Human Rights, Healthcare Disrupted in Eastern Europe With USAID Funding Freeze

Aid, Civil Society, Democracy, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Education, Europe, Featured, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Aid

Crowley Logistics in Miami, Florida, was one of three USAID shipping and logistics facilities in the nation. It could, in times of emergency humanitarian relief aid, respond with supplies delivered to aircraft at Miami International Airport within two hours. Credit: USDAID/Lance Cheung

Feb 17 2025 (IPS) – As the full effects of the US decision to freeze foreign aid funding begin to be felt across the world, organizations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) are warning years of work in everything from delivering life-saving healthcare to defending human rights and strengthening democracy could be undone.


In many countries in the region, foreign aid is vital for the continued functioning of large parts of civil society and the activities NGOs and other groups carry out.

But since US President Donald Trump’s executive order on January 20 freezing foreign aid for 90 days and a ‘stop work order’ announced four days later, some groups have had to entirely, or partly, shut down their operations—with potentially devastating consequences.

One area that has been heavily affected is the fight against HIV/AIDS.

According to a UN report published in 2024, only half of the 2.1 million people living with HIV in the EECA region have access to treatment, and just 42% of people living with HIV have suppressed viral loads—the lowest rate in the world. In 2023, 140,000 new cases of HIV infection were registered in the region.

US funding has been central to the HIV response in EECA, including through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), as well as USAID.

According to UNAIDS, this support has helped fund community-based HIV prevention programmes, provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART), development of laboratory and diagnostic infrastructure, and training of health workers. It has also played a key role in prevention and harm reduction programmes among key populations.

This is critical in a region where 94 percent of new HIV cases occur among key populations and their partners.

While US aid is not the primary source of funds for HIV programmes in some countries in the region, in others it is vital.

In Ukraine, which has Europe’s second worst HIV epidemic, local groups working with key populations and people living with HIV say the aid freeze has had a dramatic impact.

The charity 100% Life provides treatment and prevention services to marginalized communities, including drug users and people with HIV, TB, and other diseases, often operating in frontline areas.

Dmytro Sherembei, head of the Coordination Council of 100% Life, told IPS that up to 25 percent of specialist staff carrying out testing, monitoring and other tasks would have to be laid off, while testing programmes and other assistance for state healthcare projects would be stopped.

“The funding suspensions stopped our whole programme, and it will cause a lot of damage,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Public Health (APH), one of the country’s largest healthcare NGOs, said its HIV case-finding operations had been suspended after the aid freeze.

“About 35-40 percent of all HIV-positive cases in Ukraine are found, tested, and referred for treatment by APH and its partners. It will be difficult to find alternative funding,” Andriy Klepikov, Executive Director of APH, told IPS.

APH estimates the halt to testing could mean thousands of cases going undetected during the 90-day suspension of aid.

There are also concerns that treatment for more than 100,000 patients with HIV may be interrupted. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian government has not had funds to procure antiretroviral drugs (ARVs), and PEPFAR has been procuring ARVs for all patients.

The country has ARV stocks for the next six months, “but a suspension of funding could impact the next delivery of medications planned for March,” Klepikov said.

“This funding stop threatens to turn a manageable epidemic into a deadly crisis,” warned Sherembei.

In Tajikistan, US funding has supported services including treatment and prevention among key populations, training of professionals, strengthening of local organizations, and support for community-led initiatives.

But the funding freeze is threatening to undo years of progress, local HIV activists told IPS.

Pulod Dzhamalov, Director of the Tajik NGO SPIN PLUS, said services for people living with HIV and other key populations in many places had “simply ceased to exist.”

“For many people who sought these services, it was the only place where they felt safe. And staff who worked on these projects have suddenly found themselves unemployed, without any means of livelihood or hope for the future. Significant resources were invested in building a positive image of these services, and now all of that has gone to waste. A considerable portion of the national HIV prevention programme’s budget was covered by PEPFAR funding, and this will inevitably impact the healthcare system as a whole,” he said.

Takhmina Haiderova, head of the Tajik Network of Women Living with HIV, said her organization was “facing serious challenges” and that the freeze on US funds had had a significant impact on all HIV-service NGOs in the country.

