Global health organisations have reacted with anger to the new US foreign aid policy, which prohibits all aid recipients, bar military, from performing or

Watch “Rovina’s Choice.” It was January, my final week in the outgoing Administration. In a few days, Donald Trump would be inaugurated as President. I had come to the United States Agency for International Development in early 2022, leaving my surgery practice and public-health research in Boston to lead the agency’s global-health efforts. Now I’d be returning to my previous life. I spent my last days at U.S.A.I.D. in meetings with our civil- and foreign-service leaders, thanking them. Their work with partner countries had helped to contain twenty-one outbreaks of deadly disease, sustain Ukraine’s health system after Russia’s invasion, combat H.I.V., tuberculosis, and polio, and reduce maternal and child deaths worldwide. On a budget of just twenty-four dollars per American—out of the fifteen thousand dollars in taxes paid per person last year—they had saved lives at an almost unimaginable scale. An independent, peer-reviewed analysis in The Lancet estimated that U.S.A.I.D. assistance had saved ninety-two million lives over two decades. Many of the leaders voiced trepidation about what the incoming Administration might bring, but I struck a sanguine note. U.S.A.I.D., I pointed out, had more than sixty years of solid bipartisan backing. Trump had advanced significant parts of the agency’s work in his first term. He had personally pledged to end H.I.V. as a public-health threat by 2030. The incoming Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, had been a vocal supporter of the bureau. There would be isolated partisan skirmishes—over diversity initiatives, abortion-related policies, and the like—but more than ninety-five per cent of our bureau’s work had never been under contention. Clearly, I lacked imagination. Within hours of being sworn in, President Trump signed an executive order for a “pause” to all foreign assistance. Secretary Rubio sent a cable suspending every program outright. No program staff could be paid. No services could be delivered. Medicines and food already on the shelves could not be used. No warning had been given to the governments that relied on them. It was immediately obvious that hundreds of thousands of people would die in the first year alone. But the Administration did not reconsider; it escalated. Elon Musk exulted in swinging his chainsaw. Within weeks and in defiance of legal mandates, he and Rubio purged U.S.A.I.D.’s staff, terminated more than four-fifths of its contracts, impounded its funds, and dismantled the agency. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court did anything to stop it. We are now witnessing what the historian Richard Rhodes termed “public man-made death,” which, he observed, has been perhaps the most overlooked cause of mortality in the last century. Brooke Nichols, the Boston University epidemiologist and mathematical modeller, has maintained a respected tracker of current impact. The model is conservative, assuming, for example, that the State Department will fully sustain the programs that remain. As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children. The toll is appalling and will continue to grow. But these losses will be harder to see than those of war. For one, they unfold slowly. When H.I.V. or tuberculosis goes untested, unprevented, or inadequately treated, months or years can pass before a person dies. The same is true for deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses. Another difficulty is that the deaths are scattered. Suppose the sudden withdrawal of aid raises a country’s under-five death rate from three per cent to four per cent. That would be a one-third increase in deaths, but hard to appreciate simply by looking around. The Administration, for its part, has denied causing widespread harm, even as it has made the scale of the damage harder to measure—halting data monitoring and dismissing the inspectors general who might have documented it. This is common in cases of public man-made death. During Mao Zedong’s disastrous Great Leap Forward, from 1958 to 1961, the Chinese government released no accurate mortality data. Observers abroad understood that a hunger crisis was under way when China began importing grain, but the scale of the catastrophe was not known until the mid-nineteen-eighties, when the first reliable census allowed historians to calculate that between twenty-three and thirty million people had died. A fuller accounting of the fallout from U.S.A.I.D.’s shutdown will probably have to await analysis of the United Nations’ 2025 mortality statistics, which likely won’t appear until 2027. But there are other ways to glimpse the scale of the harm. With a documentary team that includes both American and local journalists, I have been following what has happened in Kenyan communities where U.S.A.I.D. had been active—in an advanced-H.I.V. ward in Nairobi, in primary health-care centers that had sharply reduced malaria, in a refugee camp, and elsewhere. We chose Kenya because I’d done a lot of work there during my tenure, and because it’s on a familiar path of development. Like India, South Korea, and many Latin American countries that the U.S. assisted to advance from low-income recipients of aid to higher-income trade partners, Kenya had reached the lower rung of middle-income status. The country had made dramatic leaps in health-system capacity and life expectancy with the help of a mixture of projects. U.S.A.I.D. supplied medicine, food, and staffing for some of the most desperate and vulnerable, while providing technical assistance and investment to accelerate the country’s expertise in needs ranging from H.I.V. control to primary care. I was especially worried about what would happen to the programs for childhood malnutrition, which, during the past two decades, had made extraordinary progress around the world. In place of a system that waited for emaciated children to reach distant hospital wards, often hours away, we had helped countries bring the front line to where they lived. A community health worker, carrying a tape measure and a scale, could detect danger early at home. A packet of peanut-paste therapeutic food could reverse starvation for the vast majority of severely malnourished children. Hospitals became a backstop for complications and for the frailest cases, while communities worked to strengthen local food sources. The method was simple, frequent, and close at hand: measure the upper arm, check for swelling, provide supplemental nutrition, watch for infection or decline, return the next week. The results were dramatic. Mortality rates for severe malnutrition, once twenty per cent or higher, fell below five per cent. In Kenya, communities we worked with, including refugee camps, saw death rates drop to under one per cent. The United States had played a central role in developing and manufacturing the formula for therapeutic supplements. U.S.A.I.D. then had helped UNICEF, the World Food Programme, local health systems, and other actors scale up the approach worldwide. Globally, under-five child mortality fell by more than half since 2000, in major part owing to the advances in malnutrition treatment, which saved more than a million lives in 2023 alone. Still, most of the world’s malnourished children lack access to these programs. But, instead of trying to close that gap, we are washing our hands of it and reversing the gains. In Kakuma, a vast refugee camp near the South Sudan border, starting in spring, our documentary team followed clinicians and families inside the stabilization unit at Clinic 7, where the sickest children come. Because of the termination of U.S. support, the World Food Programme’s supplies had been reduced to forty per cent of minimum needs, and cases of acute malnutrition had surged. Two-thirds of the clinic’s community health workers were laid off, hobbling the early-detection system that once saved most children before they needed acute care. Clinic 7 is where we met Rovina Naboi, who had fled South Sudan with her family. In our short film, she reveals what it was like trying to keep her desperately ill daughter, Jane Sunday, alive in a system that has broken down. There are valid criticisms of U.S.A.I.D. It sometimes fostered dependency. It could be inefficient. Too much of its funding went to international institutions, rather than to local ones. And its history includes episodes in which aid was bent to American military and political aims—in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Yet no other agency of the U.S. government has saved more lives per dollar. It helped move billions of people out of poverty. And it showed how to deliver results for all of humanity, including Americans, through coöperation, rather than coercion. The destruction of U.S.A.I.D. does nothing to improve this work. Instead, we have public man-made death. And the cruelty and lethality will only grow as the Administration expands its rollback of public-health advances to the homeland. We cannot let the people affected—health workers like those of Clinic 7, families like Rovina Naboi’s—go unseen. And we cannot let the consequences go unaccounted for.

 The Second Vice President Enock Chihana has urged citizens in the country to take an active role in protecting their rights and the rights of others, stressing that the defence of human dignity must begin within families and communities. Speaking on Wednesday in Nkhata Bay, during the commemoration of International Human Rights Day and the official closing ceremony of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence, Chihana said many Malawians still rely on the law and government institutions, forgetting that everyday actions play a critical role in safeguarding rights. The Second Vice President said its sad and shameful that Malawi continues to grapple with human rights violations more than 30 years after returning to democracy in 1964. He said the country should now be shifting its focus to development rather than repeatedly dealing with rights abuses. He further reaffirmed government’s commitment to uplifting people’s welfare, highlighting measures such as the removal of secondary school fees and prioritisation of what he termed the “four Fs”—food, fertilizer, fuel and forex. UN Women Country representative, Letty Chiwara noted that this year’s theme “Human Rights Everyday Essentials” reminds Malawians that rights are not theoretical but central to daily life. In her remarks, Executive Director for the Foundation for Children’s Rights Jennifer Mkandawire observed that although the number of reported child abuse cases is rising, this reflects improved awareness rather than increased violation

 How investing in enablers without production is bad economic policy By Dr Douglas Rasbash – Special Correspondent For decades, Botswana has comforted itself with the belief that investing in enablers is the same thing as investing in growth. Roads, buildings, offices, conference centres, IT platforms, utilities — the list is long and familiar. Every National…

