Over the next four days, leaders, policymakers, and civil society representatives will gather to debate the future of the global financial system, including debt reform and the financing barriers hindering progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

For civil society and countries in the Majority World, FfD4 represents a rare opportunity to push for genuine, systemic reforms on debt justice, fairer international tax rules, and climate finance, so that all nations have the tools and power to drive their own development. It remains the only global forum where all countries negotiate economic governance on an equal footing. 

More than 80 charity leaders, parliamentarians, economists, academics, and campaigners urged the UK Prime Minister to support bold action on the debt crisis in lower-income countries and attend the conference. Those calls have so far been ignored. 

Confirmed global leaders set to attend include President Macron, Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ursula von der Leyen and many others.  

Last week, the Compromiso de Sevilla, a product of months of negotiations, was approved by consensus, with the United States withdrawing from the process. Civil society groups condemned the role of the UK, EU, and US in watering down proposals from low-income countries, particularly those related to urgently needed debt reform.  

Without action, debt burdens will continue draining vital public finances in many LMICs, diverting funds from healthcare, education, social protection, and climate action – all of which exacerbate structural inequalities that ultimately impact women, girls and other marginalised groups, who will lose out the most. 

Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the UK network for INGOs, said: 

“The UK has promised to rebuild trust with low- and middle-income countries – a welcome commitment – yet in the negotiations, it blocked debt reform proposals from the Majority World. It’s right that the UK listened and allowed the final text to pass, but it now needs to actively support Majority World demands for fair, timely, and lasting debt reform. As member states move to adopt the outcome document, we urge the UK to stand in solidarity with LMICs and seize the openings offered by the Compromiso de Sevilla to drive real reform on debt and the global financial system. Failure to do so risks damaging the UK’s credibility and its relationships with these countries.”

Going into the conference, Emma Burgisser, Economic Justice Policy Lead at Christian Aid, said: 

“With the US withdrawing from the process, the UK has emerged as one of the biggest blockers of delivering an ambitious agreement that delivers on the key assignment of FfD4 – namely, shifting decision-making power towards more democratic spaces and addressing the ways in which the international financial system is structurally stacked against the global South. The success of the Compromiso de Sevilla will now lie in the implementation of its strongest paragraphs, and yet we’ve already seen the UK delegation make proposals that would further weaken the agreements made while attempting to obfuscate where it’s really stood in these negotiations. We cannot let this happen on our watch.” 

Jean Saldanha, Director of the European Network on Debt and Development said:

 “Debt distress, climate change and inequality are interlinked crises. In response, the Global South has called for bold, structural reforms at FfD4. Instead of supporting this, the EU and UK have chosen to defend an outdated and unjust global financial system that benefits their own interests. This is unacceptable.”

Pablo Soriano Mena, Public Policy Manager and Maria Finnerty, Lead Economist, both at CAFOD, said:  

“The UK government must do more to help solve the global debt crisis. It is concerning to see the UK’s limited engagement in the Financing for Development process, reflected in its low-level participation in the upcoming conference, especially as other countries will be represented by their Heads of State and Government. By not showing up at the same level, the UK risks signalling that global development is not a priority. 

“The UK’s role in blocking calls for concrete solutions during the negotiations was disappointing, particularly as those calls came from countries most affected by this crisis. Despite this, it is positive to see that the government listened to criticism and ultimately did not oppose the final text. This is a step in the right direction, but words on paper must be matched by concrete actions to have any meaning. 

“The UK is in a privileged position to act. It has the capacity, influence, and experience to lead and to be a key ally in building a fairer and more sustainable global financial system. All that’s needed is the political will to do the right thing. It is not enough to sit on the sidelines while more than half the world is stuck in a spiralling situation that we could help to address.” 

Heidi Chow, Executive Director at Debt Justice, said: 

“The UK and other rich countries should hang their heads in shame for blocking and watering down the demands of lower-income countries for a UN process to cancel debt and prevent debt crises. Going forward, the UK government needs to change its tune, listen to countries at the sharp end of the debt crisis and support major improvements to how international debt is managed.”   

Catherine Pettengell, Executive Director of Climate Action Network UK (CAN-UK), said: 

“The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) is a unique opportunity to address the systemic inequities that limit the Global South’s ability to address climate change and to thrive. In the pre-conference negotiations, the UK failed to support developing countries’ calls for fairer debt, tax, international cooperation, and climate finance – a crushing blow compounding the recent UK ODA cuts. Attempts to redefine the UK’s relationship with the Global South as partnership not paternalism, ring hollow – partners listen, support, and empower. The UK must now step up here in Seville to re-establish credibility as a reliable partner.” 

