Posts

,

Support for Developing Nations: Encourage the UK Aid Pledge

UK Aid PledgeIn December 2024, the U.K. pledged aid to various developing nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to help stop the spread of global poverty. About £34 million in humanitarian aid going to countries including Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, the DRC, Somalia, Myanmar, and Bangladesh.

Additionally, approximately £61 million will support communities and fund essential programs, including health, improved infrastructure and natural disaster prevention, such as the World Food Program (WFP) initiatives. The International Development Association (IDA) is also assisting in the allocation of foreign aid to developing nations.

UK Aid Pledge to Decrease Poverty

The U.K.’s pledge can help developing nations and encourage their growth, both economically and in resilience when issues occur. IDA has agreed to help facilitate the increased relief from the U.K. to support poverty reduction and uplift projects with the funding received, according to the World Bank.

Developed nations such as the U.K. making essential humanitarian aid such as this is not only crucial to poverty reduction, but also for improving the quality of life for the developing nations receiving the aid. Millions of euros of aid go into providing essential services for developing nations. To name a few: Palestinian refugees receive £13 million, Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh receive £5 million, and Somalia receives up to £5 million.

Keeping the Promise

When the earthquake in Myanmar happened, £10 million in funding helped support the people in need of assistance. This mobilization of support has helped Myanmar rise from the earthquake and prevent the crisis from worsening. The U.K.’s foreign aid support and arrival had not only mitigated adversity, but it also saved more lives.

The U.K. keeping its pledge is critical in this circumstance; the funds that go into preparing for natural disasters and conflicts are vital for protecting the people of developing nations from recovering from these events. Currently, the £1.98 billion in pledged funds are under review.

Maintaining the UK Aid Pledge

The U.K. promised at the end of 2024 to fill in the shoes left behind from cuts across developed nations. This can be the U.K.’s chance to help millions in the Middle East, Africa and Asia improve their life outcomes.

As shown by the Myanmar example, foreign aid can help developing nations recover faster from incidents such as the earthquake, and uplift those in worsening poverty situations. The U.K. is on the right track with its pledge to dozens of countries to relieve citizens of developing nations and to prevent them from spiraling into poverty.

– Anastasia Flerchinger

Anastasia is based in Richland, WA, USA and focuses on Good News and Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Flickr

, ,

UK Foreign Aid Shift Risks Global Poverty Efforts

UK Foreign Aid Shift Risks Global Poverty EffortsThe United Kingdom’s (U.K.) foreign aid budget and international policies continue to shift, sparking concerns about their impact on global poverty alleviation. The government has committed to maintaining aid at 0.5% of Gross National Income (GNI) until at least 2029. However, critics argue that reallocating aid resources limits the reach of poverty-focused initiatives worldwide.

Aid Budget Cuts and Spending Priorities

Since 2020, the U.K. has reduced its foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. This cut remains in place despite earlier promises to restore the higher level when economic conditions improve. A significant portion of the current aid budget now covers in-donor refugee costs. In 2022, 29% of total Official Development Assistance (ODA) supported domestic refugee programs. That percentage increased further in 2023 due to rising migration and asylum pressures. These changes have fueled debates about whether the U.K. has diverted funds meant for international aid toward internal expenditures.

Cutting Global Health Funding

The U.K. also plans to reduce its contributions to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi), an organization that has vaccinated more than a billion children in developing countries and prevented nearly 18 million deaths over the past 25 years. As U.K. funding declines, Gavi’s capacity to distribute vaccines in vulnerable regions weakens. Aid organizations warn that these cuts could reverse progress in child mortality reduction and burden already fragile health care systems.

Tougher Refugee Citizenship Policies

The U.K. government has tightened refugee policies, making it harder for those arriving through unauthorized routes to gain British citizenship. Refugees who entered the country irregularly now face disqualification from citizenship applications. Critics argue that this policy contradicts the 1951 Refugee Convention and leaves many asylum seekers in legal limbo without a clear path to permanent residency.

Military Aid vs. Development Aid

While the U.K. reduces funding for health and humanitarian programs, it has significantly increased military assistance. Since February 2022, the U.K. has committed £12.8 billion in support to Ukraine, including £7.8 billion for military aid. In 2024/25 alone, the U.K. pledged £4.5 billion in military support. This shift reflects a growing focus on security rather than direct development initiatives, raising questions about the balance between defense spending and poverty reduction efforts.

The Future of UK Aid

The U.K.’s evolving aid priorities highlight an ongoing debate about the nation’s role in global development. The government defends its spending decisions, citing economic constraints and domestic pressures. However, critics argue that cutting aid to health, education and humanitarian projects undermines the U.K.’s leadership in poverty reduction and global health initiatives.