 Sweden will phase out development aid to five countries - Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Mozambique, Liberia and Bolivia - in the coming years as Stockholm redirects resources toward Ukraine, the Swedish government announced on Friday. Minister for International Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Benjamin Dousa said the shift was necessary to meet Sweden’s growing foreign-policy commitments. “Ukraine is Sweden’s most important foreign policy and aid policy priority and therefore the government is going to increase aid to Ukraine to at least $1.06 billion in 2026,” he said, adding pointedly: “There isn’t a secret printing press for banknotes for aid purposes and the money has to come from somewhere.” ADVERTISEMENT According to the government, the redirection of funding will free up more than 2 billion Swedish crowns over the next two years, resources that will be channelled into projects such as rebuilding Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Sweden has already slashed aid to more than ten countries since the right-leaning coalition came to power in 2022 including reductions affecting Burkina Faso and Mali. Although Sweden remains a significant global donor, contributing roughly 56 billion crowns annually over the past three years, it plans to reduce that figure to 53 billion crowns per year for 2026–2028 while also shifting part of the aid budget toward immigration-related costs. A broader reckoning for African aid-dependent economies The announcement adds to mounting anxiety across African nations that rely heavily on foreign development support. ADVERTISEMENT For countries such as Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Mozambique - states grappling with weak fiscal buffers, high unemployment, and post-pandemic slowdowns, Sweden’s withdrawal comes at a time when global aid flows are already under strain. Many African governments now face a deepening funding gap as traditional donors rethink their priorities amid global conflicts, climate pressures and domestic political shifts. This trend mirrors broader realignments in donor countries, including the United States. Under President Donald Trump’s assertive “America First” development posture, Washington has increasingly pushed for aid programs that emphasise “self-reliance,” scaled-back funding envelopes, and tighter conditionalities. ADVERTISEMENT The recent restructuring of U.S. global health and development initiatives, including reduced engagement in several African states following the dismantling of USAID structures reflects the same pattern of shrinking external support for traditional beneficiaries.

Secretary Rubio, I have read your Substack post from 3 December 2025. From the outset, let me extend congratulations to the United States on assuming the G20 Presidency. We offer our sincere wishes for a successful term, one that we hope will serve the cause of global unity and inclusive progress. Substack Post by Secretary Rubio: America Welcomes a New G20 Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines Your words, however, compel me to speak, not merely as a representative of a government, but as a voice from a nation whose very existence is a testament to a profound truth: that the deepest divides can be bridged. Not through dictation, but through dialogue, not through power alone, but through unwavering principle, not through unilateral action but global solidarity. On the Nature of True Leadership South Africa is a founding member of the G20, no single member of the G20 has a unilateral right to exclude South Africa from the G20. You draw a contrast in our approaches to G20 leadership. Let us discuss that contrast honestly, guided by the wisdom that today’s adversary can indeed be tomorrow’s partner in peace. South Africa’s Presidency was built on a simple, powerful belief: that treating Africa and the Global South as equal partners and honestly addressing the systemic macroeconomic issues that impede their growth, is not an act of charity, but a strategic imperative for a stable, prosperous world. We reaffirmed multilateralism and the United Nations because our own liberation was won not in isolation, but through the solidarity of a global community that recognised a shared stake in justice. We understand, in our bones, that the world is an interconnected whole. The poverty, instability, or environmental distress in one corner of it does not remain there; it becomes a burden, or a crisis, for all. The success of our G20 Presidency was a result of the conducive environment for the free flow of ideas that South Africa has created. The people of South Africa created a hospitable environment in the true spirit of Ubuntu, which led to the South African G20 being a people’s G20, and many delegations attested to this in their public comments. For example, as our President Cyril Ramaphosa noted recently in a speech: • A German delegate is said to have commented: “I’ve attended summits on six continents. I’ve never experienced warmth like this.” • A Japanese delegate had this to say: “Your security guards smile while being vigilant. Your drivers share stories while navigating. Everyone, from the protocol officers to the coffee vendors, treats us like welcomed family, not foreign dignitaries.” • A French delegate shared something profound: “We came to discuss economic frameworks. But what we’ll remember is how your people made us feel. That’s not soft power, that’s real power.” World leaders, diplomats, delegates and observers have been sharing their impressions online as well. For example, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, said: “Thanks to the wonderful people of South Africa and the government of South Africa for organising the summit.” The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, praised South Africa’s “incredible hospitality”. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz posted: “In a difficult international environment, it is important to preserve the G20 as a forum for global coordination – and to integrate Africa firmly. Thank you for your hospitality and ambitious presidency in these turbulent times.” The UN Development Programme’s South Africa Representative wrote: “South Africa delivered a G20 that showed the world what African leadership looks like – dignified, strategic and people centred.” It is a matter of public record that the United States chose not to attend our G20 meetings. Given that absence, the notion of our “sabotaging” consensus is not just incorrect, it misunderstands the very purpose of a forum like the G20. Our role as host was not to force agreement, but to create the conditions for it: a table of equals, governed by the spirit of Ubuntu. That spirit, “I am because we are”, is not a slogan. It is the philosophy that steered our nation away from the precipice of bloodshed and towards reconciliation. It is what led delegates from across the world to describe our gathering as a “people’s G20.” True leadership doesn’t mean everyone leaves getting everything they want; it means everyone leaves feeling they have been truly heard. On Our Sovereign Path of Healing You then turn to critique our domestic policies and by extension our national interest. Here, I must speak with clarity, for to misunderstand our journey is to misunderstand the enduring scars of inequality and the long road to healing. South Africa today is governed by a ten-party Government of National Unity not the ANC alone. Ours is a vibrant, contested, and living democracy a definitive repudiation of the tyranny of a single race that once ruled us. Our policies of redress are not a political invention. They are the fulfilment of a promise made to all South Africans as we emerged from the darkness of apartheid. That promise is enshrined in our Constitution, a document born from what many called a miracle of negotiation or to borrow from your Supreme Court Justice, the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the best Constitution in the world. Its Preamble is a vow to “heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.” The Constitution of South Africa enjoins us to transform our society for the better through the rule of law. Thirty years into our democracy, we are not a perfect society, and it is still not uncommon to meet a beneficiary of our transformative policies who is the first of their family, or even their community, to enter a particular profession. That is the living legacy of apartheid a systemic racial inequality that once permeated every walk of life and whose shadows we are still dispelling. Do not take my word for it. Listen to the words of our founding President, Nelson Mandela. In 1997, he stated: “If we are genuinely interested in ending the old social order and bringing in a new one, characterised by justice and equity… the economic power relations represented by the reality of the excessive concentration of power in a few white hands have to change. We make this demand… because we cannot see how it would be possible to pull our country out of an economic crisis… while we perpetuate this power structure.” And in 1995, he reminded us: “With freedom and democracy, came restoration of the right to land. And with it the opportunity to address the effects of centuries of dispossession and denial.” As you can see, in Madiba’s political imagination, reconciliation and redistribution, were two side of the same coin, not opposites nor mutual exclusive. This is the same Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years in prison for fighting that system of racial tyranny, and for much of that time, until the year 2008, his name remained on a United States official list as a “terrorist.” History, we have learned, often renders a different judgment. It reminds us that one nation’s “terrorist” can be another’s, and ultimately, the world’s, moral beacon. It teaches us profound humility in judging the complex, painful journeys of other nations toward justice. Our democratic journey is but 30 years young. It asks an immense task: to dismantle the entrenched architecture of over 300 years of colonialism and apartheid. No nation on earth has performed such radical surgery on itself overnight. We are building, brick by brick, the foundation of a new society. Yes, our economy has faced profound challenges. But new green shoots are emerging historic investments in a just green energy transition, a renewed and systemic fight against corruption, and the resilient determination of a people finally claiming their rightful place in their own land. Emerging from a challenging past, South Africa builds on this to ensure that living standards improve for all. South Africa’s growth performance has strengthened substantially since the end of Apartheid in 1994. For example, in 1994, South Africa’s GDP was R3.6 trillion (in constant 2023 prices), and by 2024, the size of our economy was R7.3 trillion. Indeed, like many countries, we had our domestic challenges, including State Capture, and we are rebuilding from that, but to suggest that our economy is a failure is an exaggeration. I must also state that, because of the democratic government, South Africans, as individuals, are, on average, 1.5 times better off, by monetary measure, than in 1994, the dawn of democracy. More importantly, when we measure using the Human Development Index, which combines health and education indicators, we have advanced from a Medium to a High HDI profile. Today, more than 95 per cent of households have access to electricity, and piped water now reaches close to 90 per cent of households. This was not the case in 1994, when access to basic services was structured along racial lines, with white South Africans given preference over all other groups. Consider this for a moment: in 1994, only 40 per cent of black South Africans had access to electricity, compared with virtually universal access for white households. This skewed picture has only changed because successive democratic administrations did not waver on redistribution. You also state that ” President Trump has rightly highlighted, the South African government’s appetite for racism and tolerance for violence against its Afrikaner citizens have become embedded as core domestic policies. It seems intent on enriching itself while the country’s economy limps along, all while South Africans are subject to violence, discrimination, and land confiscation without compensation.” This could not be further from the truth. In the farming sector you highlight, where Afrikaner farmers continue to dominate and power the country’s food security, along with other farmers, we have made progress. South Africa’s farming sector has more than doubled in value terms since 1994. It saw significant growth from 2000 onward under the democratic government. South Africa is now the only African country in the top 40 global agricultural exporters, and exports are reaching record levels, just under US$14 billion in 2024, and set to surpass this figure in 2025. No country with land grabs and invasion would reap such success. Indeed, we continue land reform through a just and equitable approach to ensure the farming sector is inclusive. We cannot have a farming sector where the majority of African farmers produce only 10% of the commercial output. But to build a shared prosperity environment, the South African government is utilising a market-based principle of land reform and securing property rights. To show that farmers are not threatened, the farming sentiment in the country remains robust, and commercial banks continue to invest in the agricultural sector. This is a show of confidence in our system. We must all appreciate that, given the history of racial discrimination in South Africa, which excluded black people from the mainstream economy and also excluded black people from critical economic areas, the inclusion programmes and prioritisation of Black people’s inclusion remain fundamental, transformation is a Constitutional imperative that the late Former President Mandela stood for. A Final Word of Shared Hope Secretary Rubio, the world is watching. It is growing weary of double standards. It is tired of lectures on democracy from those who seem to have forgotten that democracy, at its best, must listen as much as it speaks. We do not seek your approval for our path. Our path is our own, chosen by our people and guided by our sovereign laws. But we do seek, and we will always extend, a hand of respectful partnership. We believe in a world where nations can disagree yet still find common ground for the sake of a child’s health, a community’s stability, and our planet’s future. That is the world Madiba fought for. That is the world we, in South Africa, are still building every single day. In that spirit of shared humanity and clear-eyed hope, we remain open to dialogue, committed to maintaining our overall relations. Yours in mutual respect,
Minister Ronald Lamola
Minister of International Relations and Cooperation