ENDS  

Notes to editors 

1. For interviews at the Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) in Seville, contact Bond’s Head of Media and Communications, Maryam Mohsin, on +447816191596 or mmohsin@bond.org.uk  

2. Read the letter signed by 80 charity leaders, parliamentarians, economists, academics and campaigners calling for the Prime Minister to back plans to tackle the debt crisis in lower-income countries and attend FfD4. The letter was coordinated by Bond and was sent to the Prime Minister on Monday, 9 June. 

3. According to the UN Development Program, 54 countries are in a debt crisis, 32 African countries spend more on debt payments than on healthcare, and 25 African countries spend more on debt payments than on education. 

4. Read Bond’s blog on what the UK needs to do at FfD4. 

5. Read a blog from Save the Children on the action the UK government can take on debt. 

6. Bond is the UK network for organisations working in international development. Bond unites and supports a diverse network of over 350 civil society organisations from across the UK, and allies to help eradicate global poverty, inequality and injustice. 

The post Civil society calls out UK government and rich countries for blocking progress on debt reform ahead of FfD4 appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

More than 20 events will be co-hosted or supported by our members, so please join us!

Monday, 30 June:

Reimagining Global Financing: Building an international financing framework to tackle the challenges of tomorrow, 12:30 – 14:00, Side event 4, by Save the Children;

A Jubilee for the Common Good: Revisiting the Global Financial Architecture, 12:30 – 14:00, Side event 3, by Cafod;

Mobilising Domestic Resources for Sustainable Development: insights from the water, sanitation and hygiene sector, at 12:00, online – register here, by WaterAid;

Tuesday, 1 July:

Climate and debt: Interconnected Crises and Responses, 16:30-18:00, auditorium 3, with ActionAid and Christian Aid;

Wednesday, 2 July:

To Invest in the Future, Invest in Children – A Dialogue on Evidence-Based Financing Mechanisms that Best Deliver for Children, 8:30-10:00, Side event 9, Plan International and Save the Children UK, World Vision

Financing infrastructural projects for critical minerals in the energy transition: Whose energy transition?, 8:30-10:00, side event 7, IIED;

Addressing the Fragility Gap: Policy and Programme Solutions in the Face of Shrinking Global Resources, 10:30-12:00, side event 13, Mercy Corps and the UK Government;

Prioritising investments in children to accelerate the SDGs and end child poverty, 12:30-14:00, side event 12, by UNICEF;

Financing development in a climate-challenged world: debt sustainability support service, 12:30-14:00, side event 22, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Financing for Disability Inclusive Development: From underinvestment to social justice and growth, 12:30-14:00, side event 6, CBM Global Disability Inclusion,

Strengthening Relations Between Public Development Banks and Civil Society to Promote People-Centred and Locally Led Development, 14:30-16:00, Side event 5, Bond;

Financing alternatives to budget cuts to invest in universal social protection and public services for all, 14:30-16:00, side event 9, ActionAid;

Climate finance for results: Tracking funds from commitment to implementation, 14:30-16:00, side event 7, The ONE Campaign;

On the frontlines of change: What Youth-Led Organisations need for Advancing Sustainable, Just and Equitable Societies, 16:30-18:00, side event 19, Restless Development and Plan International;

Transforming water security through country-level platforms that get blended finance right: Just Water Partnerships, 17:00-18:30, AC Hotel Sevilla Forum, WaterAid

Thursday, July 3:

Jubilee Debt and Development – Discussion about the Jubilee Debt Report with authors, 8:30-10:00, Side event 1, CAFOD;

Catalysing a systemic shift to caring economies beyond GDP: The critical role of FFD4, 8:30-10:00, Side event 22, OXFAM GB;

Financing Basic Income for a Just Transition and Poverty Eradication, 8:30-10:00, Side event 10, Equal right;

Unlocking Sustainable Finance for Food Security and Resilience: Country Platforms as an approach for Social Protection, Debt Relief, and Climate Finance, 10:30-12:00, Side event 22, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED);

Maximising the impact of investments: localising finance solutions for the transformation of informal settlements and slums, 12:30-14:00, room 8, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Resourcing Adolescent Girls’ Rights: Building A Toolkit for Just Futures, 12:30-14:00, side event 6, Plan International

The post What events are happening at the Finance for Development Conference (FfD4) 2025? appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

The bi-annual DFI Transparency Index is the only independent measure of global aid transparency of bilateral and multilateral DFIs. The 2025 Index assessed 32 portfolios from 25 bilateral and multilateral DFIs, covering both sovereign and non-sovereign (private sector) operations.