“Reduced funding results in fewer HIV prevention and treatment projects, staff reductions, and limited access to life-saving services such as testing, counseling, and treatment. In addition, it negatively affects the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, such as reducing the spread of HIV, improving the quality of life of people living with HIV, ensuring gender equality, and upholding human rights,” she said.

The decision to freeze funding, especially in places where the epidemic is not improving, such as EECA, risks doing irreparable harm to global efforts to fight HIV, activists say.

“[The Trump administration’s] efforts are doing irreparable harm to the global HIV response and global health more broadly. These are inefficient, wasteful  and deadly policy moves,” Asia Russell, Executive Director of the Health Gap advocacy organization, told IPS.

But it is far from just efforts to fight HIV/AIDS in the region that have been affected by the pause on US aid.

In many countries, foreign funding is essential to the survival of independent media, keeping a check on autocracies and serving audiences living under repressive regimes.

Press freedom watchdogs say the aid freeze has created confusion, chaos, and uncertainty among media organizations and outlets that rely heavily, or completely, on American funds.

Exiled media reporting for audiences in countries such as Russia, Belarus, and others from outside those states are particularly vulnerable.

“This is very bad news for exiled media that relocated to democratic countries after crackdowns. Some newsrooms from Belarus have reported a complete lack of funding due to the current [US aid] freeze, which may lead to a complete cessation of these projects due to the inability to pay employees. Others have been forced to cut their staff, which is very worrying since they have so far managed to keep their audience in their country, despite being forced into exile. Their efforts made it possible to effectively counter official Belarusian and Kremlin propaganda,” Jeanne Cavelier, Head of Eastern Europe & Central Asia Desk at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), told IPS.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, where nine out of ten outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, a survey after the aid freeze showed that almost 60% of media professionals surveyed believe that the suspension of US media support programmes could have ‘catastrophic consequences and lead to the closure or significant reduction in the work of many independent media outlets,’ according to RSF.

“Projects funded by American aid, such as USAID, were mostly intended to enable the media to investigate corruption and public spending. This is critical for reliable information, as well as for small media outlets reporting from the frontline,” said Cavelier.

“The freeze has already led a number of newsrooms to cut back on content, lower salaries, increase part-time working and reduce staff numbers,” she added.

Editors at local independent media outlets fear the suspension could lead to publications turning to other sources of funding, which could then look to change editorial stances, influence the independence of these media and, potentially, become tools for Russian propaganda.

There are similar fears in other parts of the region.

“The independent media here relies very much on foreign funding because otherwise they would not be economically viable in a country that is poor and in a market where some media are financed by shady Russian money,” Valeriu Pasha, Programme Manager at Moldovan think tank WatchDog.Md, told IPS.

“I think we could definitely see some deals where some media that are now struggling with funding could be bought by, or would start to be funded through, Russian sources in some way,” he added.

However, he pointed out that it was not just independent media that had been affected by the US aid freeze.

“This will have quite an effect on civil society here; plenty of organizations will feel its impact,” he said, pointing out that groups involved in everything from local election observation to healthcare, rights defense, and even working with the government on judicial reform were reliant to some extent on US aid.

“Even our organization, which has not really been affected by this so far, could well be affected in the future. We don’t know,” he added.

The freezing of US funding may also have had an unexpected, although equally pernicious, effect on civil society in the region.

The US administration’s apparent efforts to effectively shutter USAID have been welcomed by authoritarian leaders who have already been cracking down on NGOs and others they see as critical of their regimes.

In Georgia, USAID is currently investing in scores of programmes across the country with a total value of USD 373 million, according to local media. These initiatives focus on, among others, strengthening democratic institutions and increasing public resilience to disinformation.

Much US funding to the country was stopped last year in response to increasingly authoritarian behavior by the ruling regime—including legislative crackdowns on civil society.

But Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze earlier this month told local journalists the stop on USAID activities proved his government’s previous claims that the organization’s funds were used not for humanitarian goals but to “stage revolutions, sow disorder, and destabilize countries, including Georgia.”

Lawmakers appear to have also taken it as confirmation of the hardline approach they have already taken to civil society and the media—including a controversial law on foreign funding of NGOs introduced last year, which forced many to close—and emboldened them to tighten restrictions even further. On February 5, a media regulation law was announced that would ban foreign funding of media, as well as an even more restrictive version of the law on foreign funding for NGOs.