Country: Madagascar Source: International Organization for Migration  Please refer to the attached file. In July 2025, IOM Madagascar conducted a study on the Solution and Mobility Index (SMI) in the region of Boeny, in the north-west of Madagascar. Carried out with the support of the German Development Cooperation (GIZ) as part of the project "Improving the management of internal migration in the context of climate change in host communities" (PROMIC) which aims to improve the management of mobility related to climate change in the Boeny region and promote governance, sustainable management of natural resources, social cohesion, and the fight against inequality and poverty. This report assesses the stability of 76 localities hosting internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the Great South for climatic reasons. The analysis focuses on four themes: livelihoods and basic services, social cohesion, safety and security, and climate resilience. It identifies the root causes of fragility, challenges and opportunities to guide decision-makers towards sustainable solutions to strengthen the peaceful cohabitation and resilience of host communities and IDPs to achieve a sustainable solution in the Boeny region.

 South Africa's vision to make the G20 deliberations and outcomes resonate with the rest of the continent has resulted in strategic visibility for Africa. The themes of the year-long presidency - solidarity, equality and sustainability - framed South Africa's leadership around wider issues of development and inclusivity. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was a continuous central theme throughout South Africa's 2025 presidency, appearing in many statements, ministerial meetings, working groups and Africa-focused side meetings. The final declaration issued by the G20, read out by President Cyril Ramaphosa at the end of the Leaders' Summit, linked G20 trade and investment cooperation directly to AfCFTA implementation. It acknowledged that regional economic integration, including the AfCFTA, is a key enabler of economic growth, resilience, investment and development. The declaration noted a "G20 Africa Cooperation Agenda on Trade and Investment" promoted by the South African presidency. This is a voluntary and non-binding initiative that is not legally enforceable but provides a roadmap for cooperation and investment. The aim is to mobilise investment into Africa's productive sectors including manufacturing, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals and into infrastructure, with an emphasis on regional infrastructure. The agenda, which includes many existing initiatives, will be overseen by the African Union (AU) and African Development Bank. Africa had an additional voice at the table through the membership of the African Union, this year represented by Angola's president as the current chair of the bloc. The AU's first summit was in 2024 under Brazil's presidency. South Africa has long pressed for the reform of global financial institutions, greater representation of the Global South, and recognition of Africa's economic weight. It was a founding member of the G20 in 1999, chosen on the basis of it being the most sophisticated and diversified economy on the continent. It has, over the past few years, pushed for AU membership to enhance the continent's voice. The lobbying was successful and in 2023, at the G20 summit in India, the AU was granted permanent membership. Among the representatives of 42 countries and institutions that attended the Leaders' Summit in Johannesburg were many presidents from other African countries, including Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Egypt, Namibia and Ethiopia. Ramaphosa met many of them on the sidelines of the main event and in other forums to ensure the G20 legacy is aligned to African development aspirations, the government said. Nigeria hosted a G20 Africa Outreach Meeting on Industrialisation and Agriculture, the first G20 meeting outside South Africa during the year. Common issues for Africa The AfCTA is a central thread that has run through discussions that touched on many of the projects and initiatives announced by and around the G20, covering many other common issues affecting the whole continent. These include industrialisation, climate funding, debt sustainability and the reform of global financial institutions, which aims to ease the burden on African countries and promote growth and development. South Africa established cross-cutting G20 task forces on issues that matter for Africa such as inclusive economic growth, food security and artificial intelligence. Inequality was a key theme at the event. South Africa commissioned an Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality, chaired by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, which produced the G20's first-ever report on global inequality. South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe are among the most unequal countries in the world and the Stiglitz report found that global inequality is worsening, with the wealthiest 1% capturing 41% of all new wealth between 2020 and 2024, and the bottom 50% only 1%. The Africa Engagement Framework is another continental initiative driven under the G20. A multi-year initiative, it is intended to deepen and institutionalise G20 support for Africa's economic and financial development. This also underpins the essence of the AfCFTA. The goal of this legacy initiative is to align G20 financial and economic support with African development priorities - not just on a project-by-project basis, but through coordinated, systemic engagement. It was officially endorsed by G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in October 2025, and South Africa has committed to coordinating and resourcing the initiative until 2030. A complementary initiative, the G20 Compact with Africa, founded in 2017, entered its second phase (2025-2033) at the Johannesburg event and new financing was pledged to mobilise investment in Africa and support structural and business climate reforms. Member countries in Africa must meet reform criteria in order to benefit from it. Zambia and Angola are the newest members, while the World Bank and the African Development Bank act as coordinators and facilitators. Legacy projects Industrialisation was another key platform, focusing largely on critical minerals. South Africa advanced a critical minerals initiative that emphasises value addition, beneficiation, and inclusive supply chains, rather than just extraction. The G20 Critical Minerals Framework emanated from the South African process. It is a voluntary blueprint for international cooperation and provides a template for African countries to follow in pursuing opportunities related to critical minerals. The Ubuntu Legacy Initiative is yet another Africa-focused legacy project to catalyse cross-border infrastructure development, including a toolkit produced by the African Development Bank. Climate issues were a large part of the final G20 leaders' declaration. Issues raised were the need to scale up climate finance, build capacity and transfer technology to developing countries, which would help African nations access more concessional, climate-focused funding. South Africa elevated disaster resilience (especially climate-induced natural disasters) to a leadership issue in the G20, arguing strongly that vulnerable countries (many in Africa) need more support. The summit's final declaration committed the G20 to investing in disaster finance mechanisms such as insurance, risk pools, catastrophe bonds and contingent credit to help countries facing increasing climate-related disasters. It also reaffirmed support for "just transition pathways", which will help African countries to move to low-carbon sustainable models. The initiatives discussed, committed to and drawn up under South Africa's G20 presidency all ensured that Africa's own issues, needs and projects were placed centre stage.