In reaction to BII’s ranking, Gideon Rabinowitz, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Bond, said:

We congratulate BII for ranking as the 5th DFI amongst non-sovereign institutions and the most transparent amongst bilateral DFIs in the 2025 DFI transparency index. It is encouraging to see BII improve its overall score by 72% compared to 2023. Over the last year, BII has published more information which allows for greater scrutiny and examination of the impact and effectiveness of BII’s investments. However, a score of 45.7 out of 100 means – there is still a long way to go. We are concerned that despite progress on core information, we continue to see very low transparency around ESG and accountability to local communities by not disclosing any project level environment and social documentation for investments. There is also further work needed on impact data, providing clarity in terms of expected and achieved impact, specific indicators, and results.

ENDS.

Notes for editors

• The 2025 DFI Transparency Index is available here.
• Publish What You Fund is the global campaign for aid and development transparency launched in 2008.  
• Read Bond’s reaction to BII’s Transparency Roadmap.
• Bond is the UK network for organisations working in international development. Bond unites and supports a diverse network of over 350 civil society organisations from across the UK, and allies to help eradicate global poverty, inequality and injustice.
• For further information or interviews, please contact Jess Salter at jsalter@bond.org.uk or call 07392972411.
  
  

The post BII improves ranking on DFI Transparency Index 2025 – Bond reaction appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

However, there is still much to be decided about these cuts and the reshaping of the UK ODA programme over the coming months, and significant questions remain about how the approaches being taken will maximise its impact in promoting development.

What do we already know about the UK ODA cuts?

The CSR and recent statements by officials have confirmed the following about the how the UK ODA cuts will be introduced, and UK ODA will be reshaped in the coming years:

• The ODA programme budget of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) will fall by a third from £9.3 billion in 2024/25 to £6.2 billion in 2027/28.
• Within the FCDO’s ODA programme, multilateral support will be prioritised, suggesting that bilateral and central programmes will face disproportionate cuts.
• Within the FCDO’s bilateral ODA programme, spending in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine will be protected, with humanitarian programmes being relatively protected. This implies that spending on bilateral ‘development’ programmes in non-protected countries is likely to be more than halved.
• The number of FCDO priority countries will be reduced, education and gender programmes are likely to face disproportionate cuts (a step we have deep concerns about), and the government have said it will be hard to maintain core support to British International Investment (BII).
• There will be a reshaping of bilateral programmes away from service delivery towards a focus on systems strengthening, with an added emphasis on promoting investment, leveraging other resources and making use of UK expertise.

What decisions are still to be made in FCDO?

FCDO officials have confirmed that over the period between now and September/October they will be working to plan budgets for their activities over the coming three years. Through this process the following will be decided:

• Priority countries for humanitarian and overall FCDO support.
• Overall allocations for each of the multilateral, central and bilateral programmes divisions.
• Detailed spending plans within each of these divisions, which will lead to the confirmation of three-year budgets for multilateral agencies, central programmes and priority countries.
• How the evolution of bilateral programmes to focus on systems strengthening, investment/leveraging resources and UK expertise will be taken forward.

FCDO officials have also confirmed that there will be more flexibility provided for officials in-country to direct the use of bilateral country budgets. In speaking about this decision to Peers, the Development Minister, Baroness Chapman, made clear that this approach will allow for the priorities of partner governments to be given stronger emphasis. She stated that “[Y]ou can’t go around saying you are not going to do paternalism and then completely disregard what a government thinks its analysis shows that it needs”.

Emerging questions about development impact of the UK ODA cuts and the reshaping of the UK ODA programme

The information shared by the government in recent weeks about plans for the UK ODA cuts and remaining ODA spending have helped to answer many key questions about the implications of these decisions. However, it has also raised a number of other questions about the way that the UK ODA programme is being reshaped, the answers to which will be critical to determining its focus on promoting poverty reduction and reaching the most marginalised people.