Looking Ahead

The Labour government, elected in July 2024, has emphasized poverty reduction, climate finance and gender equality as key aid priorities. Officials plan to release spending strategies for 2025/26 in the summer of 2025, with expectations of further refinements to aid allocation. The U.K.’s climate, humanitarian and health-related aid programs will likely face continued scrutiny amid shifting budget priorities. As international needs grow due to climate change, global health crises and conflict, the direction of U.K. aid could play a crucial role in shaping the future of vulnerable communities worldwide. Ensuring aid allocation aligns with poverty reduction goals remains essential to sustaining progress in global development.

– Arianna Distefano

Arianna is based in London, UK and focuses on Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Flickr

, ,

Urgent Humanitarian Aid: UK Government Pledges £61 Million

Urgent Humanitarian AidIn December 2024, the U.K. government pledged £61 million for urgent humanitarian aid. The Development Office has designated the money for addressing humanitarian crises caused by escalating conflict in the Middle East, the tropical cyclone Chido and to aid internally displaced people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Cyclone Chido

The U.K. government designated up to £5 million to aid those that cyclone Chido in Mozambique affected. Cyclone Chido hit Mozambique in December 2024, with winds of more than 200 km/h an hour and 176 mm of rainfall within 24 hours, causing widespread destruction. Chido marked the beginning of the South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclone season.  According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Chido has been the worst cyclone to hit the region in about 90 years. High wind speeds, heavy rainfall and storm surges accompany cyclones, which leads to widespread damage and flooding. Chido’s destruction injured 768 people with more than 622,00 people affected by the cyclone.

The cyclone has destroyed more than 35,000 homes and affected more than 90,000 children in Cabo Delgado in Northern Mozambique, according to UNICEF. Along with homes, the cyclone severely damaged classrooms and health facilities. Cabo Delgado has seen seven years of brutal conflict, which displaced more than 1.3 million people, the majority of which were women and children, before Cyclone Chido wreaked havoc in Mozambique. There are currently 4.8 million people in need of humanitarian assistance in Mozambique, of which 3.4 million are children.

The U.K. aims to reach about 350,000 people in need of humanitarian assistance in Mozambique by providing immediate shelter, clean water and sanitation. Further, the £5 million designated for humanitarian relief in Mozambique aims to ensure that the country is better prepared for the rest of the 2024-2025 cyclone season by coordinating with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, according to the U.K. Government.

Bangladesh

The U.K. Government committed £5 million of humanitarian aid for Bangladesh to provide shelter, healthcare and clean water in the Rohingya refugee camps. The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority group residing in predominantly Buddhist Myanmar, where they are not recognized by the state and denied citizenship. As of August 2024, about 1 million Rohingya have sought refuge in Bangladesh after fleeing from prosecution in Myanmar. The U.K. government has given urgent humanitarian relief to the UNHCR, the IOM and UNICEF.

Somalia

The Development Office has designated another £5 million to support the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and its efforts in Somalia to provide emergency assistance, basic health care, food and water. The ICRC has been operating in Somalia since 1977 and provides humanitarian relief to families in Somalia that are affected by years of armed conflict and climatic shocks.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Another £5 million will be given to the World Food Programme (WPF) to support its efforts in the DRC, where currently 25.6 million people are facing crisis and emergency levels of food insecurity. The DRC faces one of the largest hunger crises in the world. Armed conflicts within the country have displaced a large part of the population and hunger continues to grow. The U.K.’s aid will deliver assistance to about 48,000 people and help address their immediate needs.

Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger

Due to the ongoing food crisis in the Sahel region, the U.K. Government aid package designated up to £8 million to provide food assistance in partnership with the ICRC, which is providing humanitarian aid in the region due to ongoing droughts and soaring food prices, which have exacerbated food insecurity in the region, Currently more than 3 million people in Niger and 3 million people in Burkina Faso are facing emergency food insecurity.

Myanmar

The U.K. Government has allocated a further £11 million of aid to address the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. The money will provide lifesaving treatments for malaria and provide access to lifesaving sexual health and maternal health treatments. Myanmar has a maternal mortality ratio of 282 compared to the Southeast Asian average rate of 140. This means that out of 100,000 live births, there are 282 related deaths. Most of these deaths are related to postpartum bleeding, unsafe abortion and sepsis, which with the right treatment and care are mostly preventable.