 South Africa's vision to make the G20 deliberations and outcomes resonate with the rest of the continent has resulted in strategic visibility for Africa. The themes of the year-long presidency - solidarity, equality and sustainability - framed South Africa's leadership around wider issues of development and inclusivity. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was a continuous central theme throughout South Africa's 2025 presidency, appearing in many statements, ministerial meetings, working groups and Africa-focused side meetings. The final declaration issued by the G20, read out by President Cyril Ramaphosa at the end of the Leaders' Summit, linked G20 trade and investment cooperation directly to AfCFTA implementation. It acknowledged that regional economic integration, including the AfCFTA, is a key enabler of economic growth, resilience, investment and development. The declaration noted a "G20 Africa Cooperation Agenda on Trade and Investment" promoted by the South African presidency. This is a voluntary and non-binding initiative that is not legally enforceable but provides a roadmap for cooperation and investment. The aim is to mobilise investment into Africa's productive sectors including manufacturing, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals and into infrastructure, with an emphasis on regional infrastructure. The agenda, which includes many existing initiatives, will be overseen by the African Union (AU) and African Development Bank. Africa had an additional voice at the table through the membership of the African Union, this year represented by Angola's president as the current chair of the bloc. The AU's first summit was in 2024 under Brazil's presidency. South Africa has long pressed for the reform of global financial institutions, greater representation of the Global South, and recognition of Africa's economic weight. It was a founding member of the G20 in 1999, chosen on the basis of it being the most sophisticated and diversified economy on the continent. It has, over the past few years, pushed for AU membership to enhance the continent's voice. The lobbying was successful and in 2023, at the G20 summit in India, the AU was granted permanent membership. Among the representatives of 42 countries and institutions that attended the Leaders' Summit in Johannesburg were many presidents from other African countries, including Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Egypt, Namibia and Ethiopia. Ramaphosa met many of them on the sidelines of the main event and in other forums to ensure the G20 legacy is aligned to African development aspirations, the government said. Nigeria hosted a G20 Africa Outreach Meeting on Industrialisation and Agriculture, the first G20 meeting outside South Africa during the year. Common issues for Africa The AfCTA is a central thread that has run through discussions that touched on many of the projects and initiatives announced by and around the G20, covering many other common issues affecting the whole continent. These include industrialisation, climate funding, debt sustainability and the reform of global financial institutions, which aims to ease the burden on African countries and promote growth and development. South Africa established cross-cutting G20 task forces on issues that matter for Africa such as inclusive economic growth, food security and artificial intelligence. Inequality was a key theme at the event. South Africa commissioned an Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality, chaired by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, which produced the G20's first-ever report on global inequality. South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe are among the most unequal countries in the world and the Stiglitz report found that global inequality is worsening, with the wealthiest 1% capturing 41% of all new wealth between 2020 and 2024, and the bottom 50% only 1%. The Africa Engagement Framework is another continental initiative driven under the G20. A multi-year initiative, it is intended to deepen and institutionalise G20 support for Africa's economic and financial development. This also underpins the essence of the AfCFTA. The goal of this legacy initiative is to align G20 financial and economic support with African development priorities - not just on a project-by-project basis, but through coordinated, systemic engagement. It was officially endorsed by G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in October 2025, and South Africa has committed to coordinating and resourcing the initiative until 2030. A complementary initiative, the G20 Compact with Africa, founded in 2017, entered its second phase (2025-2033) at the Johannesburg event and new financing was pledged to mobilise investment in Africa and support structural and business climate reforms. Member countries in Africa must meet reform criteria in order to benefit from it. Zambia and Angola are the newest members, while the World Bank and the African Development Bank act as coordinators and facilitators. Legacy projects Industrialisation was another key platform, focusing largely on critical minerals. South Africa advanced a critical minerals initiative that emphasises value addition, beneficiation, and inclusive supply chains, rather than just extraction. The G20 Critical Minerals Framework emanated from the South African process. It is a voluntary blueprint for international cooperation and provides a template for African countries to follow in pursuing opportunities related to critical minerals. The Ubuntu Legacy Initiative is yet another Africa-focused legacy project to catalyse cross-border infrastructure development, including a toolkit produced by the African Development Bank. Climate issues were a large part of the final G20 leaders' declaration. Issues raised were the need to scale up climate finance, build capacity and transfer technology to developing countries, which would help African nations access more concessional, climate-focused funding. South Africa elevated disaster resilience (especially climate-induced natural disasters) to a leadership issue in the G20, arguing strongly that vulnerable countries (many in Africa) need more support. The summit's final declaration committed the G20 to investing in disaster finance mechanisms such as insurance, risk pools, catastrophe bonds and contingent credit to help countries facing increasing climate-related disasters. It also reaffirmed support for "just transition pathways", which will help African countries to move to low-carbon sustainable models. The initiatives discussed, committed to and drawn up under South Africa's G20 presidency all ensured that Africa's own issues, needs and projects were placed centre stage.

2 December, 2025  Share this: • facebook • twitter • email • print 19 November 2025, Belém, Brazil: Leaders from African Island States called for the fast-tracked operationalization of the AISCC Regional Co-Investment Platform for Climate Finance and the Blue Economy as a key mechanism to scale climate finance, strengthen ocean governance, and foster regional collaboration, during the UNFCCC COP30 High-Level Dialogue on “Charting a Resilient Future for African Island States and SIDS: Accelerating Climate Finance and the Blue Economy.” Jointly organized by the Governments of Seychelles and Guinea-Bissau, the African Island States Climate Commission (AISCC), and ECA, the event marked a significant step toward implementing the Guinea-Bissau Pathway, advancing the RESIslands Initiative, and operationalizing the Regional Co-Investment Platform. The Platform is designed to mobilize predictable, programmatic finance and strengthen multi-country climate and blue economy projects. The Dialogue highlighted the growing role of African Island States within the global climate agenda at COP30. It brought together ministers, ambassadors, and heads of delegations from   Small Island Developing States (SIDS), along with climate fund heads, UN agencies, and development partners. The United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean, ambassador Peter Thomson, delivered the keynote opening remarks, highlighting the strategic leadership of island nations at the intersection of the climate and ocean crises. He emphasized global responsibility, declaring, “African Island States and SIDS sit on the frontline of the climate and ocean crises, but they are also sources of solutions—stewards of vital marine ecosystems and champions of the blue economy.” He called for predictable and scaled financing to match the ambition and urgency demonstrated by island governments in implementing resilience and ocean sustainability commitments. Welcoming remarks were delivered by the Director of the Climate, Food Security and Natural Resources Division at ECA, Cosmas Ochieng, who recognized the leadership of the AISCC and the strong commitment of African Island States. He underscored the collective responsibility of the region and its partners, stating, “This dialogue is an opportunity to collectively address SIDS challenges, share solutions, and accelerate the actions needed to safeguard your communities and economies.” Ochieng reaffirmed ECA’s commitment to supporting island states through the RESIslands Initiative, which strengthens institutional capacity, resilience planning, early warning systems, and regional coordination. James Kinyangi of the African Development Bank and Samuel Ogallah of the African Union Commission also reflected on the region’s shared climate pressures and the importance of strengthened institutions to access and deploy climate finance effectively. Member States shared perspectives on the region’s vulnerabilities and determination. Representing the Union of Comoros, the Deputy Director for Environment spoke on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Tourism, Aboubacar Ben Mahamoud, noting that “climate resilience is no longer an option; it is a collective responsibility and a survival imperative.” His remarks urged multilateral funds to simplify access procedures and support the Platform so that island states can act at the speed the crisis demands. In the message from the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Madagascar, Michaël R. Manesimana, it was emphasized that Madagascar’s rich ecosystems remain under severe climate stress, highlighting a need for sustained, coordinated investment. The message noted that “as the impacts of climate change intensify, this Co-Investment Platform represents a strategic opportunity to accelerate bankable blue economy projects and strengthen regional cooperation.” The Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Cabo Verde to the United Nations, Tania Romualdo, reflected on recent extreme weather events affecting her country and called for collective solutions beyond national borders, including the Regional Co-Investment Platform. “What small island states are facing is not an abstract projection but the frontline of the climate crisis,” she emphasized, adding that “the operationalization of the AISCC Regional Co-Investment Platform is an important step toward correcting structural imbalances in access to climate finance and enabling programmatic, multi-country solutions tailored to the realities of island states.” Maria Antonieta Alves Lopes, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Guinea-Bissau to the African Union, highlighted the country’s growing exposure to coastal erosion, rising seas, and saltwater intrusion. She welcomed the momentum generated by the RESIslands Initiative and affirmed that “its integrated approach—combining institutional capacity building, risk management tools, knowledge exchange and concept notes development—responds directly to our national priorities.” She confirmed Guinea-Bissau’s full commitment to advancing the Co-Investment Platform. Speaking on behalf of Equatorial Guinea, the UNFCCC National Focal Point, Pedro Malavo, emphasized the urgency of global recognition for the country’s island status. He stated, “Equatorial Guinea seeks to be formally recognized as a Small Island Developing State,” noting that such recognition is essential for accessing climate finance aligned with its unique vulnerabilities. He also expressed his country’s support for the Regional Co-Investment Platform for African Island States. The partner reflections segment brought together key SIDS climate partners, including Mathilde Bord-Laurans of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, Catherine Koffman of the Green Climate Fund, Rawleston Moore of the Global Environment Facility, Neha Sharma of the Adaptation Fund, Chitembo Kawimbe Chunga of the Climate Investment Funds, and Tim Hemmings, the United Kingdom Special Envoy for SIDS. They reaffirmed their commitment to supporting African Island States through greater flexibility, streamlined access to funding, enhanced readiness support, and alignment with island priorities, emphasizing that resilience, adaptation, and blue economy financing must be scaled rapidly to meet the urgency of the moment. Closing the event, the Director General for Environment of Seychelles Justin Proper, on behalf of Chair of the AISCC, underscored the significance of coordinated island leadership, asserting that African Island States “have a clear roadmap for resilience and a united voice at COP30.” He highlighted the ongoing importance of implementing the Guinea-Bissau Pathway and the RESIslands Initiative, as well as the transformative potential of the AISCC Regional Co-Investment Platform for long-term action. The High-Level Dialogue demonstrated strong support for the AISCC Regional Co-Investment Platform, which is designed to support national and regional institutions in accessing and managing climate finance, consolidating co-financing mechanisms, strengthening project pipeline development, expanding partnerships, and mobilizing investment for adaptation, resilience, and sustainable ocean-based economies. The Dialogue also called for renewed commitment to coordinated climate diplomacy, enhanced access to finance, and strengthened blue economy development across the region. The AISCC, established by the African Union and chaired by Seychelles with Guinea-Bissau as vice-chair, is recognized as a critical continental mechanism for ensuring that African Island States articulate a unified voice within global climate and development agendas. Through its coordination role, the Commission has become a principal entry point for island-specific resilience strategies and blue economy partnerships. The AISCC Regional Co-Investment Platform is expected to serve as a transformative financing mechanism, enabling African Island States to move from project-by-project engagement to structured, long-term investment strategies. Issued by:
Communications Section
Economic Commission for Africa
PO Box 3001
Addis Ababa
Ethiopia
Tel: +251 11 551 5826
E-mail: eca-info@un.org

