The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation opened a new era last week with the addition of four new board members. The foundation’s outsized role in setting — and funding — development priorities means that small changes to its governance structure come with big implications.
+ Join us on Feb. 3 at 10 a.m. ET (3 p.m. GMT) for a Devex discussion on how the space sector can drive forward the best and final chance to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. This event is in partnership with Catapult. Save your spot.
This is a preview of Newswire
Sign up to this newsletter for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development, in your inbox daily.
Devex philanthropy reporter Stephanie Beasley reported that the four people named to the foundation’s board send a statement of stability, rather than any kind of major shake-up brought on by Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates’ divorce last year.
“I want to be unequivocal. We remain a family foundation,” chief executive Mark Suzman told The New York Times in an interview about the addition of new trustees.
That doesn’t mean the foundation won’t look significantly different in the future though, and reading between the lines of the governance bylaws hints at a more uncertain picture. Some philanthropy experts see the arrangement as a “trial run” for whether the former philanthropic megacouple can make it work as co-chairs.
Gates and French Gates have the authority to change the board at will. French Gates also has the option to leave the board after two years — whether she would still donate to the foundation is to be determined.
Deep dive for Pro: What do the changes in the Gates Foundation governance mean?
+ Devex Pro subscribers can also check out who are the four major philanthropic foundations that aren't the Gates Foundation.
Supply and demand
Last week, my colleague David Ainsworth pulled back the curtain on one of the biggest and most important contracting decisions in the history of the U.S. Agency for International Development — a roughly $17 billion collection of contracts that funds the U.S. global health supply chain. This award decision will determine which organizations take responsibility for the procurement and delivery of life-saving health commodities for the U.S. government’s biggest global health initiatives.
We’ve been reporting on these efforts since USAID awarded the last set of contracts to a consortium led by Chemonics International in 2015. It’s a complex story involving legal protests, corrective action, and massive investments. To get you up to speed, we put together this timeline.
Looking back: USAID's global health supply chain
More for Pro: Chemonics recently launched a new supply chain services subsidiary that is part of wider thinking about how to adapt its business model to a post-COVID-19 world, influenced by the pressures of climate change and localization.
+ Pro subscribers can get the most out of our USAID coverage.
Pro top 5
That story by David that I mentioned about USAID’s forthcoming $17 billion global health award was our top-read Devex Pro story for January. Rounding out the list: A look ahead at U.K. aid in 2022, an interview with USAID’s chief digital development officer, a look inside Wellcome’s $22 billion funding strategy, and a breakdown of USAID’s latest business forecast.
Take a look: January’s top Pro reads
+ Not a Pro subscriber yet? A Pro subscription equips you with the most critical data-driven analysis and essential insights. Try it out for free for 15 days.
Work better
“People that go into development are those that want to do good for others, so I think a lot of us tend to be givers. What motivates us tends to also push us beyond our own boundaries.”
— Simone Anzböck, CEO, Prosper AbroadIf the third year of the pandemic has you thinking it might be time to recalibrate your relationship with work, check out this conversation between my colleague Justin Sablich and workplace wellness consultant Simone Anzböck.
Watch: How to balance your well-being and career (Career Account)
+ Read the latest edition of Devex Career Hub and find out if you’re cut out for consulting roles. And don’t forget to sign up to Devex Career Hub, a free newsletter that gives you global development’s top jobs and expert career advice. You’ll receive the latest edition every Friday.
Reap and sow
Many of the promises made about genetically modified crops have come up short for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, write Brian Dowd-Uribe and Matthew Schnurr in an op-ed for Devex. One reason: the institutional support services that farmers often need to make GM crops successful often dry up shortly after they are introduced.
Opinion: Genetically modified crops need greater farmer inclusion
ICYMI: 'Super cows' could soon be grazing in climate-vulnerable countries
In other farm news, the government of Sri Lanka announced it will pay farmers roughly $200 million in compensation for lost crop value resulting from a failed plan to make the country 100% organic.
+ Sign up to Devex Dish, a free newsletter that takes you inside the race for a sustainable and equitable global food system. You’ll receive the latest edition on Wednesday.
In other news
A military court in the Democratic Republic of Congo on Saturday handed down death sentences to 51 militia members in connection with the killing of two United Nations experts who were abducted in 2017. [The Guardian]
Spotify will now add advisory warnings on any content that discusses COVID-19, following backlash over U.S. podcaster Joe Rogan’s hosting of vaccine skeptics. [BBC]
Takeshi Kasai, the head of WHO’s Western Pacific office, has been accused of abusive behavior, including bullying and using racist language. [AP]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.
About the author
Michael Igoe@AlterIgoe
Michael Igoe is a Senior Reporter with Devex, based in Washington, D.C. He covers U.S. foreign aid, global health, climate change, and development finance. Prior to joining Devex, Michael researched water management and climate change adaptation in post-Soviet Central Asia, where he also wrote for EurasiaNet. Michael earned his bachelor's degree from Bowdoin College, where he majored in Russian, and his master’s degree from the University of Montana, where he studied international conservation and development.