So, what do we identify as some of the key questions to be answered? We present four below:

1. Will priority countries be identified on the basis of humanitarian and development needs?

There has been little clarity on the basis on which a more focussed group of FCDO priority countries will be identified. Making these decisions on the basis of evidence on where humanitarian needs (e.g. using the UN’s humanitarian needs analysis or IRC’s Emergency Watchlist), development needs (e.g. using criteria related to country income and vulnerability) and challenges in reaching the most left behind (using indicators around marginalisation) are greatest will help to ensure UK ODA is directed to where it is needed most.

2. To what extent will country-level spending decisions be made on the basis of development objectives and strategic responses to development needs?

In principle it is welcome that there will be more flexibility for officials in-country to direct ODA towards priorities in partner countries, as this could help to better address local development needs. However, given the absence of a UK development strategy and the (often) competing emphasis in FCDO on promoting UK economic, security diplomatic goals, it is not clear to what extent development objectives will drive decisions about the use of ODA in-country, how FCDO will promote the strategic coherence of its ODA spending in supporting country-level development outcomes and how an approach to reaching the most left behind will be pursued.

Requiring each priority country to set out, publish and report against a set of strategic development objectives it is pursuing with ODA and giving FCDO Development Directors (rather than Ambassadors/High Commissioners) powers to direct and oversee this resource will help to promote a development focus of UK bilateral ODA. Bond’s will soon be publishing a Call to Action on Leave No One Behind’ which sets out how the government should address this important principle of the SDGs across its development work.

3. How will an emphasis on promoting UK expertise work with efforts to promote locally-led development?

There will be development challenges on which partner countries will find it valuable to draw on UK expertise. However, there are questions about how the emphasis on UK expertise will be promoted, how this approach will help to promote locally-led development and the most appropriate solutions to development challenges. Ensuring that partner countries have full control over the areas in which they utilise UK expertise and that they can choose what expertise they want to draw on through UK ODA programmes will help to strengthen their impact and value for money.

4. How the growing emphasis on better responding to the priorities of partner governments shape FCDO’s engagement with and support to civil society partners?

It is vital that UK ODA better responds to national development priorities and provides more effective support to strengthen national institutions. However, this approach raises a question about how FCDO’s support to civil society will evolve, which is a critical question given the growing levels of authoritarianism across the world, the critical role civil society plays in driving development and the need to empower all local actors. Ensuring that FCDO offices identify strategic priorities and set aside resources for supporting civil society and allocating funding centrally for this support will help to address this imperative.

The post Key emerging questions for the future of UK ODA appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

Since 2000, when the UK was a founding member, Gavi has generated $250 billion in economic benefits through reduced death and disability. Gavi now receives investment from 56 countries and over 60 organisations. 19 countries have graduated from Gavi support, including India and Indonesia who have now become donors to Gavi.

In reaction, Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development and humanitarian assistance, said:

Today’s £1.25 billion pledge to Gavi, the Vaccines Alliance, is a welcome step that reaffirms the UK’s role as a committed partner in protecting the world against preventable disease and support childhood vaccinations.

While the pledge is lower than in previous years, it is encouraging to see the UK continuing to take its responsibilities seriously as a co-founder, board member, and longstanding champion of Gavi’s lifesaving work.

Kitty Arie, CEO of Results UK, said:

The creation of Gavi is one of the great global-health innovations of our time, and its success over the last 25 years can and should be counted in the number of lives saved. I am proud that civil-society organisations campaigned around the clock to make sure this summit would be a success, demonstrating that people all over the world care deeply about protecting children and giving them the opportunity of good health and prosperity. Despite the shrinking budget for international development, the UK government heard our call to celebrate and prioritise funding for Gavi as the life-saving, country-led, cost-effective organisation it is.

The funding pledged today is a victory for children, and in this new era – where we need to ensure that we reach the zero-dose children who are most at risk – we look forward to supporting Gavi as it continues to innovate. This must include integrating its work with other global health institutions and ensuring that countries and communities are at the heart of all they do by working closely with civil-society organisations.

Katie Husselby, Director, Action for Global Health, said:

We welcome the UK Government’s £1.25 billion pledge to Gavi—a vital step toward advancing global health equity and protecting millions of children from preventable diseases. Vaccines are a powerful tool to close health gaps, but they need strong health systems and support for marginalised communities.

However, this investment cannot mask the deeper impact of the UK’s ongoing retreat from international aid. Had funding been maintained, the UK’s contribution to Gavi could have saved hundreds of thousands more lives. Continued aid cuts could mean less support for the primary care, nutrition, and community health services that make immunisation truly effective.