 On a recent trip to one of my favourite places on this beleaguered planet, the Kruger National Park (KNP), a few sightings niggled me. One was a tourist with an enormous camera lens, standing on a riverbank, photographing a giant heron. Code of misconduct: tourists in the Kruger National Park push the limits with their irresponsible behaviour at a game sighting. (Photo: Kruger Sightings / David Botha) Another was a merry band of travellers at a close lion sighting with one young woman perched on the vehicle’s window ledge, camera at the ready, her back to the bushveld behind her. And, of course, in both instances it was All About The Photo (and it is illegal and potentially dangerous, with both miscreants completely unfazed by us law-abiding killjoys). advertisement Don’t want to see this? Remove ads Consider recent footage on social media. Kruger-Park-related Facebook groups are awash with photos of tourists engaging in irresponsible, often illegal, behaviour such as getting out of their cars, driving off-road, speeding or cramming around sightings. A furious Nick Kleer, professional safari guide and wildlife photographer, vented on Instagram at the sight of dozens of open safari vehicles crowding the banks of the Mara River in the Serengeti, blocking the crucial migratory and escape path of wildebeest crossing the crocodile-infested waters (some of them, with nowhere to go, fell back into the river). And, crammed in front of and on top of the vehicles, were dozens of camera-wielding tourists excitedly waiting to film the carnage. A famous crossing point along the Mara River called 'The Peninsula', or 'U'. It sees some dramatic and dusty crossings — in each direction — each year. It is also one of the crossing points that has historically been really badly affected by cars from the Maasai Mara National Reserve side. (Photo: Adam Bannister Wildlife) Other footage, by professional guide, photographer and guide trainer, Adam Bannister, shows a huge number of game-viewing vehicles thundering across the Mara plains in an insane race for prime parking at a river crossing, so guests can witness the legendary Great Migration. And then, who has not seen the astonishing footage from Botswana of the enraged elephant bearing down on tourists in a too-close mokoro? That is not the astounding part. Rather, it is the surreal sight of tourists filming the incident as the tusker literally bore down on them, upending the vessel in protective fury. And still they filmed… advertisement Don’t want to see this? Remove ads This is where we are now — wildlife viewed as entertainment. The ultimate goal? Content creation — often accompanied by bad behaviour — to garner ever more “likes” and “shares” on social media. Bannister laments the trend where anyone with a camera or smartphone either wants to mimic or better the photos of wild animals that flood social feeds. “Social media has badly damaged wildlife, and our appreciation and respect for wildlife. And there are a handful of wildlife photographers who have also played a large part in destroying ethical wildlife viewing. Social media has changed animals from sentient beings that were to be respected, into Instagram cannon fodder. They are objects that are there for likes and shares; things that get you noticed.” He says the original African safari bucket list, the Big Five, is no longer about just sightings of animals. “It has now evolved from seeing a lion into now seeing a lion doing something that you know Instagram and TikTok will respond to, something that will trigger the algorithm.” An off-road tourist brazenly engages with a lioness by sticking his arm out his open window for a close-up photo opportunity in the Kruger Natioal Park. (Photo: Kruger Sightings / Facebook) South African National Parks (SANParks), the governing body of the Kruger National Park, has noted with concern the increase in unlawful behaviour. Rey Thakhuli, general manager of communications, told Daily Maverick: “We have seen this irresponsible behaviour by visitors, and this is a worrying factor, which we discourage. This is more like one signing their death warrant, particularly those getting out their vehicles in an area full of wild animals. “The importance of responsible behaviour cannot be overemphasised. Those who would like to report unbecoming behaviour should be willing to write a statement and provide photographic or any type of evidence, if possible, so action can be taken.” advertisement Don’t want to see this? Remove ads There is no denying it: wildlife tourism in Africa is a multibillion-dollar industry, and the dollar-wielding tourists keep on coming on trains, planes and automobiles (and yes, even Uber Safaris are now a thing). More and more of them are flocking to areas that are increasingly under strain from overtourism, greed and lack of respect. They also bring with them huge expectations, as glossy websites tempt them with magnificent pictures of magnificent animals in magnificent settings. Many are beguiled into believing that the game sightings will be exclusively theirs to witness. The clamouring for footage of wild animals is also just part of the multi-layered, complicated issue that is conservation, which needs a multi-pronged approach to resolve. At the heart of it is land management, which is crucial for the protection of wilderness areas by balancing human use (local communities, poaching, development, tourism etc) with conservation goals. Three’s a crowd, four’s a traffic jam. Users rave about motorhomes and their inbuilt comfort, coffee on the go and elevated viewing, but it’s a less positive experience for others whose views are blocked by the large frames. (Photo: Robyn von Gesau ) Conservationists and developers are no doubt paying close attention this month to a David vs Goliath scenario playing out in a Kenyan courtroom where a conservation activist will hear whether his bid to stop the controversial luxury Ritz-Carlton, Maasai Mara Safari Camp’s scheduled opening is successful. Meitamei Olol Dapash, from the Maasai Education, Research and Conservation Institute, argues that the development obstructs a vital migration corridor between Maasai Mara and Tanzania’s Serengeti. advertisement Don’t want to see this? Remove ads An online petition platform says the development would “irreversibly damage critical wildlife pathways and disrupt the delicate balance that has existed for centuries between the Maasai people and the animals they have protected”. It accuses this project of prioritising “luxury profits over ecological survival and cultural sovereignty”. Dave Hamman, a concession owner and operator at Botswana’s Chitabe Camp, likens the current situation in the safari industry to “a whirlpool”. “Gone are the days when most people who came to the bush were interested in the bush, when they were birders and adventurers. Now the most important thing is whether there is a coffee machine and what the menu is. Everything has changed.”  Adam Bannister and members of the guiding team at ‘The Hilldana’, a small lodge in the Taita Hills of southeastern Kenya. (Photo: Adam Bannister Wildlife) And with it so has, in many places, the quality of guiding. “As more and more people head to wilderness areas, marginal operations spring up. But often, these in turn employ less experienced guides, many of them also in search of more ‘likes’, and so the whirlpool starts — and it is hard to get off. One thing pushes the other, and you get lower and lower and closer to the drain.” It’s no secret that many guests place immense pressure on safari guides — with offers of huge tips as leverage — to deliver more and more, to go off-road, to chase game, always in pursuit of footage. “I get it all the time,” said Bannister. “I've now been a guide for almost 20 years, and I feel confident in myself and my role as a professional to be able to say no. I believe I can get myself out of almost all situations. However, in my time with guide training and with guides, especially those who are new, that’s where the real issue starts because they don’t yet have that confidence and ability to say ‘no’ to a guest. That takes time to develop and instil.” He adds that a big problem in a lot of reserves are private guides who accompany tour parties. They rely on social media for business and deliberately seek out the least experienced local guides — someone that they can manipulate or pressure. They don’t want someone who is strong enough to say ‘no’. And all too often it is money that talks, where guests will offer to pay any fines the reserve guides may be subject to, even offering to “speak to the owners of the camp, we’ll make it our fault”. Hamman says they have strict protocols in place at Chitabe with their guides, all of whom have a deep sense of ethical game viewing, and why, in the long run, it is for the benefit of all. “We’ve always said to our guides: you are in charge of that vehicle. And we will support you 100% if a guest complains that you refused a request.” For Hamman the number one rule for a guide is “respect” — primarily for the animal and the environment. And if that means a guide feels a vehicle is disturbing a sighting — particularly where cubs are involved — the guides will make a “do not disturb” call. Respect, however, does not start and end with the guides. It starts with each person who encounters a wild animal or enters a wilderness space. As ethical game viewing becomes ever more topical, part of Bannister’s mission is to encourage more honest footage. “I find a very bizarre scenario unfolding whereby people are no longer really telling the truth on social media. They are trying to just encapsulate this idea of ‘Oh well, I’m the only one with this tiger; I’m the only one watching this crossing,’ but they’re not. They are trying to give the perception that they are there alone, so no one is really showing the truth. “My big drive is to try to start encouraging people, especially those with influence from a social media point of view, to start showing the truth, instead of showing just the leopard sitting on the rock. Zoom out and show the hundred cars looking at the leopard on the rock. Because, although it doesn’t make a great image of a beautiful leopard, it makes a very realistic image of what is going on in the year 2025.” A fingers-crossed byproduct of the social media exposure has been announcements by both Kenyan and Tanzanian authorities for action plans to streamline park regulations, improve visitor management, enforce disciplinary action against tour operators and guides violating rules, and launch awareness campaigns. It remains to be seen how this plays out. Decades ago, at a distant high school desk, I had the words of Wordsworth, who loved to wander among daffodils, drilled into me: “The world is too much with us”, where he mourns the modern world’s obsession with “getting and spending”, materialism over nature. That was in 1802. It is 223 years later. We need to stop and smell the grassy scent of elephant dung instead of careening over it and killing the dung beetles. We need to feel the thrill of the steady gaze of a wild animal through our eyes and not a camera lens. And we need to educate, through and with respect, that less can mean a whole lot more when it comes to game viewing and safaris. DM *Rey Thakhuli of SANParks says: It is unfortunate our law enforcement officials cannot always be everywhere due to the size of the Kruger Park. To assist us, people must make use of our emergency numbers 013 735 0197 or 076 801 9679 to report any infringement of rules. Staff will alert the closest law enforcement so offenders can be caught in the act. Alternatively, report the matter to the nearest camp reception/ranger station. Robyn von Geusau is a Cape Town-based writer who heads north to the bushveld as often as possible.

