Presented by Mastercard Foundation
Recent weeks have seen a flood of news stories about the dismantling of USAID and the subsequent demise of thousands of U.S. foreign assistance programs. And with good reason, given that the cuts will be devastating for aid recipients, many of them in Africa. But what about the reverse perspective — from Africans who say the aid was flawed to begin with and needed to change?
Also in today’s edition: The global HIV//AIDS response faces a reckoning, and we answer your questions about U.K. aid, or what’s left of it.
Rose-colored glasses. That’s how parts of U.S. foreign aid are remembered by some who now decry the loss of that aid. But, as my colleague Sara Jerving writes, while foreign assistance came with tremendous benefits, it also came with baggage. She talked to four experts from Africa on what that baggage entailed — and how to fix it.
One common complaint? That behemoth INGOs hoovered up most aid money, leaving a trickle for smaller, local organizations.
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.
“This was a very, very, very inefficient model where you've created a system to prop up the same machinery to get more grants,” said Dr. Catherine Kyobutungi of the African Population and Health Research Center. “That's a huge chunk of the money that doesn’t make it to the ground.”
Another issue? Top-down diktats on how aid money should be spent, without consulting governments or local community priorities, which often breed dependency rather than self-reliance.
Donors should also focus more on local experts and suppliers, according to Amne Suedi of the Shikana Investment and Advisory Group. They’ve often been overly reliant on foreign consultants who know “little to nothing about Africa and its challenges,” she said.
Suedi, whose company is based in Tanzania and Switzerland, argued that in the future, more of the money funneled toward local entities should go to the private sector because it has operational capacity, a results-oriented mindset, and an incentive to implement impactful programming.
Recadina Webi, CEO and founder of the Kenya-based The Dotted i consultancy firm, added that while there’s still a place for humanitarian assistance during acute crises, funds should increasingly be used to facilitate trade, create markets, build infrastructure, and fuel demand.
“If people have a reliable market for their goods or services, they can generate income and improve their own livelihoods — aid becomes secondary,” Webi said.
Read: What African experts say must change about US foreign aid (Pro)
+ Happening on May 14: As traditional aid systems face unprecedented challenges, organizations need unfiltered insights on navigating development’s shifting landscape. Join Mulago Foundation CEO Kevin Starr and Devex President Raj Kumar for a Pro Briefing that offers candid insights into the future of aid. Register now.
Over 50%
—That’s the staggering percentage of staff that UNAIDS needs to slash in the face of a severe financial crunch.
According to a communique from senior leadership seen by Devex, the number of full-time positions will be cut from 608 to around 280 as part of a sweeping restructuring. The agency will also reduce its country presence from 75 to 36 countries, with some offices serving multiple countries and others staffed by a single person, my colleague Jenny Lei Ravelo writes.
The restructuring is taking place amid drastic cuts to global health funding, including for the HIV/AIDS response. UNAIDS was already operating on a slimmer budget at the start of the year, but cuts from the U.S. government — its biggest contributor — have made its funding situation more precarious.
“There are still some unknowns about donor contributions and we must push and remain cautiously hopeful, while at the same time be judicious and prepare for the worst-case scenario,” warns the communique.
Exclusive: UNAIDS will lose more than 50% of staff in restructuring
The Trump administration is also making deep cuts to the budgets of domestic agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS. While those cuts are sure to have repercussions inside the United States, they won’t be confined to its borders, Jenny writes.
A document outlining the White House’s Office of Management and Budget proposal for HHS seen by Devex also shows that it will cut all funding for programs such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Global Health Center, which helps investigate outbreaks globally, and the National Institutes of Health’s Fogarty International Center, which provides research training to U.S. and foreign scientists working in low- and middle-income countries.
It will likely be another hit to the global HIV/AIDS response. Jirair Ratevosian, a global health security expert, says that about 30% of the implementation of the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, happens via HHS.
“To me, it spells trouble. I think if you try to put all these pieces together, it really means a global HIV response that is going to be unrecognizable,” Ratevosian says.
“We have seen that the Trump administration is willing to test the limits of its authority. We have seen areas where Congress has pushed back, and we’ve seen areas where Congress has not pushed back,” Ratevosian adds. “I think as it relates to spending for global health programs, that’s going to be a key question to watch.”
Read: How US Health and Human Services budget cuts could impact global health
The Trump administration is not the only one whipping out the scissors. Across the pond, the United Kingdom has made sharp cuts to its aid budget as well.
After U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s shock February announcement of a new cut to U.K. aid from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%, many development professionals have been asking for clarity on a host of questions. Here are eight questions we tried to answer:
1. Will there be cuts in 2026? And what will get cut?
2. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office was in the middle of a spending review. Is it now going to start again?
3. FCDO was also midway through an analysis of aid spending. What happens there?
4. Will there be an impact assessment for the cuts?
5. What's the U.K. going to do about the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria replenishment?
6. What's happening to in-donor refugee costs?
7. What’s going on with debt, tax, and illicit financial flows?
8. Will the £900 million-a-year recapitalization of British International Investment go ahead?
Read: 8 questions we still have about the future of UK aid (Pro)
+ Curious about the insights that drive global development? Experience the power of Devex Pro with a 15-day free trial. Explore expert analyses, unlock hidden funding opportunities, connect with key players at exclusive events, and access a wealth of knowledge you won’t find anywhere else.
Southeast Asia has three times as many food-insecure people as it did before the pandemic, so the issue of climate and agriculture was a particularly fitting one at the Philanthropy Asia Summit, hosted by Temasek — essentially Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund.
My colleague Ayenat Mersie, who’s on the ground, tells me that one big takeaway from a morning talk on the topic was resilience through diversity. As Danny Hunter, principal scientist with the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, pointed out: “Only nine plants account for 70% of our food production. And really, we rely on three staple crops, rice, wheat, and maize, for the bulk of our plant-related calories.” That kind of dependence is bad not just for diets, but for the system’s ability to withstand shocks.
Alongside the science, the conversation kept coming back to money — how to mobilize more of it for agriculture, and crucially, how to use it more effectively.
And speaking of money: Just one floor up, Temasek was kicking off “Ecosperity Week,” a complementary gathering that examines sustainability and decarbonization from a financial angle, co-sponsored by BlackRock. Ayenat made her way upstairs to the opening ceremony, where the vibe shifted to business-formal and ties.
Singapore’s Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean acknowledged the rough road ahead: “The climate journey has never been smooth, especially now with the U.S. pulling out from the Paris Agreement again.” But Singapore, he said, is staying the course. “We are not climate zealots, we are not climate sceptics, we are climate warriors.”
Human development progress has stalled, and aid cuts could negatively impact gains made in recent years, according to UNDP. [DW]
Aid groups and the U.N. have criticized Israel’s plan to control Gaza aid through a new foundation, saying it could pressure Palestinians to move and that it breaks basic humanitarian rules. [Financial Times]
Abandoned fossil fuel infrastructures are among the biggest emitters of methane, according to a report. [The Guardian]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.