Reports have suggested authorities in Russia, where a swathe of laws and repressive measures have already forced the closure of many key services provided by civil society groups in areas from HIV prevention and help for marginalized groups to rights organizations, may be planning to ask US Congress to share a list of Russian citizens who received US funding with Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

Groups affected by the funding freeze are looking to find alternative sources of finance. Some have called for governments, particularly in Europe, to step in and fill the gap left by the withdrawal of American money.

In a statement, a group of European disability organizations and services called on the European Union and non-governmental donors to provide emergency and long-term funding to disability organizations affected by the cuts in US funding.

They highlighted that organizations were implementing lifesaving programs in countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Albania and that the loss of funding will put at risk organizations and persons with disabilities in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and South Caucasus, leaving hundreds of thousands without support.

While there are hopes that US funding will, sooner or later, resume once the Trump administration finishes its review, whatever US foreign aid is resumed, it is unlikely to be disbursed in the same way as it was previously, said Pasha.

“I expect that some aid will resume in some form after the 90-day freeze, but it will reflect the priorities of the new US administration—in the future it will likely be less connected to values and more to economics,” he said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

A Global Retreat from Solidarity

Civil Society, Climate Change, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: CIVICUS

PARIS, Feb 17 2025 (IPS) – The world is witnessing a dangerous retreat from international solidarity by Global Minority countries. From Washington to Brussels, governments are slashing funds that sustain human rights, democracy, and humanitarian initiatives.


The U.S. foreign aid freeze, the European Union’s cut in development spending, and Belgium’s reduction in foreign aid all reflect a broader trend in countries with far-right elected governments of prioritizing domestic politics over global responsibility and solidarity.

Some may argue this is simply an abstract budgetary issue. But these funding cuts translate into real-life lost jobs, shuttered programs, and the most marginalized communities being left without vital support.

They send a clear signal: governments, even those once seen as champions of human rights, are redefining their external priorities and turning inward. The consequences will be devastating, particularly for Global Majority countries, where local organizations are already struggling to survive.

But this crisis is not inevitable. Philanthropy, civil society, and remaining international allies must step up not just to fill financial gaps but to rethink global solidarity and how civil society is funded, protected, and sustained in the long term.

The dangerous trend around funding cuts

Far-right governments and their growing global influence are driving these decisions. The U.S. foreign aid suspension is part of a broader pattern of governments scaling back support for civil society and humanitarian initiatives.

Similarly, the European Union’s decision to cut its development spending by 2 billion euros over the next three years will reduce aid to the world’s lowest-income countries by 35%, exacerbating existing inequalities.

Belgium’s 25% cut in foreign aid mirrors this shift, as does the Netherlands’ move to reduce funding for NGOs, prioritizing themes that serve its national interests over global needs. These disruptions weaken trust in international partnerships and force organizations further into survival mode rather than allowing for long-term strategic action.

The long-term impact of the foreign aid cuts

This comes at a time when the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are severely off track, and the world keeps experiencing, year after year, the consequences of “the hottest year on record”.

The withdrawal of funding not only to civil society and humanitarian organizations, but also to multilateral institutions will further hinder efforts to address economic inequality and climate change for all.

Although it will take time to fully assess the impact of these recent decisions, we can already foresee their magnitude in terms of humanitarian assistance, but also in terms of human rights, democracy and global governance.

The U.S. 90-day foreign aid freeze alone has halted critical funding for international development organizations and federal contractors delivering humanitarian assistance worldwide. Thousands of jobs will be lost, and many organizations may not survive the freeze due to a lack of reserve funds.

Programs focused on combating HIV/AIDS, child health, food security, and education with reverberating impacts on all Americas have been abruptly thrown into uncertainty.

Beyond economic devastation, the crisis is deeply human. Hospitals that once provided essential care are shutting down, perishable food supplies are going to waste, and communities are left without lifesaving support.

The full impact on human rights and democracy may take longer to materialize, but we already see the warning signs: fewer resources for independent media, greater exposure for vulnerable activists, and increasing shrinking spaces for civil society.

This funding retreat is particularly dangerous for civil society organizations operating in repressive environments. Countries where civic space is already under immense pressure will become even more vulnerable, putting human rights defenders and activists at higher risk.