 A pharmacist holds a vial of lenacapavir, described as a "breakthrough" HIV prevention drug, at a research site in South Africa. Nardus Engelbrecht/AP Five months after a "breakthrough" HIV prevention drug got approval in the United States and became available in many wealthy countries, it's getting rolled out in two African countries hit especially hard by the disease. On Wednesday, the U.S. State Department announced that Eswatini and Zambia have each received 500 doses of lenacapavir, a drug manufactured by Gilead Sciences that's been hailed as by Science as a "breakthrough." Just two injections a year provide near-complete protection against an HIV infection. "This is somewhat unprecedented, to see an innovation in global health move this fast to low- and middle-income countries," says Mitchell Warren, the executive director of AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC), a global HIV prevention organization. "Obviously very small supplies, really just a down payment, but they're the first of what we think to be many doses in these two countries and in other countries." The delivered doses mark the first small step toward providing at least 2 million doses to the highest burden countries, largely in Africa, by 2028. That's the goal of the Global Fund, a major donor to combating HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, along with Gilead Sciences and the State Department. But the breakthrough drug arrives "just as we've seen some of the most dramatic political and economic challenges in the AIDS response," says Warren. In addition to likely increasing the overall HIV burden because of disrupted care, Warren says the Trump administration's foreign aid cuts have damaged some of the very systems and programs best positioned to deliver lenacapavir to the people most in need of protection. "We are starting from a deficit that we didn't have to, that was a making entirely of the U.S. government's own." Rapid delivery The State Department announced its investment in lenacapavir in September, pledging to provide up to 2 million doses by 2028. "We think we're going to hit that target sometime in mid- to early 2027 [and] we're going to be procuring more than half a million doses collectively next year," said Jeremy Lewin, a senior official for Foreign Assistance, Humanitarian Affairs and Religious Freedom at the State Department, at a press briefing this week. The 500 doses are being provided by Gilead at cost, with no profit going to the company, according to CEO Daniel O'Day. The company plans to cover up to 2 million doses total before licensed generic manufacturers get up and running, but it's not clear how many doses they currently have on hand. "We do have supply to send to markets when they have the appropriate regulatory approval, and replenishment for Eswatini and Zambia," he said in the briefing. Since FDA gave lenacapavir the thumbs up in June (followed by World Health Organization and European Medicines Agency in July), Gilead has been applying for regulatory approvals across sub-Saharan Africa. So far, Zambia and South Africa have approved the drug (Lewin said the U.S. was not planning to fund doses of lenacapavir to South Africa, which would be encouraged "to fund doses for their own population." Eswatini's ministry of health issued a separate import authorization, their version of approval. Where will the drug go next? The company has filed for approval in Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe, with more in the works, said O'Day. "We continue to prioritize 18 high burden countries representing 70% of the HIV epidemic." Of course, delivery is only the first step. To curb the epidemic, doses, which are injected into the abdomen or thigh, have to get to the people who need them. Health ministries will be primarily responsible for that. But in many cases, governments have relied on community organizations and non-governmental organizations for help. Lewin, of the State Department, said that's part of the U.S. America First Global Health Strategy's effort to boost national government's "self-reliance." Still, many health systems have relied on outside organizations that have been defunded or diminished by the Trump administration's foreign aid cuts, says Warren. That includes one his organization, AVAC, helped implement. The program was aimed at boosting health systems capacity to deliver injectable HIV drugs, like lenacapavir, which can be trickier to distribute than pills. It was frozen in January, he says, and hasn't gotten back up to full speed. "If you don't have the program that meets people where they are, then those doses aren't going to get used," says Warren. "There's a lot of history of global health products that everyone thinks are exciting, and then they sit in store rooms because we didn't build the program to deliver them."

