By Ed Holt
Feb 17 2025 – 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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 17 2025 – On January 19, Israel and Hamas implemented a ceasefire agreement that would end the fighting in Israel and Palestine, see the return of hostages and prisoners, and begin a period of recovery and reconstruction for Palestine. Although the past several weeks have seen a relatively smooth transition and a cessation of hostilities, the prospect of a long-term implementation of the ceasefire remains fragile and there is significant risk of a return to warfare and heightened instability across the Middle East. With the humanitarian situation in Gaza improving for the first time in 16 months, it is imperative that the ceasefire remains in effect.

On February 13, Hamas reiterated that it would release hostages as scheduled in the ceasefire agreement. This came after Hamas informed reporters that it would delay the release of Israeli hostages due to Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid and returning displaced Palestinians to the wrong areas. The first phase of the ceasefire is expected to last 42 days, with Hamas having incrementally released 16 of the 33 hostages.

Later that day, David Mencer, a spokesperson for the Israeli government, informed reporters that the ceasefire would be called off if Hamas didn’t release three hostages by noon on Saturday.

“We’re talking about these Israeli hostages arriving back in Israel. If that does not happen by Saturday, noon, the ceasefire will end and the IDF will resume intense military operations until Hamas is fully defeated,” said Mencer.

U.S. President Donald Trump stated that “all hell is going to break out”, indicating militaristically aggressive consequences for Palestine if the hostages weren’t returned by noon. He also proposed plans to remove Palestinians from the enclave. The comments made by the U.S. and Israeli governments have elicited much concern among the international community on the long-term efficacy of the ceasefire and if a three-phase implementation is feasible.

Raed Jarrar, the Advocacy Director of Democracy of DAWN, opines that these plans are not viable. “ If the world were to submit to President Trump’s plan, there would be far reaching implications for every country, which no one wants. President Trump shows that maximum pressure does not work. All it did was strain Netanyahu to uphold the terms of the ceasefire”, Jarrar told IPS.

According to a situation update from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), currently, 76 Israeli citizens and additional foreign captives remain in Gaza, including a number of deceased hostages. Figures from the Israel Prison Service (IPS) indicate that there are approximately 9,846 Palestinians in Israeli custody, including 1,734 prisoners, 2,941 remand detainees, and 1,802 hostages who are described as “unlawful combatants”. This does not account for the Palestinians who have been in the custody of the Israeli military following October 7, 2023.

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres has indicated that it is imperative that both parties remain dedicated to fulfilling their duties as a return to war would greatly exacerbate the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“We must avoid at all costs the resumption of hostilities in Gaza that would lead to an immense tragedy,” said Guterres. “I appeal to Hamas to proceed with the planned liberation of hostages next Saturday. Both sides must fully abide by their commitments in the ceasefire agreement and resume serious negotiations in Doha for the second phase.”

On February 12, SARI Global, an organization that analyzed trends in geopolitical relations, released a report detailing the possible consequences of a return to hostilities between the two parties. They predict that the ceasefire will likely fall through due to growing frustration between Israel, Palestine, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia, all of whom have different visions of what the future of Palestine should look like. Additionally, it is speculated that in the next few weeks, Hamas could refuse to release more hostages, leading to a “resumption of targeted Israeli military operations, including sporadic airstrikes”.

The report also states that a rise in geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, which includes pro-Palestinian protests in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, could provoke Israel and Hamas to take action that would effectively end the ceasefire.

According to the UN, over two million people in Gaza are fully dependent on humanitarian assistance for basic services. “Conditions in Gaza are dire. Palestinians dealt with extensive brutality for sixteen months. Israel has violated the terms of agreement and blocked fuel, food, and critical resources”, said Jarrar.

However, the ceasefire will likely go through to Phase 2. “Once a ceasefire goes into effect, it is difficult to stop. Israel wants their hostages back so it’s in their best interest to continue,” said Jarrar. He added that Phase 3 is uncertain because once all prisoners are exchanged, Israel might renege on its obligations and continue hostilities in Gaza.

