The Paris Peace Forum proposes applying global soccer governing body FIFA’s solidarity compensation model to global health, advocating for fair benefit sharing in pandemic preparedness. Drawing parallels between soccer and science, the forum suggests rewarding researchers for their crucial contributions.
Also in today’s edition: What is next for the Millennium Challenge Corporation — and can it adapt after 20 years?
+ Listen: In the latest episode of our weekly podcast, Devex President and Editor-in-Chief Raj Kumar, Business Editor David Ainsworth, and Global Reporter Elissa Miolene discuss the latest aid cuts across Europe, China’s big investment pledge in Africa, and other top global development stories from this week.
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.
When the Paris Peace Forum jumped into pandemic preparedness, it uncovered a pretty glaring injustice: The scientists in Botswana and South Africa who first identified the omicron variant of COVID-19 were left last in line when it came to accessing the medical tools that emerged from their own research.
This revelation sparked an idea: Why not take a page out of FIFA's playbook? In soccer, clubs get rewarded with “solidarity” payments when their players sign professional contracts or transfer to other teams. Could this work for global health?
The forum thinks so. After studying FIFA's model, the forum now suggests setting up a global health equivalent: a centralized clearinghouse to ensure transparency and fairness in data sharing, rewarding those who do the heavy lifting when it comes to pandemic preparedness. And much like how a soccer club might get a windfall when a player it nurtured transfers, this system would ensure scientists and institutions are properly rewarded for their contributions.
Of course, no great idea comes without challenges, writes Amy Fallon for Devex. Just like in soccer, wealthier nations — or clubs — could end up with an advantage, hogging the spotlight. But the Paris Peace Forum argues that with the world facing pandemics and other crises, we need creative solutions like this one to make sure those doing the work get their fair share, and maybe even help stave off the next global disaster.
“We can no longer operate in silos — we saw what happened with Covid!” says Gabriel Butin, the forum's head of global health. “If we really want to tackle the issue, we need technical solutions that can be applied quickly, like the compensation mechanism we are proposing.” After all, we know what happens when we drop the ball.
Read: Soccer and science — can global health learn from FIFA's benefit sharing? (Pro)
+ Not yet a Devex Pro member? Start your 15-day free trial today to access all our expert analyses, insider insights, funding data, exclusive events, and more. Check out all the exclusive content available to you.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation has spent the last 20 years handing out nearly $17 billion to 47 countries, all while sticking to its signature model: selecting partner nations via a strict scorecard and co-designing hefty, transformative grants. But now, MCC has hit a bit of a snag. Turns out, when you’re this picky, you eventually run out of countries to help.
But CEO Alice Albright is on the case, determined to keep the agency relevant in today’s ever-evolving development landscape — without, of course, messing too much with the status quo. After all, why fix what isn’t broken (except for the part where you’re running out of eligible countries)?
The plan is to expand MCC’s reach, allowing it to work with upper-middle-income countries. All it needs is for the U.S. Congress to sign off on the Millennium Challenge Corporation Candidate Country Reform Act. And there’s a bonus: Albright is pitching this expansion as a way to counter China’s influence, so it’s not just about development — it’s also about global chess.
But Devex Senior Reporter Adva Saldinger writes that some former MCC insiders think the agency’s beloved scorecard, used to measure which countries can receive funding, could use a little dusting off. It’s been described as a “good guide” but also a bit of a “prison” — keeping MCC boxed in with outdated metrics that leave a lot of countries out in the cold. And while many argue it’s time to loosen the criteria, others insist that any tweaks might look like MCC’s lowering its standards. Because nothing says “we’ve got this” like sticking to rules from two decades ago, right?
So where does MCC go from here? Well, with a little luck, some help from Congress, and maybe a gentle nudge toward flexibility, the agency might just find its footing in the modern world of global development. Here's hoping.
Read: MCC's future — how the agency could reform, adapt, and grow
+ This article is part of a series we’re producing this year to examine MCC as it marks its 20th year. Read up on previous articles in the series.
The Asian Development Bank last month dropped its “Data for Climate Action” report, diving into how its member countries are collecting — or not collecting — climate data.
Spoiler: Only 29 out of 49 member economies responded to the data request, and out of that, only 17 are actually gathering data, and the detail level is all patchy at best. ADB’s chief economist, Albert Park, didn’t mince words. Basically, if you don’t have solid data, good luck tackling climate change.
“You really need to know where the problems are and what the vulnerabilities are,” he says. “To address climate change we're going to have a hard time doing it effectively if we don't have good data. … It's just a very simple, direct relationship.”
The report highlights how smaller nations, especially island countries, are having a tough time due to limited resources. But experts say more teamwork and tech-savvy solutions could turn things around. With Asia-Pacific's carbon emissions set to surge to 80% from 50% of the global total, collecting climate data is no longer optional — it’s a must.
The bright side? Artificial intelligence and big data could be game-changers, writes Disha Shetty for Devex, with these tools offering potential to scale up. It’s time to get serious about tracking climate data, collaborating more, and using tech to close the gaps — because the future is looking warm.
Read: The Asian Development Bank wants more granular climate data in region
Rice might be a staple for more than half the planet, but it’s also responsible for 10% of global human-made methane emissions — thanks to some very busy bacteria in flooded paddies. As the biggest rice producer, Southeast Asia is a pretty gassy methane contributor. But eating rice every day doesn’t just fill bellies — it’s linked to higher risks of diabetes and heart disease.
Enter the International Rice Research Institute, which knows a thing or two about rice. Since the 1960s, it has been on a mission to breed rice that’s healthier for both humans and the environment. Now, with Yvonne Pinto at the helm — an agri-tech expert who’s worked with the Gates Foundation and the Food and Agriculture Organization — it’s rolling out rice varieties that could revolutionize our food systems.
Think golden rice packed with vitamin A and new strains with a lower glycemic index value to fight diabetes.
“We sit here at IRRI on something called the rice gene bank,” Pinto tells Devex contributor Rebecca Root. “This is 132,000 accessions from about 100 countries which is the most rich genetic material that we could use to create varieties that are not only adaptive to an increasingly warm climate, but also help mitigate climate change by reducing things like greenhouse gas emissions from the crop.”
And IRRI’s not just stopping at rice. It is looking at entire rice-based systems — integrating crops like wheat, legumes, and even fish into these resilient farming systems.
Read: How food science is building more climate-friendly rice
+ For more content like this, sign up to Devex Dish, a weekly newsletter on the transformation of the global food system.
The United States announced support for granting permanent seats to African nations on the United Nations Security Council — but without giving them veto power. [The New York Times]
For the first time, the World Health Organization has added an mpox vaccine to its prequalification list. [WHO]
The U.S. is increasing aid to South Sudan by $100 million to help feed 1 million people amid severe food insecurity affecting over 7 million. [Bloomberg]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.