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority’s challenge to paying compensation to the Bobete community in Thaba-Tseka. Photo: Sechaba Mokhethi • The Court of Appeal has ordered the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority to pay compensation owed since 2013 to more than 600 villagers in Bobete whose livelihoods were disrupted by construction of the Katse Dam. • The court ruled that the authority cannot use internal policies and consultants reports to override its constitutional duty to compensate communities, and condemned its failure to consult villagers before unilaterally stopping payment in 2013. • The authority has 90 days to pay. The Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) has lost its fight to avoid paying long-overdue compensation to the Bobete community in Thaba-Tseka. On 7 November, the Court of Appeal dismissed LHDA’s challenge and upheld a High Court order compelling it to pay. The ruling forces the LHDA to release a “second and final tranche” of compensation, owed since 2013 to the U Khopo Maliba-Matšo Society, which means “You are cruel, Maliba-Matšo river”. The river is the waterway to the dam. The group of more than 600 villagers had their livelihoods disrupted by the construction of the Katse Dam under the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP). Chief Justice Sakoane ruled that the LHDA cannot rely on internal policies or technical reports to override its constitutional and statutory duty to compensate communities affected by dam construction and diminished river flows. That obligation, the court held, arises from the Constitution, the LHWP Treaty, and the LHDA Order, and is not a matter of bureaucratic discretion. A legal duty, not a policy choice Villagers in Bobete lost access to vital communal resources that include riverine ecosystems, firewood, fish, wild vegetable and medicinal plants, and grazing land after the construction of the Katse and Mohale dams. The LHDA paid a first tranche of compensation for “presumed losses” in 2003/4. Its own policy required a second tranche after a ten-year review in 2013. But the LHDA unilaterally stopped the 2013 payment, citing a consultant’s monitoring report that claimed there was “no evidence” of compensable losses. The court found this defence unlawful and fundamentally misguided since a policy cannot replace constitutional rights. Justice Sakoane anchored the judgment in three binding legal obligations: the Constitution’s requirement for full and prompt compensation when people’s property or livelihoods are affected; the LHWP Treaty’s guarantee that communities must not see their living standards fall below pre-project levels; and the LHDA’s statutory duty to compensate and assist all people displaced or harmed by the project. Unilateral decisions A central flaw was LHDA’s failure to consult the community. The consultant’s report revealed that no village meeting took place in Bobete, because the community had not been properly notified. “Its [LHDA] decision to discontinue compensation without meaningful engagement of the affected communities was, therefore, not only procedurally unfair but also substantively unlawful,” said Court of Appeal Judge President Kananelo Mosito. The court condemned LHDA’s “elitist and unilateralist” approach. Chief Justice Sakoane said fairness demanded that the villagers should have been heard and given the opportunity, perhaps with expert assistance, to challenge the high-level technical reports that formed the basis for denying them compensation. The LHDA also failed to fulfil the statutory requirements of the LHDA Order, which obliges it to submit compensation-related proposals to the minister for approval. The court found no evidence that the decision to stop compensation was ever put to the minister for approval. The Bobete community was not even informed of LHDA’s decision to discontinue payment; they discovered it only through court papers when the LHDA submitted its answering affidavits. “Compensation delayed is compensation denied” The court found that compensation due in 2013 was still outstanding over a decade later, violating the Constitution’s requirement of prompt payment. President Mosito noted that a decade-late payment is, “in practical terms, compensation denied”. The court emphasised that this delay inevitably impacted the standard of living of the society’s members, contrary to the foundational principle of the LHWP Treaty and Act that compensation should maintain pre-project living standards. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the high court order. LHDA now has 90 days to pay the Bobete community what they have been owed for more than a decade. The amount to be paid is yet to be known.   TOPICS:  Water © 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article. We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel. You might like

• The ‘Extraordinary Committee’ of independent experts – appointed by President Ramaphosa – submits the G20’s first-ever report on global inequality today • The Committee above all urges the creation of a new ‘International Panel on Inequality’ to inform policymaking internationally and by governments – inspired by the IPCC • New analysis published in the report shows that between 2000 and 2024, the world’s top 1% captured 41% of all new wealth, while just 1% went to the bottom 50%, amid growing concerns about democratic capture associated with wealth concentration The “Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality” – commissioned by President Cyril Ramaphosa for South Africa’s Presidency of the G20 – today unveiled the first-ever report on inequality to the G20. The Committee is chaired by Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz and joined by five other leading global experts. The report follows consultation with leading economists and inequality experts across the world. The Committee’s key recommendation is the creation of a new international and independent panel – inspired by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – that would monitor trends and assess its drivers and consequences and evaluate alternative policies for addressing it, to inform governments,  policy makers, and the international community. Their report offers a snapshot of the forces giving rise to inequality and the state of inequality. It comes amid heightening concern about ‘the global increase in incomes and wealth at the upper end of the scale’ and the increasing challenges large parts of the population face in making ends meet. In analyzing  policies that could help to alleviate inequality, the report focuses particularly at the international level, including to rein in corporate concentration and efforts to reform the international tax architecture that are already on the G20 agenda . The President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa: “This report, which is a blueprint for greater equality, supports the goal of South Africa’s G20 Presidency to put inequality on the international agenda. Inequality is a betrayal of people’s dignity, an impediment to inclusive growth and a threat to democracy itself.  Addressing inequality is our inescapable generational challenge. This report lays out prudent and pragmatic steps we can take to reduce it.  “I congratulate Professor Stiglitz and his Extraordinary Committee of such renowned experts for this effort. I am looking forward to discussing this report at the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Johannesburg.”  Professor Joseph Stiglitz (USA), Nobel laureate in economics: “It is an honor for us to present this report to President Ramaphosa, and to the G20. The available evidence on inequality should concern leaders everywhere. The world understands that we have a climate emergency; it’s time we recognize that we face an inequality emergency too. It isn’t just unfair and undermining societal cohesion – it’s a problem for our economy and our politics too. Our committee felt strongly that some of the worst effects of inequality are on democracy. “The Committee’s work showed us that inequality is a crisis in need of concerted action. The necessary step to taking this action is for policymakers, political leaders, the private sector, journalists and academia to have accurate and timely information and analysis of the inequality crisis. This is why our recommendation above all is for a new International Panel on Inequality. It would learn from the remarkable job the IPCC has done for climate change, bringing together technical expertise worldwide to track inequality and assess what is driving it”. The report reviews and compares the latest data on the state of inequality, revealing: • 83% of all countries, accounting for 90% of the world’s population, meet the World Bank’s definition of high inequality. Countries with high inequality are seven times more likely to experience democratic decline than more equal countries. • The richest 1% captured 41% of new wealth since the year 2000, while the bottom 50% of humanity have increased their wealth by just 1%, using data from the World Inequality Lab. This means that the richest 1% have seen their average wealth rise by US$1.3m, while the bottom 50% have seen their wealth rise by just US$585 over the same period, in constant 2024 dollars. • Inequality between all individuals in the world has fallen in recent decades largely due to income growth in China, but the prospects for further reductions are uncertain. The overall income gap between Global North and Global South countries remains very high. • New data on the major increase in inherited wealth shows $70 trillion of wealth is expected to be handed down to heirs over the coming ten years, a major challenge to social mobility, fairness and equality of opportunity. The Committee highlights how inequality, particularly in the extremes, has many negative economic, political and societal outcomes, each interacting with the other in ways that exacerbate the adverse effects. High wealth inequality in particular undermines both democracy and economic progress. Recent events since 2020, including COVID-19, the Ukraine war and new tariffs and trade disputes since the beginning of 2025 are creating a ‘perfect storm’ which is further increasing poverty and inequality. One in four people worldwide now regularly skip meals, whilst billionaire wealth has now hit the highest level in history. The Report highlights how different policies could help to reduce inequality at the national and international levels, and notes the role that the G20 can play in facilitating global coordination: • Reforming international economic rules – redesigning intellectual property rules (especially relating to pandemics and climate change), rewriting tax rules to ensure fair taxation of multinationals and the ultra-wealthy (noting the UN Tax Convention). • National action – that can include exploring the roles of pro-worker regulation, reducing corporate concentration, taxing large capital gains, investing in public services, and more progressive tax and expenditure policies. • New models for cooperation – especially given current geopolitical volatility, exploring new efforts between countries, for instance on taxes, trade and the green transition. The Committee’s priority proposal for an IPI would be a ‘permanent legacy of the South African Presidency of the G20’. The technical body, centred on data and policy-relevant analysis, would be backed by ‘champion countries, with multilateral agencies as key stakeholders’. The six independent experts are Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz (USA); Dr Adriana E. Abdenur (Brazil); Ms Winnie Byanyima (Uganda); Professor Jayati Ghosh (India); Professor Imraan Valodia (South Africa); and Dr Wanga Zembe-Mkabile (South Africa). [End] Experts Professor Joseph Stiglitz (USA): a Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute. Dr Adriana E. Abdenur (Brazil): a Brazilian social scientist, former Special Advisor in International Affairs in the office of President Lula of Brazil, co-founder of the Brazilian think tank Plataforma CIPÓ, and current co-President of the Global Fund for a New Economy (GFNE). Ms Winnie Byanyima (Uganda): Executive Director of UNAIDS and an Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Convenor of the Global Council on Inequality, AIDS and Pandemics, and co-founder and co-chair of the People’s Medicines Alliance Professor Jayati Ghosh (India): Professor, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and Co-Chair, International Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation Professor Imraan Valodia (South Africa): Professor of Economics, Pro Vice-Chancellor: Climate, Sustainability and Inequality, and Director of the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand (WITS) Dr Wanga Zembe-Mkabile (South Africa): Professor at the UWC School of Public Health and Senior Specialist Scientist  of the South African Medical Research Council. Notes to editors The President of South Africa will host a launch of the G20 Extraordinary Committee’s report in South Africa on 4 November 2025.  At the South Africa 2025 Joburg Summit, the Extraordinary Committee has been formally invited to present the report to the G20’s Leaders Meeting. The G20 “Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Global Inequality” is – as part of the G20 Sherpa Track – a special project located in the G20 Sherpa’s Office, in the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) of South Africa. The G20 comprises 19 countries including: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Türkiye, United Kingdom, and United States and two regional bodies, namely the European Union and the African Union. 1 G20 Global Inequality Report Summary 2 G20 Global Inequality Report Full and Summary 3 G20 Global Inequality Report  Technical note

Africa is expected to see a massive population boom in the next several decades. At the same time, the United States, China and European nations are pulling back their presence there in terms of aid, trade and investment. In this episode, the Opinion columnist Lydia Polgreen speaks with the former Times correspondent and bureau chief Howard French about the challenges facing Africa, the risk for global powers if they disengage from the continent and one 20th-century African leader’s vision for Black self-reliance that feels especially relevant today. Africa Is Rising. The World Shouldn’t Turn Its Back. Lydia Polgreen speaks to the former New York Times bureau chief Howard W. French about the cost of not engaging with Africa. Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYTimes app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like. Lydia Polgreen is an Opinion columnist.