According to the CIVICUS Monitor, 72.4% of the world’s population lives in countries where civic space is repressed or closed. The message these funding cuts send to authoritarian and repressive states is clear: civil society is no longer a priority for Western democracies that once invested in the protection and promotion of civic space.

The role of philanthropy

Private foundations and philanthropic institutions must fill the gaps left by bilateral funders, providing flexible and rapid funding to sustain critical work. While the shortfall is vast, philanthropy must rise to the occasion to prevent the collapse of vital organizations and initiatives.

Emergency grants are needed to sustain operations, protect staff, and support security-related expenses such as safe houses, legal aid and physical and digital protection. Without this intervention, our ability to advocate for democracy, justice, and human rights for all will be severely diminished. Investments must prioritize local actors, ensuring they have the resources to lead, innovate, and sustain their work beyond donor-driven priorities.

Rethinking global solidarity

This moment calls for a fundamental rethinking of global solidarity. The traditional donor-recipient model is currently showing its limits. In this time of crisis, we must recognize that the challenges faced by civil society globally are shared, and the responsibility to support those in need should be mutually distributed rather than concentrated in a few high-income countries.

We should foster collaborative, co-designed solutions where all partners, North and South, large and small, share the risks and rewards of international development efforts.

This is where the power of coalitions and alliances like CIVICUS comes in. In the face of growing fear and retribution, many individuals and organizations, both in the U.S. and abroad, are afraid to speak out. CIVICUS and other global alliances and coalitions must step in to amplify the voices of those who fear retaliation and support those on the ground fighting for justice.

This moment demands not just financial resources but a renewed commitment to our shared values. This crisis might be ripping the guts out of the international aid system, but it cannot take the heart out of solidarity.

Conclusion

This moment is a stress test for global civil society. If donor-driven priorities continue to dictate the fate of grassroots organizations, social and activist movements, and civil society organizations, we will see the erosion of human rights, justice, and democracy worldwide.

The question is not just how to survive these cuts, but how to build a model of solidarity that is independent of political whims.

At the same time, this is a moment for introspection and transformation within civil society itself. Circumstances demand that we explore alternative means of resource mobilization, adapt to new challenges, and build resilience that is not solely dependent on traditional funding structures.

Now more than ever, we must reaffirm our commitment to global solidarity not as a charitable act, but as an existential necessity for a just and sustainable future.

Jessica Corredor Villamil is Chief Officer, Advocacy and Solidarity Action at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. She is based in Paris.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Why a Global Tech Fund for the Poorest Countries is a Smart Investment

Civil Society, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Least Developed Countries, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

GEBZE, Turkiye, Feb 17 2025 (IPS) – The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development could catalyse coordinated action to close the financing gap and set the stage for a STI-driven transformation in the world’s poorest countries.


The stark reality is that just over 250 weeks remain to go before the end of the decade, marking the endgame for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With less than a fifth of the Goals on track, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) or the world’s poorest countries urgently need bold, innovative financing for science, technology and innovation (STI) to re-set their development trajectories and salvage the 2030 Agenda.

In June/July this year, the Spanish city of Seville will host the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development, or FfD4. The last such summit was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2015, the same year the SDGs were agreed.

Since then, the development financing gap has widened as has the divide between the richest and poorest countries across the globe. The financing gap – the amount of money required to achieve the SDGs and the resources that have been committed – is now estimated at $4.2 trillion annually.

The silver lining could be golden for the world’s most vulnerable

Notably, this past decade has seen astonishingly rapid developments in STI, spanning areas such as biotech, artificial intelligence, machine learning, green technologies and satellite connectivity. These breakthroughs, largely driven by digital technologies, have created immense wealth for a few.

According to Oxfam, five individuals will reach trillionaire status before the close of 2029, while the number of people living in poverty has remained stubbornly high since 1990. Yet for the 700 million people in the margins, this progress has not translated into better opportunities.

For them, these developments in STI could be truly transformational. There’s no better time than now to close the inequality gap and harness these assets for the benefit of all.

“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”- Victor Hugo

The concept of a dedicated global fund for STI has never been fully operationalized at scale, but the idea is not new. The United Nations, UNESCO, the World Bank, the African Union, the G77 and China have all proposed the idea of an STI funding pool, suggesting growing momentum and backing for such a mechanism.

