Some countries still want to save the world – vox.com

Report on Shifting Paradigms in Global Development Assistance

Introduction: A Divergence in Global Aid and the Sustainable Development Goals

The international landscape of Official Development Assistance (ODA) is undergoing a significant transformation. While several major donor nations are reducing their foreign aid budgets, a cohort of countries, notably Spain, is increasing its commitments. This divergence presents both profound challenges and unique opportunities for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This report analyzes the current trends, their impact on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the potential for a new, more collaborative model of international cooperation to emerge.

The Widening Funding Gap and its Impact on SDGs

Contraction of Aid from Traditional Donors

A wave of right-wing populism and a focus on national interests have led to significant budget cuts in foreign aid from several historically large donors. This trend is creating a substantial funding vacuum for global development initiatives.

• The United States has dismantled its primary aid agency, USAID, with its functions subsumed by the State Department.
• The UK, France, Belgium, and Germany have also slashed their development budgets.
• The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects a cumulative funding drop of $56 billion by 2025, severely jeopardizing progress on global development targets.

Direct Threats to Key Sustainable Development Goals

The reduction in ODA poses a direct threat to the achievement of several critical SDGs:

1. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The funding gap imperils programs combating infectious diseases. Every $100 million in cuts to programs for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria could result in 2.2 million new infections. Cuts from the US alone are anticipated to cause 28,000 new cases of diseases like Ebola and Marburg annually.
2. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Development aid is a proven tool for conflict prevention and sustaining peace after war. Reductions in aid can weaken stability in fragile regions.
3. SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The overall reduction in resources for mosquito nets, vaccine research, and food assistance directly undermines the core objectives of eradicating poverty and hunger.

Emerging Donors and a Renewed Commitment to SDG 17

Nations Increasing ODA Contributions

In contrast to the general trend, a number of countries are increasing their ODA budgets, signaling a renewed commitment to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Spain: Has committed to more than doubling its aid budget to reach the UN target of 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2030.
• Ireland: Also aims to reach the 0.7% GNI target by 2030 and recently increased its budget.
• South Korea: A former aid recipient, it continues to increase its ODA.
• Italy: Has pledged to boost its foreign aid budget, with a significant portion allocated to its Mattei Plan for Africa.

Spain’s Strategic Focus on the 2030 Agenda

Spain’s increased aid is being strategically channeled into programs that directly support the SDGs. Its four-year plan emphasizes a model of solidarity and partnership. Current funding priorities include:

• SDG 13 (Climate Action): Funding for climate resilience projects in Morocco and Algeria.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Support for LGBTQ rights in Paraguay.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Backing for HPV vaccine campaigns across Latin America and the Caribbean, and increased funding for Gavi and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Re-evaluating the Aid Model: From Paternalism to Partnership

Critiques of the Traditional Aid Framework

The current crisis has intensified scrutiny of the traditional aid model, which has often been criticized for reinforcing global inequalities, contrary to the aims of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• The system has been dominated by a small club of wealthy nations setting the agenda.
• Aid has often come with conditionalities, such as forcing privatization or requiring the use of donor-country consultants, which can reduce effectiveness and increase costs.
• This top-down approach has been described as perpetuating paternalistic or neocolonial power dynamics.

A New Approach Rooted in Solidarity and Shared History

The approach of emerging donors like Spain, Ireland, and South Korea is informed by their own recent histories of receiving development assistance. This shared experience fosters a different perspective on aid.

• Spain’s development plan mentions “solidarity” 84 times, calling for a shift toward a more equitable and collaborative model.
• This approach emphasizes mutual respect and shared priorities, aligning with the core principles of SDG 17.
• The goal is to move away from a donor-recipient dynamic toward a genuine partnership for development.

The Call for a More Democratic and Inclusive System

There is a growing demand from recipient nations for a more democratic and transparent global development architecture.

• Aid recipients are calling for “a voice and a vote” in how development decisions are made.
• The rise of South-South cooperation, with 50 Global South countries now having their own development agencies, reflects this shift.
• Evidence suggests that aid programs are more effective when local actors play a significant role in directing resources, transforming aid from “charity” to a “fair distribution of wealth.”