We urge the UK Government to maximise this Gavi commitment by also funding other critical health services that ensure immunisation reaches all communities and achieves its full impact.

Adrian Lovett, the ONE Campaign’s Executive Director for the UK, Middle East and Asia Pacific, said:

This is an important pledge from the UK to Gavi, a vital force in the fight against preventable disease. Today’s announcement will save an amazing 1.1 million lives and lead to an incredible 72 million children being immunised around the world. It’s good and right that Britain is backing this lifesaving vaccine programme – and it sends a positive signal about the UK’s future role on the global stage, in line with strong public support for smart aid that protects lives here and abroad.

But despite this good news, we are seeing the harsh impact of the prime minister’s deep cut to overall aid levels. The UK’s contribution to Gavi could have saved almost 400,000 more lives if it had been maintained at the same level as before. And further impossible choices are looming. A reduced but still strong investment in Gavi, as welcome as it is, means less money to educate girls, fight for climate justice, and prevent deadly conflict around the world.

ENDS.

Notes for editors

• Read a blog from Results UK on about what is at stake in the Gavi replenishment.
• Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is a public-private partnership that works to ensure 54 of the world’s lowest income countries have affordable access to life-saving vaccines.
• Bond is the UK network for organisations working in international development. Bond unites and supports a diverse network of over 350 civil society organisations from across the UK, and allies to help eradicate global poverty, inequality and injustice.
• For further information or interviews, please contact Jess Salter at jsalter@bond.org.uk or call 07392972411.
  

The post UK Gavi pledge – Bond reaction appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

Under the scheme, individuals and organisations operating in the UK that work with or receive funding from foreign powers could be required to register some of the arrangements or agreements that they have with these powers.

There will be a three-month transition period to register any registrable arrangements or activities that exist when the scheme comes into force. International development and humanitarian organisations are not exempt from these new rules and could be required to register in certain circumstances.

About the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme

Introduced by the National Security Act 2023, the scheme is intended to protect the safety and interests of the UK by increasing the level of transparency required in relation to certain activities taking place in the UK, following a ‘direction’ from a ‘foreign power’ or ‘specified foreign power/power-controlled entity’.

The scheme has two tiers: a Political Influence Tier and an Enhanced Tier.

Under the Political Influence Tier, individuals and organisations will need to register when they have entered into an ‘arrangement’ with a ‘foreign power’ (except the Republic of Ireland), which involves a ‘direction’ from that ‘foreign power’ to carry-out, or arrange for someone else to carry out, ‘political influence activities’ in the UK. The key components of this tier are defined as follows –

• An ‘arrangement’ is ‘any type of agreement, formal or informal’ and could include a contract, an MOU (even if non-legally binding), an order (or similar) for goods or services to be followed by a bill or invoice, or an informal quid pro-quo agreement;
• A ‘direction’ constitutes an ‘order or instruction to act with which a person is obliged or compelled, whether formally or informally, to comply’;
• A ‘foreign power’ includes, amongst other things, a head of a foreign state, a foreign government, an agency or authority of a foreign government (such as USAID or DANIDA) or a governing political party of a foreign government; and
• A ‘political influence activity’ is comprised of two criteria, which cover the activity aspect (for example, there is a provision of money, goods or services) and the purpose aspect (for example, influencing a decision of a Minister or government department).

Under the Enhanced Tier, individuals or organisations will need to register when they have entered into an ‘arrangement’ with a ‘specified foreign power/power-controlled entity’, which involves a ‘direction’ by that ‘specified foreign power/power-controlled entity’ to carry-out, or arrange for someone else to carry-out, a broad range of ‘relevant activities’ in the UK.  

• A ‘relevant activity’ includes ‘all activities in the UK’.
• At the time of writing, only specified foreign powers or foreign power-controlled entities in Iran and Russia, as set out in the government guidance, are caught by the Enhanced Tier, but new countries could be added in the future.

Under the Enhanced Tier, ‘specified foreign power-controlled entities’ will need to register the ‘relevant activities’ that they carry-out themselves in the UK.

There are exemptions for registration under both tiers. However, there is no blanket exemption available to charities generally.

Foreign funding

For charities, including international development and humanitarian organisations, the scheme will particularly need to be considered in the context of foreign funding (for example, when receiving funds from state-controlled development agencies or foreign embassies).