Middle East

The U.K. government dedicated £22 million of aid, the largest portion of the package, to address the escalating crisis in the Middle East, which came shortly after the Prime Minister allocated £13 million to UNRWA on December 11, 2024, supporting essential services for Palestinian refugees across the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Later in December, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary committed over £60 million to aid Syrians through various UN humanitarian funds and the U.K. Aid Fund for Northern Syria, according to the U.K. Government.

Addressing Humanitarian Crises

This urgent humanitarian aid package demonstrates the U.K. government’s continued commitment to addressing humanitarian crises worldwide through strategic partnerships with U.N. agencies and international organizations like the ICRC, WFP and UNICEF. The distribution of funds across multiple regions reflects a balanced approach to global humanitarian assistance, with particular emphasis on immediate crisis response in the Middle East, climate disaster relief in Mozambique, and addressing food insecurity in the Sahel region. However, this commitment operates within the context of the U.K.’s reduced overseas aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP, raising questions about the scale of future humanitarian interventions despite the government’s evident willingness to respond to urgent global crises.

– Salome von Stolzmann

Salome is based in London, UK and focuses on Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Unsplash

, ,

Impact of UK Foreign Aid Cuts on Global Health and Education

Impact of UK Foreign Aid Cuts on Global Health and EducationThe United Kingdom (U.K.) government’s recent decision to reduce Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending has raised significant concerns among global aid organizations and policymakers. Announced in the 2024 Autumn Budget, this reduction lowers the U.K.’s aid commitment from 0.58% to 0.5% of Gross National Income (GNI) for the next two fiscal years, slashing approximately £2 billion from foreign aid funding. These U.K. foreign aid cuts bring the budget down to £13.3 billion in 2024-25 and £13.7 billion in 2025-26, reducing resources for global health, education and poverty alleviation programs.

Impact on Health Programs

Reducing U.K. foreign aid is expected to significantly impact health initiatives supporting some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. For decades, U.K. foreign aid has funded essential health programs, including vaccination campaigns against diseases like malaria, HIV and tuberculosis and maternal and child health services.

The U.K., for example, has been a major contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. In 2022, the U.K. pledged £1 billion to the Global Fund over three years. This funding has helped provide antiretroviral therapy to about 23 million people living with HIV, distribute 133 million insecticide-treated nets to prevent malaria and detect and treat 5.5 million cases of tuberculosis. The cuts can potentially reduce the U.K.’s contribution, impacting these life-saving interventions.

Vaccination and Disease Prevention

Reduced funding could immediately affect vaccination and disease prevention efforts in low-income regions. U.K. aid or ODA has been instrumental in helping programs such as the Global Fund and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to supply vaccines and improve health infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa and other high-need areas. With less funding, these organizations may struggle to provide adequate immunization, increasing the risk of outbreaks.

Maternal and Child Health

Programs focusing on maternal and child health are likely to face significant challenges due to the cuts. An assessment by civil servants warned that thousands of women will die in pregnancy and childbirth and hundreds of thousands more will face unsafe abortions because of cuts to the U.K.’s foreign aid budget. For instance, the U.K. has been a key supporter of UNICEF’s maternal and child health programs.

In 2022, the U.K. contributed £39 million to UNICEF’s core resources. These funds have supported initiatives like providing skilled birth attendants and essential newborn care in low-income countries. A reduction in funding could limit the reach of these critical services, potentially affecting maternal and child mortality rates.

Clean Water and Sanitation

The U.K. has long supported clean water and sanitation initiatives in low-income regions. Reduced funding could limit the scale of these programs, compromising access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation in areas that need it most. This, in turn, could lead to a rise in preventable illnesses linked to poor water quality and inadequate hygiene.

Impact on Education Programs

The U.K. foreign aid cuts are also expected to have a significant impact on education initiatives in developing countries. These programs have been crucial in improving access to primary education, particularly for girls and children in remote areas.

A specific initiative that could be affected is the Girls’ Education Challenge (GEC), funded by the U.K. government. Since 2012, the GEC has supported up to 1.5 million girls in 17 countries to improve their learning outcomes and find pathways for progression. The program has been particularly effective in conflict-affected areas like South Sudan and Afghanistan.

Reduced funding could limit the scope and reach of such transformative programs. Moreover, support for education has been particularly affected by previous cuts, dropping from a high of 13.5% of the aid budget in 2013 to just 3.7% in 2022. Further reductions could exacerbate this trend, potentially leaving millions of children without access to quality education.

U.K.-funded programs have been instrumental in promoting girls’ education in many countries. The cuts may limit the reach of initiatives aimed at keeping girls in school, potentially affecting gender equality in education and long-term economic opportunities for women. 

