Southern perspectives on the aid funding crisis: Victor Odero (part I)

Resuming blogging after completing my PhD studies, I find myself confronted with a deep crisis in the aid sector. The dismantling of US foreign aid, coupled with severe funding cuts by major European donors, is an unprecedented blow to international cooperation. Without a doubt, the current situation is a cause of major concern for the future of humanitarian and development aid as we know it. Yet, it also offers a rare opportunity for practitioners and policymakers to rethink the foundations of the aid system altogether. What strikes me, though, is that most opinions tend to come from professionals based in the Global North.  Far fewer voices from the Global South have spoken up on the aid funding crisis. Why, I wonder?

I asked this and many other questions to my former colleague Victor Odero, who is based in Nairobi. Victor has over 20 years’ experience in the development, humanitarian and human rights sectors, including with organisations such as Concern Worldwide, Amnesty International, the International Rescue Committee and Nutrition International. Victor spoke to me in his personal capacity.

Hi, Victor, thank you for agreeing to share your views on the current crisis shaking the aid sector. Why do you think we are not hearing enough reactions from Southern voices?

The system is still in shock from the US funding cuts. People are still reeling from losing their jobs, they are still in the process of returning to their home country… perhaps they haven’t had the time to put their thoughts together. What has happened is having a chilling effect due to the uncertainty about the future of aid. Also, the 90-day review [of USAID programmes by the new US administration] is coming to an end. Maybe people are waiting for the outcome of that review to speak up. I doubt their silence is due to lack of capacity or reflection. It is not unreasonable to want to wait and see what happens. Others may not want to antagonise the new [US] government or may simply be too busy dealing with the operational consequences of the aid freeze to have the time to write about them.

Are you already seeing an impact of the disruption of US funding from your vantage point?

In Kenya alone, we have seen many services being discontinued, especially in the health sector. It’s affecting hundreds of thousands of people. Historically, the Kenyan government has not been able to reach some parts of the country with basic services – these populations have been historically marginalised. Until recently, aid agencies would usually fill the gap in those areas, in line with the original objective of international aid [which is ‘to support the economic development and welfare of developing countries’, according to the official definition of Official Development Assistance, or ODA]. What is happening now is leading me to ask myself: what are the origins of development and humanitarian assistance? We now live in a world where we’re learning that aid should follow geopolitical imperatives. I don’t mean to single out a specific donor government because we are witnessing a trend. There is a growing pattern of linking aid to foreign policy, but what was the original purpose of aid?

As a lawyer, I entered the aid sector from a normative perspective. I wanted to understand the norms underpinning the humanitarian and development system – the Geneva Conventions, the Human Rights Declarations, the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, etc. – which are now coming into question.  My entry point was that humanity had an obligation to provide humanitarian and development assistance. I don’t think what we are witnessing now is the consequence of a particular government’s policy but a systematic and collective departure from the original aid objectives. Perhaps we are witnessing the collapse of the multilateral system; governments are moving away from it. The US government used to play a key role in protecting humanitarian principles but now aid is being used for foreign policy ends.

[We must also consider the situation from the perspective of recipients] Do you think the mother who used to regularly attend health centres for her child, to get medicines and supplements to prevent her child’s wasting… do you think this mother can understand what is happening now? All she sees is that the system has stopped working. This has led me to go back to the basics and question the original objectives of aid.

As you say, other major bilateral donors, too, are cutting their humanitarian and development aid. What do you think the aid community should do to navigate this crisis?

There’s an obvious gap left in these [recipient] countries. Their governments really need to rethink their priorities. I say this with humility: governments may have allocated their resources differently but now they need to invest in social spending. Large infrastructure projects are getting a disproportionate chunk of national resources. We should be seeing a major push on multilateral development banks to make funding available to fill the social spending gap. It’s important for decisionmakers to prioritise spending for social sectors like health and education. Some [recipient] governments are already going back to their budgets and re-prioritising their spending, which is impressive. Heavily indebted countries can use concessional lending to help bridge the gap, at least in the short term. There is no silver bullet to the current resource deficit but an urgent need to reprioritise, particularly in light of dire humanitarian crises in places like Sudan. Lives must be saved, mass displacement and malnutrition must be stopped. This is a major global governance challenge. We can’t continue with business as usual, regardless of the outcome of the 90-day review [of US funding].

One has to speak to the principles of the international aid question: is it time to redefine the purpose of aid and its values? Of course, there are new global challenges – look at the climate crisis and the rise of new global powers like China. These are confounding factors that were not there from the onset for multilateral systems. The world we live in has become multipolar. It is very different from the old days. I don’t know that we should redefine human rights but maybe we should renegotiate the values underpinning aid so that we avoid a situation where aid becomes contingent on foreign policy in the global North. Otherwise, it would be like going back to colonial times.

ODA wields substantial power and must be governed by a set of universally agreed principles. While such principles exist, they must be continuously updated to reflect changing realities—without compromising their foundations. Let’s talk about people, not just crises. What happens to people in times of conflict? The majority are women and children—too often excluded from decision-making. Even in times of peace, their voices are frequently unheard. No doubt trade can boost economic activity and growth, but the problem is that this growth doesn’t happen in a linear way and people fall between the cracks. To argue that ODA should shrink because trade is the new solution and will pull everyone out of poverty is a misrepresentation. It’s not about either trade or aid, but about both trade and aid. It’s not a zero-sum game. Putting money in ODA does not undermine growth. That would be an oversimplification. There is a role for aid to play.

What would be a reasonable allocation of aid resources at national level?

The African Union has agreed to allocate 15% of national budgets to health but so far, only 3-4 countries (Rwanda, for example) have achieved this goal. One way to verify that is to look at the debt burden of African countries. Their debt should reflect their ambition to honour those pledges. But the responsibility also lies with lending institutions. We should ask them what they are doing to support social spending. Multilateral development banks like the African Development Bank may be better to negotiate with. I’m more worried about bilateral donors because the aid they give is more likely to follow geopolitical interests. This is where you need to make the case for multilateral lending, because it tends to be less politicised.

Should we pivot to a new aid model? If so, what should it look like?

The fundamental ODA model is sound but we need to be very honest about the factors leading to its potential distortion. Also, the model is as good as its foundation is strong. The aid model was originally based on a strong UN system but since then, there has been a systematic erosion of the UN. Can it be rebalanced more equitably? Africa is no longer where it was in the mid-1940s, when it was in the middle of independence struggles. Today, the African Union (AU) is more robust, governments are well established and experienced. They have more power to negotiate. We need to reflect on whether the Sustainable Development Goals adequately address the need for equity in the multilateral institutional system. Otherwise, ‘he/she who pays the piper calls the tune’. Wealthier nations should put in more and support a multilateral system that is independent, neutral, impartial and human. Multilateralism should be depoliticised. That was the whole idea when it was established. If you look at the ground norms of the humanitarian system, that’s where the emphasis was. It was never intended to be political.

From an African perspective, it’s about time the African Union convened about the current aid crisis. African governments should put together a common response through the AU.

[to be continued]

Cover photo credit: Victor Odero