The Home Office makes clear that foreign funding, in itself, does not give rise to an obligation to register. There would be no ‘direction’ to carry-out activities, for instance, where general donations or unrestricted grants have been made, because the recipient would have sole discretion to decide how the funds will be used. This is also the case where a charity applies for funding, even if for a specific project, or where funds are received in relation to a specific project without submitting an application, so long as there are no specific conditions attached relating to the use of the funds. Subject to satisfying the remaining conditions of a tier, charities will need to register foreign funding if that funding would be conditional upon the charity carrying-out ‘political influence activities’ or ‘relevant activities’ (as applicable).

Registration

Under the Political Influence Tier, any arrangement that meets the criteria must be registered within 28 calendar days, beginning with the day that the arrangement is made. Under the Enhanced Tier, any arrangements or activities (as applicable) must be registered within 10 calendar days and prior to any activities being carried-out. Where there is a material change to information registered, registrants must update registrations within 14 calendar days, beginning with the day on which the change takes effect.

For charities, it is the collective responsibility of the trustees to comply with all requirements of the scheme. The scheme introduces various criminal offences some of which are punishable by imprisonment (as well as fine), including failure to comply with registration requirements.    

Public Register

Information registered which relates to ‘political influence activities’ will be included on a public register. Though, there are specific exceptions. For example, where there is a significant risk that publication would put any individual’s safety seriously at risk. The Home Office states that this exception may apply, for example, to those campaigning on human rights issues, where they, their families or their colleagues could be put at risk in their home country as a result of appearing on the public register.

Most Enhanced Tier registrations will not be included on the public register. However, where they relate to the carrying-out of ‘political influence activities’, certain details about the arrangement or activity (as applicable) will be published.

Further information: The Home Office has issued guidance on FIRS, including specific guidance on each tier and sector specific guidance for charities and civil society organisations, which contains examples demonstrating when registration would be necessary.

The post The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme soon goes live – will you need to register? appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

As anticipated, there was  a high degree of compromise in agenda setting, accommodating the US administration’s interests, and a risk of not showing up.

As with the recent FFD4 (Financing for Development) negotiations, the USA walked out of the summit after day one. This resulted in the annual G7 Heads of States communique being replaced with six individual statements on the following issues:

• Securing critical minerals supply chains
• Adopting, powering and sharing AI
• Collaborating on quantum innovation
• Preventing, fighting and recovering from wildfires
• Countering foreign interference, including transnational repression
• Fighting transnational crime, such as migrant smuggling

While we recognise the challenging political context, this is far from what global civil society expects from the richest countries at a time when the world is experiencing worsening effects from climate change, democratic backsliding, increasing conflict and deepening inequality.

Despite acknowledging some positive commitments, overall Civil 7 – of which Bond is part – expressed disappointment at the summit, stating that it “fell short of the ambition and unity needed to meet today’s global challenges.

What are the key takeaways for international development?

Conflict and crises

We welcome calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and protection of civilians in the Middle East, but the absence of strong commitments to restore humanitarian access and uphold international humanitarian law is deeply troubling.

While ongoing support to Ukraine was reconfirmed, silence on other urgent contexts, including Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Myanmar and Yemen, ignores the needs of millions of people facing displacement, violence and hunger.

ODA and debt

According to Oxfam, by 2026, the collective amount of Official Development Assistance (ODA) provided by the G7 will have reduced by 28% compared to 2024. Despite this, shrinking ODA and low- and middle-income countries’ increasing need for development and climate finance were not addressed.

There was no mention of hunger, food, poverty, water, nutrition or inequality in the summit’s outcome documents. Failure to address the interlinked crises of hunger, climate change, inequality and conflict is shortsighted, and it poses a risk to global peace, security and prosperity. While debt was recognised as an issue, it is astonishing that the G7 leaders’ response was limited to a single sentence, included in the Critical Minerals action plan on “improving G20 common framework”. This is far from what global civil society expects from the G7 on debt justice.

Critical minerals

The G7 Critical Minerals action plan raises questions around balancing geopolitical competition, extraction and the energy security of G7 countries with the green energy needs of the critical minerals’ source countries and the rights of Indigenous communities and their lands.

Gender equality

There was notable absence of gender equality in the G7 statements, indicating a lack of leadership to resist attacks on the rights of women and girls in all their diversity across the world. As the Gender and Development Network (GADN) states, this signifies a backsliding on commitments around gender equality compared to past G7 presidencies. In 2022, for example, the G7 recognised the role of care work, and in 2023 made a commitment to address structural barriers to gender equality.