Organizations Working to Mitigate the Impact

Despite the challenges posed by these cuts, several organizations are working tirelessly to mitigate the impact. Education Cannot Wait (ECW) is one such organization, a global fund dedicated to education in emergencies and protracted crises. ECW is actively mobilizing resources and partnerships to ensure that children in the most vulnerable situations continue to have access to quality education.

In 2022, ECW investments reached 7 million children and adolescents – 48% of whom are girls – with quality education in 32 crisis-affected countries. The organization has also leveraged an additional $1.1 billion in co-funding toward these programs. Such efforts demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the international development community to finding innovative solutions in the face of funding challenges.

Looking Ahead

While the U.K. foreign aid cuts pose significant challenges to global health and education programs, the international development community remains committed to finding innovative solutions. By supporting organizations like ECW and advocating for sustained investment in global development, organizations and individuals could work toward ensuring that the world’s most vulnerable populations continue to receive the support they need.

– Isabel Gallagher

Isabel is based in Dorset, UK and focuses on Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Flickr

, ,

The UK’s Response to the Humanitarian Crisis in Lebanon

humanitarian crisis in LebanonThe reignition of conflict between Israel and Palestine marked October 2023. Whilst the aggression between these two regions caught the attention of the international community, the conflict also resurfaced historic tensions along the Israel-Lebanon border which has escalated to military raids and missile attacks between Hezbollah and Israel as of the end of September 2024. According to Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati, air strikes have already displaced 1 million Lebanese citizens. This article will highlight how the U.K. responded to this new humanitarian crisis in Lebanon.

UK Government Donation to UNICEF in Lebanon

The British government announced it was donating £5 million to UNICEF to support the response to the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon. The package aims to address the needs of those displaced, including 74,000 children. To reach those displaced in Lebanon the money, sent on September 27, 2024, will go towards medical supplies, hygiene kits and fuel for water stations. The aid also includes training for emergency teams to respond to health and nutrition needs.

UNICEF currently has 35 shelters in Lebanon, which can host more than 14,000 people. Since the majority of these shelters are public schools the rising conflict has disrupted children’s learning. Despite this, UNICEF has delivered 26,380 liters of bottled water, 2,900 sleeping bags and two large high-performance tents to support demands for shelter.

The Development Director and Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy Beirut, Victoria Dunne welcomed the news on the UNICEF donation and stated: “We are profoundly saddened by the civilian deaths in Lebanon. The number of casualties and the scale of displacement is distressing…The U.K. has been and will remain a strong supporter of Lebanon.”

Poverty Rates and Humanitarian Crisis in Lebanon

Before the violence between Israel and Lebanon resurfaced, the country was already battling rising poverty rates. According to the World Bank, the level of poverty in the Middle Eastern country has “more than tripled over the last decade” and currently affects 44% of the population, as of May 2024. The World Bank recommends various interventions to reduce poverty in Lebanon. This includes implementing a social safety net, and macro-fiscal reforms to support price stability, allow space for social spending and make public transportation more accessible so citizens can reach public services such as healthcare.

The conflict could further damage Lebanon’s economy; the potential decline in tourism rates could produce a $450 million loss alongside the real estate and foreign direct investment sector, totalling $550 million in losses. This bleak economic forecast resulting from this conflict could exacerbate pre-existing poverty and humanitarian crisis in Lebanon unless a strong infrastructure and aid can support vulnerable citizens.

The UK’s Role in Lebanon’s Development

The U.K. has long played a role in assisting in social and economic development in Lebanon. This includes trade deals such as an agreement in 2019 between the two countries which led to Lebanon becoming the U.K.’s 100th largest trader in 2022.

Lebanon has also been a key beneficiary of the U.K.’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) program receiving £804 million from 2010-2021, where 94% was given for humanitarian purposes. The U.K. also led a Community Stability Program to alleviate tensions between Lebanese and refugee communities by strengthening institutional responses to community conflict.

The Conflict Moving Forward

Though it is unclear how long the conflict between Lebanon and Israel will last, the rates of death and internal displacement are continuously increasing. As of September 10, 2024, the death toll from Israeli attacks was 589. However, since then the number of casualties and displaced persons has increased as Israel has carried out around 1,600 strikes in Lebanon whilst Hezbollah has launched 200 rockets towards Israel.

The U.K.’s legacy of humanitarian and development support to Lebanon should indicate that the British government will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to Lebanon should the crisis continue. The donation of £5 million to UNICEF will help international organizations working in the country to house the displaced and protect vulnerable groups such as children.