However, it is important to push the envelope and make the case for such a fund exclusively for the LDCs. June/July’s high-level summit on financing for development could provide the coordination and impetus it needs to get started. With the key global players in attendance, this summit could be a pivotal moment to bring the idea of a STI fund to life.

The 2024 Pact for the Future and its associated Global Digital Compact along with the Doha Programme of Action offer the policy foundation and moral imperative for such an initiative.

What the world’s 44 least developed countries (LDCs) need.

A global fund for STI should focus on financing three priorities: Boosting the capacity of institutions in LDCs; closing the skills gap; and creating an enabling environment for STI to flourish.

Economic resilience and structural change depend upon strong productive capacity which is driven by equally strong national institutions that can effectively implement pro-growth strategies and technology. Tech transfer and skills building will only support development if a country’s institutions can take advantage of the technologies they need. This aligns with the imperative to upskill and reskill workers in LDCs.

With just under half of their citizens having no access to electricity and only a third able to access the internet, it is imperative that countries are supported with vital, enabling development infrastructure. Additionally, a grant financing facility to bolster centres of excellence in the Global South would enable countries to effect game-changing outcomes in critical areas such as climate change, agriculture, and business development.

Why a global STI fund is a smart investment

Investing in the tech capacities of LDCs is not only a moral obligation but makes good business sense. High levels of inequality limit access to education and skills, undermining social mobility and economic growth in the world’s 44 LDCs. Rapid economic growth and development in these countries – with their massive market of over one billion people – represents an equally massive opportunity for countries in the global South and also for developed countries.

Investing in a dedicated STI fund would pave the way for long-term sustainable development in LDCs, providing opportunities for collaboration, harnessing the talent of their youthful populations and opening up new markets.

The Financing for Development summit as a catalyst for coordinated action

This decade began with a global pandemic that wrought havoc on economies worldwide, particularly the most vulnerable. Those who didn’t have the buffers to bounce back continue to struggle to meet basic development objectives and as a result, the SDG promises of 2015 remain elusive.

The 4th International Conference on Financing for Development presents a unique opportunity to focus on STI as an essential driver for development. The summit could catalyse coordinated action to close the financing gap and set the stage for a STI-driven transformation in the world’s poorest countries.

As we approach the final stretch of the 2030 Agenda, the need for solutions has never been more obvious. Investing in a global STI fund for LDCs is not just about making a big difference for the people in the poorest and most vulnerable countries, it also makes good business sense.

Deodat Maharaj is the Managing Direct0r of the United Nations Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries and can be reached at: deodat.maharaj@un.org

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Afghan Refugees, Among Others, Feel the Impact of USAID Funding Freeze

Aid, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Democracy, Development & Aid, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Migration & Refugees, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Aid

Flashback to the opening of a USAID project. Credit: Ashfaq Yusufzai/IPS

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Feb 16 2025 (IPS) – “I was shocked when told by a security guard that the clinic has been closed down. I, along with my relatives, used to visit the clinic for free checkups,” Jamila Begum, 22, an Afghan woman, told IPS.


The clinic has been established by an NGO with the financial assistance of the USAID to reduce maternal complications on the outskirts of Peshawar, the capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one of Pakistan’s four provinces. Begum, who is near to delivering a baby, says she couldn’t afford the high fee of blood tests and ultrasound examinations in private hospitals and is concerned about her delivery. Fareeda Bibi, an Afghan refugee, is concerned too.

“We have been receiving more than a dozen Afghan women for pre- and post-natal checkups through a clinic funded by the U.S., which has now been shut down,” Bibi, a female health worker, said at a clinic on the outskirts of Peshawar.

Pakistan is home to 1.9 million Afghan refugees and most of the women seek health services in NGO-run health facilities funded by the United States.

“The Afghan women cannot visit remote hospitals and came here conveniently because we have all female staff but all of a sudden, the small clinics have been closed, leaving the population high and dry,” Bibi says. “In the past year, we have received 700 women for free check-ups and medicines, due to which they were able to stay safe from delivery-related complications.”

Jamila Khan, who runs an NGO helping women in rural settings of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one of Pakistan’s four provinces, is also upset by the funding freeze.

“Most of the USAID’s funds were used by NGOs, who will now either be completely closed down or will look for new sources of funds. For the time being, they are struggling to continue operations after the withdrawal of promised funds,” she says.