Climate change

Although climate was integrated into the agenda through wildfires framing, the G7 failed to address its outstanding commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, scale climate finance (especially for the Loss and Damage Fund), increase funding for adaptation and support faster transition to clean energy.

Open societies

As we face shrinking civic space across G7 countries and around the world, it was disappointing to see no acknowledgment of the role of civil society and open civic space in upholding democratic values. Despite this, we will keep the G7 accountable to its G7 2021 Open Societies Statement to protect democracy, human rights and freedom of speech and expression.

Next steps

We remain hopeful that the G7 Development Ministerial provisionally scheduled for this autumn will take place and provide space to bring international development issues back on the G7 countries’ agenda.

The wider view from civil society

For more on this, here are some of the key civil society responses to the summit, plus the G7 outcome documents.

• Civil7 Communique 2025
• Water Aid: Civil society calls for global water security
• Civil7 response to G7 2025 Summit
• Oxfam reaction to G7 2025 Summit
• GADN reaction to G7 2025 Summit
• G7 2025 Leaders’ Summit outcome documents

The post The G7 Leader’s Summit: our verdict appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

The proscription follows activists from the group breaking into RAF Brize Norton on 20 June. 

In reaction to the announcement, Rowan Popplewell, Policy Manager on civic space at Bond, said: 

We are very concerned by the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action. Listing a protest group, even one responsible for severe criminal damage, as a terrorist organisation would have very serious implications for protest and activism in the UK and could set a concerning precedent. It would mean that anyone who expresses support for, or donates money to, the group could be prosecuted on terrorism-related charges. We urge the Home Secretary to think again on this decision. When it comes to the actions of Palestine Action and any group causing criminal damage, we believe they should be charged and prosecuted using the existing legal framework.

ENDS.

Notes to editors

• In May, Bond published its annual review on the state of UK civic space which identified the key trends threatening civil society’s core functions, including the strict policing of pro-Palestine demonstrations.
• This review maps out the key trends of restrictions affecting civil society in the UK, covering the period from 2024 to 2025.  
• In 2023, the UK was downgraded in the CIVICUS global ranking on the state of civil society and civic freedoms. Read Bond’s reaction here.
• Bond is the UK network for organisations working in international development. Bond unites and supports a diverse network of over 350 civil society organisations from across the UK, and allies to help eradicate global poverty, inequality and injustice.
• For further information or interviews please contact Jess Salter at jsalter@bond.org.uk or call 07392972411.
  

The post Home Secretary proscribes Palestine Action – Bond reaction appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

Bond has made the following statement in reaction to the continued killing of civilians trying to access food and humanitarian assistance at these distribution points in Gaza:

We continue to be deeply alarmed by the killing of civilians near humanitarian assistance distribution sites in Gaza. The pattern of mass casualties at or near humanitarian operations is unacceptable and must stop. The current approach is unsafe, politicised, and failing civilians. Replacing or bypassing UN agencies only increases risks and delays relief.

The UK government has expressed support for UN-led humanitarian coordination in Gaza and called for unimpeded humanitarian access. These commitments now require action, not repetition. No other entity can replace UNRWA’s function and ability to deliver humanitarian assistance. The UK must advocate for the UN and UNRWA’s ability to continue its critical work and the protection of Palestinian communities under international law and actively oppose the use of alternative, politically aligned humanitarian assistance distribution mechanisms that undermine neutrality and civilian protection.

ENDS.

Notes for editors

• Please refer to Relief Web for the latest updates on the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
• Many of Bond’s member organisations are actively working in the region providing humanitarian assistance to civilians.
• Read Bond’s reaction to Israel’s proposal to deliver humanitarian assistance through private companies.
• Bond is the UK network for organisations working in international development. Bond unites and supports a diverse network of over 350 civil society organisations from across the UK, and allies to help eradicate global poverty, inequality and injustice.
• For further information, please contact Jess Salter, Media Adviser at Bond at jsalter@bond.org.uk or call 07392972411.

The post Continued killing of civilians at Gaza humanitarian assistance distribution sites – Bond statement appeared first on Bond | The international development network.

Anticipatory action has gained momentum across the humanitarian sector. But its application to conflict and violence remains significantly less developed than its application to climate-related hazards. Much of this gap stems from the expectation that conflict can be predicted with the same relative certainty as climatic events, and that pre-agreed triggers and anticipatory action plans can define when and how to act.