– Sofia Brooke

Sofia is based in Oxfordshire, UK and focuses on Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Flickr

Mobile Money for Remittances

Mobile Money for RemittancesCurrently, more people are using mobile phones in sub-Saharan Africa than in the United States (U.S.). In December 2016, the region had 420 million unique mobile subscribers, but the actual number of people with access to mobile phones is likely larger, since this refers only to individual SIM connections, and it is often the case that a whole household will share one phone.

Although this level of mobile access has been rapidly growing in Sub-Saharan Africa, the trend does not apply to financial services. As of 2021, only 40% of adults had a bank account, with banks being located predominantly in cities. The wake of mobile money has transformed the financial landscape and has allowed for financial inclusion for the most impoverished. In particular, mobile money for remittances is removing obstacles to remittance aid.

Costly Financial Transactions

Transferring money to and within Africa poses several challenges.

For those living in rural communities, money transfers are almost always cash-based and require either in-person delivery or an intermediary, such as bus drivers. These processes are time-consuming, often costly and involve high levels of risk.

Essentially, many African migrants sending money (known as remittances) home to their families face significant challenges. Even if they themselves have access to mobile money for remittances, transferring them is extremely costly. The cost of sending money to some African countries is as high as 20% of the transferred amount. To avoid paying such high fees, migrants often resort to more informal means, thus exposing themselves to theft or fraud. This often results in them losing money to fraud or transactional costs, and their intended recipients never receiving the hard-earned money.

Establishing a stable system and lowering the cost of sending remittances to Africa is of even greater concern when considering its significance as an aid source for African families. As of 2022, remittance flows to Africa stood at $100 billion. It therefore accounts for more financial aid than either Official Development Assistance (ODA) or Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

It is therefore evident that the costs of financial transactions are hampering Africa’s growth.

Mobilizing Money

A recent study by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) of the U.K. government has cited that “it is possible that mobile money opens the door to structural change and economic development.” The study took place in Mozambique and focused on rural households since most poverty in Africa is in rural areas.

By closely monitoring the process of introducing mobile money to an area that had previously only operated on a cash basis, the study yields significant findings. The findings focus on how mobile money could increase migration and therefore is likely to drive urbanization.

Moreover, improving mobile money for remittances is key to the process of empowering individual households. By increasing the stability and safety of such platforms, and closely managing these services, financial transactions have the potential to become cheaper and easier for those sending money back to their families.

The FCDO report also finds that having the stability of mobile money access, there is a higher probability of a migrant emerging from the household, and thus of receiving remittances. It concludes, “the expansion of mobile money services should be a priority for policy.”

Multiplying the Effects of ODA

The FCDO’s research into this topic is promising as an area of government interest. In the most recent White Paper for International Development, the U.K. Foreign Office stated that ODA budgets strategically “unlock larger volumes from other sources.” Investing in lowering the cost of using financial services can decrease obstacles for migrants who are using mobile money for remittances and sending money to their households. It is, therefore, one such source of multiplying the effect of ODA spending and grants households in Africa the autonomy to achieve financial stability and rise out of poverty.

– Luke Gouldson
Photo: Wikipedia Commons

,

Estonia’s Foreign Aid

Estonia's Foreign Aid
Estonia is a Baltic country located in Northern Europe, which gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Although it is a newly independent country, Estonia has a developed economy with its globally known advanced digital services industry. Being an EU member state since 2004 and an OECD member state since 2010, Estonia’s economy is growing. The country’s GDP in 2021 was $51,531 billion, with $38,700 per capita, according to The CIA World Factbook.

How is Estonia’s Foreign Aid Organized?

Estonia’s foreign aid focus on two aspects, which are development cooperation and humanitarian assistance. Between 2020 and 2030, Estonia is providing development assistance, in particular to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova in Europe and to Botswana, Kenya, Namibia and Uganda in Africa. Estonia’s priorities in its development aid are ensuring peace, security and stability, diminishing poverty in target countries, and sharing its development experience with them in line with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that Estonia’s foreign aid serves not only the development of other countries but also Estonia’s own security. To realize this purpose, two institutions are in charge of organizing Estonia’s foreign aid. On the one hand, the Department for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia is the policy maker of the country’s official development assistance program. It sets strategies, and short-term and long-term action plans both for development assistance and humanitarian aid. On the other hand, Estonia Centre for International Development is responsible for implementing Estonia’s foreign aid projects both in development cooperation and in the field of humanitarian assistance, increasing Estonia’s participation in international aid projects and providing a bridge between the stakeholders and the beneficiaries. The centre is delivering its duties in a way that best serves the country’s interest.