The suspension of funds by the USAID has hit all sectors in Pakistan, a former employee of USAID, Akram Shah, told IPS.

“The 39 projects funded by the United States included energy, economic development, agriculture, democracy, human rights and governance, education, health, and humanitarian assistance. The suspension order has impacted all,” he says.

President Donald Trump’s directives of suspending USAID funding worldwide after assuming his office also brought to a standstill several projects worth over USD 845 million in Pakistan.

Shah says the abrupt funding cut will badly harm the small landowners who looked towards the USAID but now we are immensely concerned about how to go ahead with our annual plan of going crops without financial assistance.

Our farming has been worst hit as farmers banked on the financial and technical assistance provided by the U.S. to enhance agricultural productivity.

“Most farmers in rural areas have been benefitting from the USAID for a long time, as we got high-quality seeds, tools, fertilizers, etc., which helped us to grow more crops and earn for our sustenance,” Muhammad Shah, a farmer, says.

The health sector is also badly hit, as USAID’s money kept running the Integrated Health Systems Strengthening and Service Delivery Integrated Health System Program, says Dr. Raees Ahmed at the Ministry of National Health Services Regulations and Coordination.

The promised funds of USD 86 million aimed at strengthening Pakistan’s healthcare infrastructure would leave the program half finished, he says. Additionally, Pakistan was supposed to receive USD 52 million under the Global Health Supply Chain Program to ensure the availability of essential medical supplies, but it will be closed down for want of funds.

Education officer Akbar Ali says they had pinned hopes on USAID’s assistance of USD 30.7 million for the Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program for the poor students to continue their studies but it has become a dream now.

Ali says the inclusive democratic processes and governance projects, of which USD 15 million was promised, have been halted. The program, in which teachers were also included, was intended to enhance democratic governance and transparency.

Funds for improving governance and the administrative system in the violence-stricken tribal areas along Afghanistan’s border will also stop. The USAID had pledged USD 40.7 million.

Muhammad Wakil, a social activist, says his organization, which is working for a U.S.-funded Building Peace in Pakistan, is also suffering. The program, worth USD 9 million, aimed at fostering religious, ethnic, and political harmony, has had to close.

“We have asked our workers to stay home and have suspended at least 20 workshops scheduled this year,” Wakil says.

He wondered why the United States, a staunch supporter of peace and religious harmony, has stopped funds.

The Mangla Dam Rehabilitation Project, a USD 150 million initiative essential for Pakistan’s energy and water security, has also suffered.

The decision to suspend these aid programs comes as part of a broader restructuring of US foreign assistance under Trump’s “America First” policy.

USAID, established in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy, has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, administering approximately 60 percent of the country’s aid budget. In the 2023 fiscal year alone, USAID disbursed USD 43.79 billion in global assistance, supporting development efforts in over 130 countries, media reported.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Development Effectiveness & the Quality of Financing: Towards a More Holistic Approach at Seville

Civil Society, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are off track. Decades of progress on poverty and hunger have stalled, and in some cases, been thrown into reverse. Many developing economies are mired in debt, with financing challenges preventing the urgently needed investment push in the SDGs, according to the United Nations. But amid these challenges there lies opportunity. The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) – 30 June to 3 July 2025–provides a unique opportunity to reform financing at all levels, including to support reform of the international financial architecture. Credit: United Nations

STOCKHOLM Sweden / MILAN, Italy, Feb 14 2025 (IPS) – When world leaders gather in Seville for the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in June, they will be meeting at a pivotal moment: one defined by mounting systemic risks, a multiplication of crises, and proliferation and fragmentation of development co-operation actors and funds.


International development co-operation is also threatened by the ongoing erosion of funding, including through unilateral decisions of unparalleled magnitude. While momentum for reform and transformative change to the financial and development architecture is growing, it is crucial not to lose sight of the fundamentals.

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), increases in the quantity of development financing, be it official development assistance (ODA), private finance, or South-South co-operation, must be complemented with boosting the quality of all types of financing so that they are delivered and used in the most effective way.

Credit: Nuthawut Somsuk

Efforts to increase the quality of financing are embodied by the development effectiveness agenda and its internationally agreed principles: country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability. The principles are tried and tested, and more relevant than ever.

They build on and reflect decades of global experience and are increasingly crucial for addressing the challenges that characterize today’s development co-operation landscape, such as fragmentation and misalignment with country priorities. They are also key for mobilising different types of finance from a growing array of development partners and partnerships.