Conclusion: Crisis as a Catalyst for a More Sustainable Future

The current disruption in global aid flows represents a critical juncture. While the funding gap poses a severe risk to achieving the SDGs, it also serves as a catalyst to dismantle an outdated, top-down aid system. The actions of countries like Spain, Ireland, and South Korea may signal the beginning of a new era of international cooperation—one that is more collaborative, democratic, and fundamentally aligned with the principles of partnership and equality embedded in the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article extensively discusses the role of foreign aid in global health, specifically mentioning funding for “vaccine research,” “preventing tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria,” and initiatives like “HPV vaccine campaigns.” It highlights the impact of aid cuts on the spread of “infectious diseases like Ebola and Marburg” and references organizations like “Gavi, the international vaccine alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.”

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article notes that Spain’s increased aid budget is allocated to specific social issues, including the promotion of “gender equality” and “LGBTQ rights in Paraguay.” This directly connects to the goal of achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article addresses inequality between countries by discussing the historical context of foreign aid, where “a small club of wealthy nations” set the terms, often perpetuating “exploitative power dynamics.” The shift towards a more collaborative model, and Spain’s funding for “LGBTQ rights,” aligns with the goal of reducing inequality within and among countries.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  Climate change is identified as a key area for development aid. The article states that Spain’s funding priorities include “combating climate change” and mentions specific “climate resilience projects in Morocco and Algeria” that are supported by its aid budget.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  This is the central SDG of the article. The entire piece revolves around Official Development Assistance (ODA), the global partnership for development. It discusses the “lofty goal” set by the United Nations for wealthy countries to “give away 0.7 percent of their gross national income (GNI) as development assistance.” The article analyzes the commitments and budget changes of various countries (Spain, US, UK, Ireland, etc.) in relation to this global partnership goal.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 17.2

   “Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries…”
   This target is the main focus of the article. It is explicitly mentioned with the statement: “The United Nations set a lofty goal in the 1970s for wealthy countries to give away 0.7 percent of their gross national income (GNI) as development assistance.” The article then details how Spain passed a law “promising to rebuild its aid agency and bump up spending to 0.7 percent of GNI by 2030.”

2. Target 3.3

   “By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.”
   The article directly relates foreign aid to this target by discussing funding for “preventing tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria” and supporting “the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.” It also mentions the risk of increased “new cases of infectious diseases like Ebola and Marburg” due to aid cuts.

3. Target 5.1

   “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.”
   This is addressed through Spain’s allocation of aid. The article states that Spain’s increased budget provides “more money for… LGBTQ rights in Paraguay,” which is a key aspect of ending discrimination. The broader mention of promoting “gender equality” also aligns with this target.

4. Target 10.2

   “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.”
   The funding for “LGBTQ rights in Paraguay” is a direct action towards this target. Furthermore, the article’s discussion of moving away from a “paternalistic” aid model toward one “built on shared priorities and mutual respect” supports the political inclusion of recipient countries in their own development.

5. Target 13.a

   “Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually… to address the needs of developing countries…”
   While the $100 billion figure isn’t mentioned, the principle of this target is clearly identified. The article notes that Spain’s development plan includes funding for “climate resilience projects in Morocco and Algeria” and that one of its key priorities is “combating climate change,” reflecting the commitment of developed countries to finance climate action in developing nations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 17.2.1: Net official development assistance (ODA) as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI)

  The article is replete with this specific indicator. It provides exact figures for multiple countries:

  • Spain’s commitment to reach “0.7 percent of GNI by 2030” and its current spending of “0.25 percent.”
  • Ireland spending “0.57 percent of its GNI.”
  • Italy spending “0.28 percent.”
  • South Korea spending “0.21 percent.”
  • The US spending projected to fall to “just 0.13 percent of its GNI.”

  The article also uses total dollar amounts as an indicator, such as the global development pot shrinking “by $35 billion, in 2025” and Spain’s budget of “$4.4 billion last year.”

• Indicator 3.3.1 (New HIV infections), 3.3.2 (Tuberculosis incidence), 3.3.3 (Malaria incidence)

  The article provides quantifiable metrics that serve as direct indicators for progress on these diseases. It states that “Every $100 million spent on preventing tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria helps prevent about 2.2 million new infections total.” It also provides a negative indicator, projecting that US aid cuts “could cause 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases like Ebola and Marburg each year.”

• Implied Indicators for Social and Climate Programs

  For targets related to gender equality (5.1), social inclusion (10.2), and climate action (13.a), the article implies that an indicator of progress is the existence and funding of specific programs. The mention of “more money for climate resilience projects in Morocco and Algeria, LGBTQ rights in Paraguay, and HPV vaccine campaigns” serves as a qualitative indicator that resources are being allocated to meet these goals.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: vox.com