Presented by Partners In Health, Pfizer, and BD
At times, the final day of the G20 Social Summit felt like a musical, with singing and dancing breaking out multiple times during the proceedings — think “The Lion King,” at times literally. But there was also plenty of talk on what civil society would like to see from the Group of 20 largest economies. Whether there’s any action remains to be seen.
Also in today’s edition: There was plenty of action at the 30th U.N. Climate Change Conference in Brazil, though not the kind organizers wanted.
Civil society tends to have a lot of opinions. I know you’re shocked (cue journalistic cynicism here). But they’re hoping that as heads of state gather this weekend for the G20 Leaders Summit, their advice is at least heard and taken seriously.
Those recommendations came together on the last day of the Social Summit in the form of a declaration presented to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, my colleague Elissa Miolene writes from Boksburg.
For his part, Ramaphosa was forceful in his remarks to civil society representatives earlier in the day.
Specifically, he said it didn’t bother him that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent denounced South Africa’s G20 as a “G100” due to the number of engagement group meetings throughout the week. In fact, he said, “That is true.”
“We’re having a G million,” he said. “Because we are all about inclusiveness and bringing people together.”
The Trump administration — which is boycotting the summit and continues to hammer South Africa about a supposed genocide of its white citizens — continued its campaign against the country and its G20 presidency.
On Tuesday, the U.S. formally warned South Africa against issuing a joint leaders’ statement, according to a document seen by Bloomberg. It stated the U.S. would block any outcome framed as a group decision because South Africa’s priorities “run counter to US policy views.”
“It cannot be that a country’s geographical location or income level or army determines who has a voice, and who is spoken down to,” Ramaphosa himself countered yesterday. “And it basically means there should be no bullying of one nation by another nation.”
G20 reporter's notebook: Social Summit Day 3
U.S. President Donald Trump has also fired off a barrage of warnings to foundations and nonprofits viewed as progressive, threatening them with revoking their tax-exempt status or labeling them as sponsors of terrorism. But he’s not the only Republican on the warpath.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he is probing the Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund to determine if their funding of programs in China violated nonprofit tax rules, my colleague Adva Saldinger writes.
For example, in a letter to the Ford Foundation, Grassley says reports indicate that the Ford Foundation provided nearly $10 million to assist the Chinese government in its Belt and Road Initiative and that most of the foundation’s money went to state-run or Chinese Communist Party-run universities.
The Ford Foundation, in a statement to Devex, said it “carries out its philanthropic activities worldwide with independence and integrity and in full compliance with all applicable laws.” The foundation’s grants focus on reducing poverty and injustice, strengthening democratic values, promoting international cooperation, and advancing human achievement, the foundation wrote.
“It is of utmost importance to us that our funds are used for charitable purposes in alignment with our mission and values, and we have robust controls in place to ensure that each grant is expended only for its intended objective,” the foundation said.
Read: Sen. Grassley probes top foundation's China funding, nonprofit status
+ The Ford Foundation, which is in the midst of various changes under its new leadership, is not the only philanthropy under the Republican microscope. Arabella Advisors, a frequent political target, recently announced its dissolution. Want to know more? Join Devex Pro to receive our Sunday Insider newsletter. This weekend’s edition looks at several philanthropic shake-ups.
I won’t dwell on it, but the irony speaks volumes: A fire broke out in the Blue Zone of COP30, held in the steamy Amazon, where tens of thousands have gathered to fend off the planet’s runaway warming.
Fortunately, no one was hurt, and it was quickly back to business, my colleague Ayenat Mersie reports from Belém, Brazil. In fact, she was in the middle of an interview with Sierra Leone's minister of environment and climate change, Jiwoh Abdulai, when a staffer told them to leave urgently.
Mohamed Adow, director of think tank Power Shift Africa, said: “No one comes to a global climate summit expecting sirens and smoke, yet here we are. What could have spiralled into a disaster was contained in minutes thanks to the swift, disciplined work of the security teams and marshals on site.
“Even in a moment of chaos, one thing stood out: people from every corner of the world, different nations, creeds, and affiliations, looked out for one another,” he added. “When faced with a crisis, cooperation wasn’t a slogan, but a human instinct in its rawest, truest form.”
COP30 reporters’ notebook: Day 11
+ Listen to the latest episode of our podcast for other COP30 updates.
While carbon dioxide is the primary focus of climate change discussions, almost half of the global warming recorded to date comes from pollutants that disappear from the atmosphere within weeks.
These so-called super pollutants, such as methane and soot, trap heat far more effectively than carbon and therefore generate greater warming. But super pollutants are nowhere to be found on the official COP30 agenda, except for a few nods to methane.
But on Wednesday, in a first for COP30, a group of nine countries committed to reduce major sources of black carbon — a super pollutant considered uniquely harmful because it directly affects health, contributing to millions of premature deaths worldwide, my colleague Jesse Chase-Lubitz writes.
Yet the onus falls on those least equipped to deal with the crisis.
“The vast majority of countries with black carbon policies are low- or middle-income countries,” Jane Burston, CEO of the Clean Air Fund, tells Jesse. They’re enacting black carbon reduction policies “entirely voluntarily” because of the health impact.
“There’s no incentive to do it, there’s no support for it, there’s no specific funding for it, and the climate benefit of it is not recognized in the U.N. system,” Burston adds. “Given that it does have some climate impact, and given that developing countries want to include it, shouldn’t we be allowing them to claim the benefits of having done that reduction, and get the finance?”
Read: Slashing super pollutants is a win. So where’s the money?
We’ve known for months that the Millennium Challenge Corporation, under the Trump administration, would terminate a significant number of its programs. This week, staff were informed exactly which countries would be on the chopping block, according to an email obtained by Devex.
Programs now slated for termination include regional compacts in Cape Verde and Senegal; individual compacts in Lesotho, Malawi, East Timor, Gambia, and Togo; and threshold agreements in Kenya, Mauritania, Tanzania, Gambia, and Togo. Some of those are well into implementation, while others were in development and had not yet been signed.
The funding would have gone to areas such as upgrading transportation and expanding access to land for investment in Malawi, and addressing health care needs and boosting horticulture in Lesotho, Adva writes.
“I know the uncertainty around our country portfolio has been challenging, especially for those on impacted country teams and [resident country missions],” the staff email said, adding that “as our portfolio evolves, including welcoming new partners into the fold, I am confident MCC will rise to meet the moment and continue to deliver impactful and meaningful results.”
Scoop: MCC finalizes country program cuts, narrowing prior proposed list
ICYMI: Millennium Challenge Corporation changes country selection criteria
Two dozen of the world’s richest countries, including the U.S. and Japan, are reducing their contributions to global development, according to a new study by the Commitment to Development Index. [Africanews]
Fundraisers and humanitarian organizations collecting for Palestinian civilians in Gaza are seeing a “catastrophic” drop-off in donations since the ceasefire was announced in October. [The Guardian]
UNICEF will relocate at least 70% of its staff in New York and Geneva to cheaper locations, as the agency faces a 20% funding reduction due to global cuts in foreign aid. [Reuters]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.