Yet, as the development landscape has increased in complexity in the years after the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the systematic focus on development effectiveness at country level has not been adequately integrated into country ecosystems and ambitions. For instance, Integrated National Finance Framework (INFF) processes could be better utilized as opportunities to talk about development effectiveness.

As Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, we believe that development effectiveness is essential to mobilising financing for sustainable development, across all types of international co-operation for development. The FfD4 Outcome Document must clearly stress this point.

A stronger, more systematic focus on the benefits of development effectiveness – and on addressing the bottlenecks and trade-offs that hinder progress on the 2030 Agenda and SDGs – is essential to reinstate trust, increase financing for development, and achieve long-term positive impacts.

The four principles of effective development co-operation remain the core enablers of development effectiveness. We welcome the focus of the recently released FfD4 Zero Draft Outcome Document on country leadership, coherence, and mutual accountability, but reiterate the need to uphold past commitments originating from the long-lasting aid effectiveness and development effectiveness processes.

It is important for the Outcome Document to stress the continued validity and intertwined nature of the four effectiveness principles, including the role of inclusive partnerships and of civil society organizations in particular.

The involvement of all stakeholders – partner countries, development partners, the private sector, civil society, parliamentarians, philanthropies, and trade unions – remains central to the effectiveness agenda. It is also important to focus on the effectiveness of partnerships with the private sector, in particular by creating enabling environments for a local private sector to thrive, an area monitored by the Global Partnership through the Kampala Principles Assessment.

Effective private sector partnerships are key for ensuring transparency and accountability and for combatting corruption. A whole-of-society approach is key to achieving true country ownership, which has emerged as a central theme in the FfD4 negotiations.

How can the Global Partnership and development effectiveness contribute to FfD4 and its follow-up?

First, the Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise provides evidence to inform how development actors can improve their policies, practices and partnerships, insights into progress in implementing the agreed effectiveness commitments, as well as opportunities for learning, dialogue and sharing of experiences on emerging effectiveness challenges.

The monitoring is a partner-country led tool holding development stakeholders to account for their implementation of the commitments, and a starting point for concrete action and behaviour change. Since 2011, 103 partner countries have led the monitoring exercise one or more times in collaboration with over 100 development partners and other actors. The ongoing global monitoring round will bring new evidence into the discussions on effectiveness, including in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4.

(Read preliminary observations from the first 11 countries to complete data collection: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal, the Philippines, Uganda, Yemen and Zambia).

The fresh insights from the monitoring round are one important source of evidence which will feed into country-led multi-stakeholder action for how to enhance effectiveness.

Second, the Global Partnership’s 4th High-Level Meeting (HLM4) in 2026, where the monitoring results will be presented, is the next crucial moment after FfD4 to take stock of development effectiveness, accelerate progress, drive accountability, and inform policy dialogue on international development co-operation trends.

We invite all development stakeholders to contribute to HLM4, and to act on the dilemmas, tensions and trade-offs we are all facing to expedite delivery of the 2030 Agenda. Strengthening and streamlining the development co-operation architecture must be a collaborative, inclusive process.

The Global Partnership offers a proven, multi-stakeholder platform to ensure that all voices are heard in shaping the future of development co-operation.

We invite you to join forces with us: raise the profile of development effectiveness in the lead-up and follow-up to FfD4, and use the monitoring findings for learning, dialogue and action at country level.

Recognizing that development effectiveness is a key enabler for sustainable development by 2030 (and beyond) and fully embracing and recognizing the effectiveness principles in their integrity, is a prerequisite for an impactful and action-oriented outcome at FfD4.

Annika Otterstedt is Assistant Director General, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and Luca De Fraia is Co-Chair, CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness.

Annika Otterstedt and Luca De Fraia are also Co-Chairs of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

US Pullout Gives Upper Hand to Human Rights Abusers Worldwide

Civil Society, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

The UN General Assembly votes to suspend the rights of the membership of the Russian Federation in the Human Rights Council during an Emergency Special Session on Ukraine. April 2022. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 14 2025 (IPS) – When some of the world’s “authoritarian and repressive regimes” were elected as members of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) –including Cuba, China, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — a US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher infamously remarked: “The inmates have taken over the asylum, I don’t plan to give the lunatics any more American tax dollars to play with.”