While fixed-risk models, which are structured around fixed triggers and pre-agreed financing, are effective for more predictable hazards, they are less able to anticipate the volatile, non-linear dynamics and complex political and social conditions that characterise violence and conflict. How do you take anticipatory action in conflict situations in the face of such uncertainty? New research suggests that acting early before a violent crisis peaks is not only feasible, it shows real promise for preventing and mitigating the humanitarian impacts of conflict and violence.

Based on the first comprehensive review of the Start Fund’s alerts for conflict-induced displacement and election-related tensions, this blog explores how flexible, expert-led decision making and qualitative risk analysis are enabling effective anticipatory action in contexts where fixed-risk models are either inappropriate or unavailable.

Why triggers can fall short in conflict settings

Conflict-driven crises stem from complex and volatile socio-political and economic dynamics. This makes them difficult to predict using traditional, data-driven models. Unlike natural hazards, which have regular patterns and forecastable data, conflict lacks consistent indicators, making it hard to establish predefined thresholds or action plans. Insisting on fixed triggers in such settings can mean missing critical windows to act.

Forecasting conflict requires a fundamentally different approach from natural hazards. The Start Fund’s approach to anticipatory action is uniquely suited to conflict contexts precisely because it avoids trigger-based financing. Instead, it relies on dynamic, context-specific risk analysis and expert consensus to inform funding decisions.

Unlike data-driven models which use pre-agreed triggers, action plans and prepositioned funds, the Start Fund operates flexibly, releasing funds based on emerging needs. The Start Fund’s ‘no/low-regrets’ approach also enables agencies to act on early warnings even if crises don’t fully materialise, with the option to return unspent funds. This reduces the pressure caused by the need to wait for a crisis to escalate before taking action.

This adaptability is especially valuable for anticipating violence and conflict, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected settings where the risk landscape can shift rapidly. The Start Fund’s dynamic risk analysis uses diverse, hyperlocal data – both qualitative and quantitative –allowing for a more nuanced understanding of risk as it evolves. By drawing on local expertise and focusing on humanitarian impact rather than precise markers of conflict onset, the Start Fund’s approach offers the flexibility to act in fluid environments. Its expert-driven, consensus-based model enables faster, more context-sensitive decision making, typically within 72 hours.

But while this human-centred process allows for greater adaptability, it also introduces challenges, such as information gaps and potential biases, especially when forecast data is limited or uneven.

In conflict settings, timely and relevant data is often sparse, politically sensitive or rapidly outdated. As a result, Start Network members frequently draw on qualitative data and analysis tools, such as trend analysis, historical comparison and expert insight, to inform their alerts. While these methods may lack statistical depth, they allow agencies to triangulate risk information using local knowledge and on-the-ground observations.

Decentralised, expert-led decision making

One of the Start Fund’s strengths is its decentralised allocation process. Decisions are made within 72 hours by a committee of Start Network members who review each alert based on its credibility, relevance and alignment with the fund’s niche. This naturalistic, consensus-based process allows for rapid action while maintaining a strong emphasis on peer accountability and local legitimacy.

Importantly, this approach embraces, and is deliberately built to enable, decision making within uncertainty. Instead of aiming for predictive certainty, it focuses on responding to the risk of humanitarian impact. It accepts that forecasts will never be perfect and instead asks: do we know enough to act now, even if the crisis hasn’t fully unfolded?

The Start Fund’s model does not offer a silver bullet. But it can be appropriate for use in conflict contexts because it acknowledges and works within the constraints of those environments. In settings where data is poor, politics are complex and risks evolve rapidly, the Start Fund enables anticipatory action where others may not.

Moving forward: what can the sector learn?

As interest in scaling up anticipatory action continues to grow, the sector must grapple with how to extend it into and for conflict-affected contexts. This requires rethinking the way we understand anticipatory action and embracing models that are flexible, dynamic and hyperlocal.

Start Network is building further capacity in this area with a three-year project on anticipatory action in conflict settings funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This project seeks to strengthen and scale up the Start Network’s approach to conflict anticipation and build on learning to better prevent and mitigate the humanitarian impacts of violence.

The Start Fund’s approach may not provide guarantees, but it enables anticipatory action in places where fixed-risk models are unavailable or simply cannot function. That matters. In many conflict-affected settings, the choice is not between perfect data and flawed data; it’s between acting early based on imperfect but credible analysis or acting too late.

The post Rethinking anticipatory action in conflict situations appeared first on Bond | The international development network.