The Amount That Estonia Spends on Foreign Aid

Although Estonia organizes its foreign aid professionally, when it comes to numbers, Estonia does not meet the international standards for official development assistance (ODA) amount. In 1970, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DCA) set its ODA target for the first time that member countries should spend 0.7% of their GDP on their ODA programs. There has been no change in this target since then. Additionally, the member states who were members of the EU by 2004 agreed in 2005 to meet this target by 2015. Despite the fact that Estonia joined the EU only in 2004 and received an exemption from the aforementioned commitment, as an OECD member country, Estonia is still under the obligation of sparing an amount for its ODA equal to 0.7% of its GDP.

Estonia used to increase the ratio of its GDP spared for foreign aid. According to Estdev, in 2016, Estonia allocated 0.19% of its GDP for foreign aid, its record so far. Following that, between 2017 and 2020, Estonia spared 0.16% of its state budget for its ODA program. Lately, in 2021 Estonia increased this ratio to 0.17%, which is equal to $59 million, according to OECD.

The Future of Estonia’s Foreign Aid

It is a positive sign that the COVID-19 pandemic did not prevent Estonia from continuing its foreign aid activities at the same level. Moreover, the Estonian government pledged to increase the rate spent on foreign aid to 0.33% by 2030, according to its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, this target is far from the OECD ODA target.

 – Murathan Arslancan
Photo: Flickr

Japan’s Support to Ukraine During Invasion

Japan’s support to UkraineSince Feb. 24, 2022, Ukraine has been in armed conflict with Russia, which has caused significant deterioration in Ukraine’s economy and an increase in poverty. However, the international community has been quick to come to Ukraine’s assistance. In particular, Japan has provided several essential services to Ukraine through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Here is a breakdown of Japan’s support to Ukraine since the recent escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Poverty Increase in Ukraine

The humanitarian situation in Ukraine has worsened significantly since the start of the conflict. Approximately 34% of households reported having no income or relying on assistance as of April 2022. The country’s unemployment rate has drastically increased to 34% in 2022, according to the National Bank of Ukraine. However, the actual rate is likely more severe as “so many people in Ukraine had undeclared jobs before the invasion,” NPR says. This is a stark increase from the 8.9% unemployment rate recorded in 2021, according to World Bank data.

This increase corresponds to a third of the population suffering from food insecurity. Food insecurity affects some oblasts (provinces) more severely than others, with provinces in the east and south reporting food insecurity rates of 50%. Luhansk notes the highest food insecurity rates across all oblasts. Further, the Ukrainian economy is projected to contract by close to 32% by the end of 2022.

The easternmost oblasts of Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk are disproportionately affected by the conflict. A greater presence of landmine contamination, continued damage to infrastructure and a generally higher risk of Russian targeting makes these areas less accessible for aid and commerce.

JICA Support

Japan’s support of Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict has three focal points:

  1.  Assistance to attain financial stability.
  2. The “improvement of people’s lives and environment.”
  3. The “promotion of autonomous governance and internal reconciliation.”

The first measure the JICA took to help Ukraine in March 2022 came in the form of “a needs assessment survey team for humanitarian and medical assistance,” the JICA website says. The JICA dispatched this medical team to Moldova to assist with the influx of Ukrainian refugees. The team collaborated with the World Health Organization and the Moldovan Health Ministry to help strengthen already existing systems and also provide advice on resource allocation and data management as the crisis continues to unfold.

ODA Loans

Additionally, on May 16, 2022, the JICA signed an Official Development Assistance (ODA) contract, giving a 13 billion Japanese yen loan to support Ukrainian economic stability. However, this amount was not adjusted in light of the scope of the war, and so, on June 17, Japan modified the original ODA to give an additional 65 billion yen to Ukraine. This combined total is equivalent to a 78 billion yen loan. As stated on the JICA website, the loan’s goals include “fostering de-monopolization and anticorruption institutions, strengthening land and credit markets and bolstering the social safety net… by offering financial assistance to Ukraine, which is facing an economic crisis due to the impact of a military invasion.”

Lastly, in late June 2022, the JICA gave its first of “a series of online seminars” designed to help advise Ukrainian officials in waste and debris management amid the war. Oblasts that are particular targets of the Russian military have experienced a high level of infrastructural damage, contributing to transportation and waste management issues. Considering Japan’s experience with these matters, the JICA hopes to share its expertise and contribute to Ukraine’s stability and crisis recovery.

Looking Forward

For Ukraine to endure during these times while safeguarding the well-being of citizens, it is essential to sustain support efforts like those demonstrated by the JICA. It is likely that Japan’s support to Ukraine will continue to play a critical role as the war unfolds.