That remark brought back memories of a 1975 award-winning Hollywood classic “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, with Jack Nicholson as a rebellious patient causing havoc at a US mental institution while leading a group of protesting inmates.

And last week, the US decided, metaphorically speaking, to fly over the cuckoo’s nest—and withdraw from the Geneva-based 47-member Human Rights Council.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115782

Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS the Human Rights Council and all United Nations bodies are better and stronger with the United States being actively engaged.

“Any state withdrawing from the HRC only encourages the dictators, torturers, and human rights abusers of the world. At this moment in history, with creeping authoritarianism and human rights under attack in so many parts of the world, the Human Rights Council remains indispensable,” he added.

UN Human Rights Council in session in Geneva. Credit: UN Photo/Elma Okic

Ambassador A.L.A. Azeez, a foreign policy commentator, who previously served as Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, told IPS the United States’ withdrawal from the UNHRC is a counterproductive move that harms both US interests and the global cause of human rights.

This departure from a critical multilateral institution is unlikely to achieve transformative change within the council. It never happened with its previous withdrawals, nor may it happen now, with the current one, he pointed out.

What does it achieve then?

“It removes the US’s opportunity to engage constructively with members and stakeholders, contributing to the strengthening of human rights multilateralism. By exiting, the US forfeits its ability to shape the narrative, push for necessary reforms, and advocate for its values”.

Human rights multilateralism, he argued, depends on the engagement and collaboration of diverse nations. Not one state or a small group of states alone however influential they are!”

This withdrawal amounts to an abdication of shared responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights. It risks signaling a diminished US commitment to human rights, potentially eroding the international human rights system and damaging whatever credibility and moral authority the US has on the world stage, said Ambassador Azeez.

Periodic withdrawals from international bodies like the UNHRC severely damage the US’s image as a steadfast defender of human rights and multilateralism. The US cannot afford to project an image of selective engagement, perceived as contingent on the council’s alignment with US views.

This erosion of credibility hinders the US’s ability to lead by example and effectively champion human rights.

The primary motivation for the withdrawal seems to be concerns about bias against a close US ally in the Middle East. While such concerns are often expressed, is exiting the council the best solution? A more constructive approach would be to remain engaged and work to address perceived concerns from within.

While strategic calculations may drive the idea of disengagement from multilateral bodies, the era of unipolarity is over. Multilateralism must reassert itself, acting as a mediating force among competing geopolitical interests. The importance of remaining engaged in multilateral human rights efforts and driving meaningful change from within cannot be overstated, declared Ambassador Azeez.

Responding to a question at the UN press briefing February 4, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “It doesn’t alter our position on the importance of the Human Rights Council as part of the overall human rights architecture within the United Nations,” he said.

“And on UNRWA, I’m not sure that’s something that’s very new. I mean, and again, it doesn’t alter our commitment to supporting UNRWA in its work, and in its work of delivering critical services to Palestinians under its mandate,” said Dujarric.

Amanda Klasing, National Director, Government Relations & Advocacy with Amnesty International USA, said announcing that the United States is withdrawing from the Human Rights Council when it is not even a sitting member, is just the latest move by President Trump to demonstrate to the world his complete and blatant disregard for human rights and international cooperation — even if it weakens U.S. interests.

“Our world needs multilateral cooperation around shared interests, especially the protection of human rights. International institutions will continue to function, either with the U.S. or without it, but it seems that President Trump is uninterested in having a seat at that table to shape the norms and policies of the future, or even to protect the human rights of people in the United States”.

The HRC provides a global forum for governments to discuss human rights concerns, can authorize investigations that bring to light human rights violations, and, while not perfect, is a tool to hold governments accountable in fulfilling their human rights obligations, including to their own population.

President Trump’s performative decision to pull the U.S. out of the HRC, Klasing pointed out, signals to the rest of the world that the U.S. is happy to completely cede important decisions about human rights violations happening across the globe to other countries.

“This isn’t about President Trump thumbing his nose at the institution, instead he’s just demonstrating he’d rather make a callous show of rejecting human rights than do the work needed to protect and promote human rights for people everywhere, including in the U.S.”

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/u-s-withdrawal-from-un-human-rights-council-is-performative-disregard-for-human-rights/

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source