Some political analysts have also expressed skepticism at the long-term feasibility of the ceasefire due to the possibility of a difficult transition from one phase to another.

“The transition from phase one of the deal to the next ones will be a challenge, as Netanyahu and his far-right coalition oppose a formal end to the war and a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip…Ending the war should also be leveraged to advancing an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution. But this, too, is rejected by the current Israeli government, and necessitates leadership change in Israel,” said Nimrod Goren, the President and founder of Mitvim- The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies.

Contrasting interests between the two states also threatens to unravel the ceasefire. For example, the use of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) to rebuild Palestine and provide aid, has been widely contested due to Israel’s long-standing disdain for the organization. Additionally, it is likely that Israel could reject a two-state solution.

“If the third phase of the ceasefire agreement is ever reached, the most critical issue will be on the negotiators’ table: the reconstruction and, therefore, the administration of the Gaza Strip…The Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mohammed Mustafa of Fatah, declared yesterday that the Palestinian Authority (PA) alone should manage the Strip in the post-war period. However, when they are faced with so much destruction on the ground, and if there is genuine UN mediation, it will then be necessary for the two sides to find a modus vivendi,” said Caterina Roggero, a Senior Associate Research Fellow at the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI).

According to the SARI Global report, if the ceasefire were to unravel, there would be ripple effects throughout the Middle East. Regional instability would be heightened, with the most likely ramification being an eruption in hostilities between Yemen and Israel. The Islamist political movement in Yemen, Houthis, would likely resume their attacks in Israel in the Red Sea. Political protests in the Middle East would grow stronger and stoke dissidence and insecurity.

Additionally, the humanitarian situation in Gaza would rapidly deteriorate if hostilities were to continue. If humanitarian aid was shut off from entering the enclave, famine, disease, and starvation would continue to ravage the population.

“It’s a tremendous concern if the ceasefire does not last. You saw the suffering that had happened from October 2023 up until just a few weeks ago, and we do not want to return to that. All efforts need to be made to make sure that this ceasefire, which has been precious to the people of the region and indeed of the wider Middle East, that [the] ceasefire is maintained,” said Farhan Haq, the Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General of the UN.

On February 16, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was in Israel and met with Netanyahu, where they held discussions on several issues including the ceasefire. During a joint press conference, Netanyahu shared that he and Trump are “working in full cooperation and coordination” over a common strategy.

He added: “We can’t always share the details of this strategy with the public, including when the gates of hell will be opened, as they surely will, if all our hostages are not released until the last one of them.”

Rubio said that President Trump has been “very bold about his view on what Gaza should be”. He also remarked that Hamas “cannot continue as a military or a government force”, and that “as long as it stands as a force that can govern…that can threaten by use of violence, peace becomes impossible.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Jessica Corredor Villamil
PARIS, Feb 17 2025 – 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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Deodat Maharaj
GEBZE, Turkiye, Feb 17 2025 – 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: [email protected]

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, US, Feb 17 2025 – Of the approximately 280 million immigrants in the world, the country hosting the largest number is America, the land of immigration. One-fifth of the world’s international migrants reside in the US, with those migrants arriving from nearly every country in the world.

From the country’s very founding in 1776, America’s immigration has greatly influenced the demographic growth, composition and structure of its population.

If immigration to America had ceased after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, when the colonies numbered several million people, its population today would be no more than 143 million. That hypothetical figure is 200 million less than America’s current population of about 342 million (Figure 1).

Source: US Census Bureau and author’s calculations.

With respect to America’s demographic growth, immigrants not only add their own numbers to the country’s population but they also contribute to births whose effects are compounded over time.

America’s fertility rate has declined from nearly four births per woman around 1960 to approximately 1.6 births per woman today. The country’s current fertility rate is well below the needed replacement level of about two births per woman

If future immigration to America were to cease altogether, the US population would stop growing and then after several years, it would begin declining annually throughout the 21st century.