– Xander Heiple
Photo: Flickr

,

What to Know About Japan’s Foreign Aid

Japan’s Foreign Aid
As the world’s third-largest economy, Japan is a global powerhouse. Japan’s foreign aid is also impressive, contributing the fourth largest amount in the world, and the largest in Asia. This article will cover where this aid goes, how effective it is and what Japan plans in its future.

Revising Japan’s Foreign Aid

In tandem with its rise as an economic superpower, Japan became the world’s leading foreign aid donor in the 1980s. However, the international community widely criticized Japan for funding environmentally harmful projects of various corrupt Asian leaders. Japan created its first Official Development Assistance (ODA) charter in 1992, which set out a fairly standard list of goals, such as poverty alleviation and healthcare. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe significantly updated it in 2015 by intermingling military and aid funding together, and explicitly linking Japan’s foreign aid projects with the “prosperity of the Japanese people.”

Infrastructure

Japan’s foreign aid strategy is unique. Bilateral aid constitutes 77% of Japan’s ODA, meaning the Japanese government donates directly to the recipient country without a third-party organization.

This is well above the 59% average of other OECD countries, a collection of the world’s largest donor countries. Of this bilateral aid, 60% comes in the form of loans in comparison to an OECD average of 9%. Japan’s prioritization of infrastructure projects explains these differences. Japan favors infrastructure because of the immediate, tangible benefits it provides and also because these projects provide work for Japanese manufacturing companies.  In 2018, loans going towards infrastructure projects accounted for over one-third of Japan’s total ODA.

Currently, Japan’s largest infrastructure project is a proposed bullet train from Mumbai to Ahmedabad, a distance of around 330 miles. Besides improving transportation between India’s largest city and one of the country’s most important industrial ports, Indian officials expect the construction to create upwards of 90,000 jobs. Japan has pledged to fund 81% of the construction, equivalent to $12 billion USD, on a 50 year, low-interest loan.

Southeast Asia

Japan considers Asia, especially Southeast Asia, a critical region in which to promote Japanese interests through aid. About 57% of Japan’s ODA went to Asian countries in 2018, with India, Bangladesh and Vietnam being the largest benefactors. In this region, infrastructure, renewable energy and education are the three areas receiving most Japanese aid. Japan’s assistance has been instrumental in improving educational opportunities for women and for people living in rural areas.

Territorial disputes between China, Vietnam and the Philippines have recently intensified in the South China Sea. Abe introduced ‘Japan’s Proactive Contribution to Peace’ in his 2015 update of the ODA charter, which allowed Japan to use its aid budget to fund military operations that work towards “peace and stability” in the region. Recent aid packages to Vietnam and the Philippines included surveillance ships and liberal-arts military training. Japan’s intermingling of its de facto military and foreign aid caused some controversy. However, as long as China stays aggressive and powerful in the region, Japan will continue to provide military aid in Southeast Asia.

Healthcare

Healthcare is a growing priority for Japan, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa. With international pressure to allocate more money to the world’s lowest-income nations and away from Japan’s explicit national interest in the Pacific, Abe responded in 2016 at the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) by pledging $30 billion to public and private sector recipients in Africa. At the 2019 conference, Abe launched the Africa Health and Wellbeing Initiative, which aims to improve healthcare using Japan’s extensive healthcare technology.

Japan will give aid through both public and private sectors in what the government calls “Mt. Fuji Shaped Healthcare” that prioritizes basic sanitation before investing in advanced healthcare systems. Japan will customize aid based on the different needs of each country.

On October 3, 2020, Japan gave a $9.4 million grant to Nigeria for medical equipment through the Africa Health and Wellbeing Initiative.

The COVID-19 pandemic refocused international attention on the importance of adequate healthcare. Japan responded in September 2020, committing over $6 billion in both bilateral and multilateral aid (chiefly to UNICEF). This aid will provide healthcare systems, training and vaccine funding for Asian and African countries.

Looking Ahead

The outlook for Japan’s foreign aid is quite positive. Yoshihide Suga, who was elected Prime Minister on September 16, 2020, is not expected to change Japan’s foreign aid policies.

While infrastructure will continue to be the main tenet, Japan’s contributions to poverty reduction and healthcare in sub-Saharan Africa have increased in the past 5 years, and this trend should continue. Additionally, the OECD projects Japan’s total ODA to increase by a modest 3% in 2020. Look for Japan’s foreign aid to grow and diversify, albeit slowly, in the coming years.

– Adam Jancsek
Photo: Flickr

, ,

5 Countries That Show Development Assistance is a Two-Way Street

Development AssistanceThe Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is a division of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It facilitates economic development worldwide, partly by providing financial assistance to developing countries. The DAC currently has 30 members, including the U.S., Japan and the European Union. According to analysis organization DevelopmentAid, 155 countries received development assistance from these members and of other non-member donors in 2018.

