planet Report 2024: Pathways Out of the Polycrisis. Washington, DC: World Bank. ↩

16. As with the multilateral estimate, this is an internal estimate based on budget allocations; it will differ to the Statistics on International Development. ↩

17. Financial Transactions are a type of spending which creates an asset on the FCDO balance sheet. FCDO typically uses FT for the bulk of its private sector investments. ↩

18. Compared to 2025/26. Against the 2024/25 baseline that was used for the cross-government allocations process that operated on a 4-year allocation from HM Treasury, the reduction is 60%. ↩

19. This is an underestimate because several Regionally Managed Programmes have been transferred from Geographic Directors to Thematic Directorates. Accounting for this, the reduction in CMPs is approximately 44%. Prior to the mitigations set out in this assessment (and accounting for RMP movements), the CMP reduction was approximately 50%. This was the baseline reduction considered when considering judgements about relative protection. ↩

20. 92% of verified cases of CRSV in 2024 were perpetrated against women and girls (UN Report of the Secretary General on CRSV, 2025). ↩

21. “Country and regional bilateral spend” reflects budgets allocated geographically as set out in the confirmed allocations. As RMP allocations cannot yet be attributed to individual countries, we have conservatively set their SSA, LDC and FCAS spend to zero – except for APEX, whose spend is included in SSA estimates, and the Sahel Department, whose spend has been included in SSA, LDC and FCAS estimates. This approach likely underestimates the total spend to LDCs and FCAS. ↩

22. Defined according to World Bank Group income classifications for FY26. Ethiopia is unclassified for FY26. The Sahel Department is not included since Mauritania is not a LIC. ↩