Without future immigration, America’s population is expected to fall below 300 million by 2060. In addition, by the close of the century it would decline further to 226 million, which is two-thirds of its current population size.

However, assuming a continued annual net migration of approximately one million, America’s population is projected to peak at 370 million in the year 2080 and then decline slightly to 366 million by the close of the current century.

With immigration at about one million per year, America’s population is expected to continue representing about 4% of the world’s population throughout the 21st century. Without immigration, America’s population at the close of the century is projected to decline to about 2.6% of the world’s population.

America’s foreign-born resident population in 2024 is estimated at 51.6 million. That figure represents a record high of 15.6% of the country’s total population. If current trends continue, America’s foreign-born population is expected to continue increasing, likely reaching approximately 63 million by the year 2030.

The last time the country’s proportion of the foreign-born reached such a high level was in 1890, when it was 14.8% of America’s population. Furthermore, the current percentage of foreign-born in America of 15.6% is more than three times greater than the record low of 4.7% set in 1970 (Figure 2).

Source: US Census Bureau.

The proportion of births to foreign-born mothers in America has been consistently greater than the percentage of the foreign-born residing in the country. Whereas the proportion of the foreign-born population in America is slightly more than 15%, the proportion of births to foreign-born mothers resident in the US is nearly a quarter, at approximately 23%.

Among the foreign-born resident population in America, about one-quarter of them, or approximately 14 million, are estimated to be unauthorized. Those unauthorized migrants are made up of individuals who overstayed their visa as well as men, women and children who entered the country without authorization.

If all of the unauthorized population were removed from America as the newly elected administration has stated it intends to do, the US population would decline to approximately 328 million.

The ethnic composition of the foreign-born in America has also changed markedly over the past several centuries. Throughout the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, the foreign-born population was predominantly from European countries, e.g., Germany, Ireland, Italy and the UK (Table 1).

Source: US Census Bureau.

In 1900, for example, German immigrants accounted for 26% of America’s foreign-born population, followed by immigrants from Ireland at 16%. By 1970, however, Mexico had moved up among the top five immigrant sending countries, accounting for 8% of the foreign-born. By 1980 Mexico was in first place with 16% of the US resident foreign-born population.

In 2022, the top five countries contributing to America’s foreign-born population were no longer of European origin. The countries of Europe have been replaced by Mexico, India, China, Philippines, and El Salvador, with Mexico accounting for nearly one quarter of the foreign-born in America.

In the remaining decades of the 21st century, the dominant force fueling America’s demographic growth in the future is expected to be immigration. The reason for immigration’s increasing demographic impact on the size, growth and composition of America’s population is the country’s low fertility rate.

America’s fertility rate has declined from nearly four births per woman around 1960 to approximately 1.6 births per woman today. The country’s current fertility rate is well below the needed replacement level of about two births per woman.

Without immigration, deaths in America are expected to outnumber births by around 2033 largely because fertility rates are expected to remain too low for a generation to replace itself. Consequently by 2080, the annual number of deaths in America is expected to be one million more than the annual number of births.

In addition to its effects on the country’s demographic growth and ethnic composition, immigration also impacts the age structure of America’s population. Without continuing immigration, America’s population would be markedly older in the future than currently being projected.

Assuming net immigration continues to be approximately one million per year, the US population’s current median age of 40 years is expected to increase to 42 years by 2050. Also, the proportion of America’s population aged 65 years or older, which is currently 18%, is expected to increase to 23% by 2050. Without immigration, the median age of America’s population is projected to be 47 years by midcentury and the proportion aged 65 years or older is expected to be 26%.

America’s immigrant heritage has been encapsulated in the famous words penned by Emma Lazarus in 1883 that are inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. In her sonnet, The New Colossus, she wrote: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming short. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”.

As it has been throughout the country’s nearly 250-year history, immigration is expected to continue having important consequences on the growth, composition and structure of America’s population throughout the 21st century and beyond.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.