Development Assistance Programs

Official Development Assistance (ODA) distributes financial assistance annually to low-income, lower-middle- and upper-middle-income status countries. Eligibility is based on national per capita income. Countries transcend eligibility once they exceed the high-income threshold set by the World Bank for three consecutive years.  The highest Gross National Income (GNI) was $12,376 as of 2018.

Many countries have graduated from being ODA recipients to become donors themselves. Researchers from the Overseas Development Institute found countries become donors when possible both out of morality and the recognition that aid can “lubricate commercial, trade and investment opportunities” for a donor country. But, it’s not just high-income countries that recognize this. Some nations have become development donors even while still being ODA recipients. Below are five such countries that are both aid donors and recipients simultaneously, proving foreign aid is often a two-way street.

Five Countries That Prove Foreign Aid is a Two-Way Street

  1. Brazil. With a 2019 GNI of $9,130 dollars, Brazil is an upper-middle-income country. It is an ODA recipient, receiving about $430 million in net ODA and official aid in 2018. According to the data organization Development Initiatives, Brazil’s biggest donors are Japan, Norway and Germany. Most of its ODA capital is directed to improving water and sanitation, agriculture and food security and infrastructure. However, Brazil has long been a donor nation, too. In 2010, the Brazilian government found that from 2005-2009 the country invested “more than $1.8 billion dollars into international development” efforts. In 2010 alone, Brazil disbursed $1 billion in aid abroad. One year later, it received that same amount itself in ODA financing. Brazil’s donations largely go to Latin America, the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa, particularly for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes.
  2. South Africa. South Africa is an upper-middle-income ODA recipient with a 2018 GNI of $5,750. It received about $915 million in net ODA and official aid in 2018. In 2011, it received $1.5 billion, but it disbursed $209 million, according to Development Initiatives. Accurate assessments of total contributions and contribution breakdowns are hard to acquire because South Africa’s foreign aid programs are managed by various government organizations. Nevertheless, the country has several successful programs like the African Renaissance and International Cooperation Fund, which have steadily increased contributions since launching in 2001. South Africa’s foreign aid primarily fosters development across Africa. Conversely, as an ODA recipient, the country gets most of its ODA aid from the U.S., EU Institutions and Germany. It is directed primarily toward health issues.
  3. India. As of 2018 data, India is considered a lower-middle-income country. Its GNI for 2019 was $2,130, an all-time high for the country. However, as a nation far from the high-income threshold, it still receives substantial foreign aid. In 2018, it received $2.45 billion in ODA and official aid. The biggest ODA donors to India are the International Development Association, Japan and Germany. These funds are primarily spent on improvements in infrastructure, health and education. However, in 2011, while India took the third-largest share of ODA aid with $5.4 billion received, it also became the sixth-largest non-DAC member donor country. It disbursed $787 million toward international development cooperation. India’s contributions primarily support technical and economic development in Africa. 
  4. Chile. Chile was removed from the ODA eligibility list in 2018, having reached high-income status. It remained at $14,670. However, before achieving this status, Chile’s international development cooperation had been bilateral. The country was helping other nations throughout the world. Though its main beneficiaries are in Latin America and the Caribbean, Chile disburses money to a variety of areas for various purposes as needed. For example, it contributed $100,000 toward the crisis in Syria. The OECD estimated that in 2010, Chile’s overall contributions reached $42 million. However, it still received ODA at that time. In 2012, Chile was an upper-middle-income country and received $126 million in net ODA, largely from France and European Union institutions.
  5. Indonesia. With a 2018 GNI of $3,840, Indonesia is a lower-middle-income country that received just under $950 million in ODA and official aid in 2018. In 2011, Indonesia received $3.7 billion, making it the tenth-largest recipient of ODA. Japan is its largest donor. Almost 25% of all aid goes toward improving the country’s infrastructure. Despite still receiving such a large amount of foreign aid, Indonesia is seeing some growth. ODA’s share of national GNI has steadily decreased while government spending has increased. Moreover, in 2019, Indonesia created the Indonesian Agency for International Development to ramp up the country’s own participation in foreign aid. The agency will manage a $283 million endowment fund the government has set aside for development cooperation.

Development assistance benefits both national and global economies because it allows countries that don’t have sufficient funds internally to build domestically as well as participate in trade with other nations. This supports the logic in development aid flowing both ways in several countries. Brazil, South Africa, India, Chile and Indonesia are just five countries that exemplify such a circumstance.

– Amanda Ostuni
Photo: Wikimedia