 A man in a suit stands below a golden symbol of Africa on the wall. Five green flags are to his left. A security guard stands at the entrance of the main plenary hall at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on Feb. 18, 2024. Michele Spatari/AFP via Getty Images When Cameroon’s 92-year-old president, Paul Biya, declared victory recently in his eighth election, the African Union issued a blandly worded statement of congratulations, largely passing over credible claims of irregularities and making no mention of the way that Biya has hollowed out democracy by clinging to power for more than 40 years. Around the same time, the AU put out a similar message congratulating another longtime incumbent, Ivorian President Alassane Ouattara, who—like Biya—has repeatedly changed his country’s constitution and electoral rules, allowing himself to stay in power since 2010. In last month’s election, Ouattara racked up an official tally of more than 90 percent of the vote, but only after barring top opposition candidates from the race. Meanwhile, the AU mustered only tepid reservations last week about Tanzania’s election, which was marked by strong signs of irregularity, followed by the violent suppression of protests that killed as many as 1,000 people, as well as a temporary internet shutdown. Lest one think that the AU’s near irrelevance is limited to questions of electoral democracy or even domestic governance, recent weeks have turned up equally abundant signs of the feebleness of the body’s voice in questions of international relations and global order. It has had little to say, for example, about the White House’s recent announcement that, out of all of the continent’s people, it will only prioritize accepting refugees who are white South Africans. Nor has it adopted a strong position about U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to deport undocumented people from the United States to African countries, regardless of whether they are from Africa. And similarly, it has not forcefully rebuked Washington’s sharp restrictions on travel visas that affect numerous countries on the continent. Arguably worse, the AU has not taken a strong stance against Trump’s recent threat to mount military strikes against Nigeria, where he claims—falsely—that there have been targeted mass killings of Christians by Muslims. Like several of its neighbors in the Sahel region of West Africa, northern Nigeria has long been ravaged by Islamist insurgencies that have terrorized and killed Muslims as indiscriminately as Christians. One may be tempted to ask why any of this matters, given the tableau of grave and unresolved problems that have bedeviled Africa in the decades since the huge wave of independence that swept the continent, largely beginning with Ghana in 1957. Yet what one might call Africa’s crisis of emergence, or the ability to stand strongly on its own two feet politically and economically, is far more than a matter of failed or underperforming national leadership alone. Of equal, or perhaps even greater, significance than national politics is the fact that Africa has never managed to build a continental system of governance, security, and economic cooperation that would not only help boost the continent’s prospects internally but also represent and defend its interests much more strongly on the international stage. The unique circumstances in which Africa entered the international community as a collection of independent states help explain why the continent is in need of such a system today. Although all African countries were endowed with presidential or prime ministerial systems at independence, with their own flags, currencies, and national anthems, for historic reasons, African countries were unusually weak and fragile from the outset. To understand this, one must go back to the very design of Africa’s nation-states. With few exceptions, these borders were traced early in the imperial era—not by Africans, who were granted no say, but by the European powers that formalized the carving up of the continent in order to exploit them, at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85. This lack of African participation in the continent’s political configuration was the first of a series of debilitating wounds whose impact lingers strongly today. As European powers undertook colonial rule, they focused on building systems of extraction far more than development. Initially, this meant using forced labor—a halfway house between slavery and freedom—to produce fibers, tropical oils, minerals, foodstuffs, and other commodities to fuel European industrialization and consumption, as opposed to generating income to reinvest in Africa itself. Not only did colonial powers do little to boost African prosperity, but the scant infrastructure they built was also generally aimed at meeting Europe’s needs, not the continent’s. Roads and rails went more or less directly from places where goods for the West were produced to ports that would evacuate them to these distant markets. Connecting African population centers in these colonies was, at best, an afterthought. What was neglected altogether was connecting African colonies across imperially drawn borders. By independence, what this left was a collection of several dozen mostly small, poor, and mutually isolated countries, many of them landlocked, with little opportunity to trade with each other or build larger, stronger markets that would facilitate industrialization and greater wealth creation through economic integration and regional trade. Some of Africa’s early leaders understood this dilemma well and saw the need to build the powerful Organization of African Unity (OAU)—the precursor of today’s AU—as an engine of economic growth through integration and a means of articulating and defending the continent’s interests in a world that had long exploited it economically and dominated it politically. The strongest advocate of such an approach was Ghana’s first independence leader, Kwame Nkrumah, who articulated this vision at the OAU’s founding conference, which was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in 1963. This is a story that I tell in my new book, The Second Emancipation: Nkrumah, Pan-Africanism, and Global Blackness at High Tide. But Nkrumah’s vision of accelerated continental integration—one driven by a powerful supranational body that would draw inspiration from the United States’ Constitutional Convention, which had allowed 13 British colonies to eventually form a single country—was rejected by his fellow heads of state. Many of them considered Nkrumah’s vision impractical, and some suspected that his true motivation was a play for power in which he could lead the continent. The most fundamental reason that Nkrumah’s ideas were rejected in my view, though, had to do with the irresistible lure of the many perquisites that came with leading a newborn state. Building an effective supranational body to defend Africa’s interests on a continental level would have required governing elites to surrender some of their newly won power and opportunities for wealth—ones that often came through graft and corruption, including by tapping extraction-based revenue streams that once went exclusively to the West. The results for Africa have been fateful and overwhelmingly negative. Instead of defending African interests on the world stage, the OAU and, later, the AU instead became a back-scratching club of heads of state. On the one hand, the body has never been able to develop a meaningful voice on the issues of democracy and human rights, including by articulating standards of its own that it is prepared to defend. This has led to it accepting rulers who perpetuate their power through hollow or rigged elections and doing little more than emitting a “tsk tsk” when civil societies are violently suppressed as regimes slide toward dictatorship, as has recently happened in Tanzania. The AU’s inaction means that African crises of violence are allowed to fester, as has long been the case with the war in eastern Congo, where Rwanda has supported rebel militias in what is widely understood to be a bid to control some of its neighbor’s vast mineral wealth. The same is true with the lack of any meaningful continental response to the alarming spread of Islamic insurgencies in West Africa or the ongoing civil war in Sudan. It also means that Africa continues to be woefully lacking in integrated markets and international infrastructure, such as a continental highway system and energy grids. Both of these weigh heavily on the continent’s economic performance. And it means that Africa is almost voiceless on the international stage, as seen in the examples above involving refugees, access to international travel, and freedom from bullying. Perhaps the strongest evidence of a need for a strong continental organization, though, comes from outside of Africa. The European Union, a collection of rich and relatively prosperous states, came together and expanded out of an understanding that the continent needed to defend its interests in a world of much larger and more powerful states—notably, the United States, Russia, and China. It seems self-evident that if Europeans felt a need for integration and supranational representation, even with their high relative state of development, then African countries—which are much poorer, weaker, and balkanized—need this kind of unity all the more.

This story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center. MUTARE, ZIMBABWE — Insectary assistants collect the specimens by sucking into a straw-like pump. But they don't mistakenly swallow any, joked senior insectary assistant Petro Kawadza during a demonstration. It’s part of the critical service a malaria research center at Africa University in Mutare, Zimbabwe provides to the whole nation. This collection of hundreds of female mosquitoes goes to the Zimbabwe Ministry of Health and Child Care to test the effectiveness of mosquito repellent. Fanuel Toto, insectary assistant, works on transferring female mosquitos to a container using a suction tube in the Zimbabwe Entomological Support in Malaria Control Programme’s insectary at Africa University in Mutare, Zimbabwe, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. This program at the United Methodist Church-affiliated Africa University, officially called the Zimbabwe Entomological Support in Malaria Control Programme (ZESMCP), is the chief malaria research program of its kind in the whole country. And in March, it came to a screeching halt. “It was traumatic, if I can put it that way,” entomologist specialist Hieronymo Masendu said, referring to President Donald Trump’s administration shutting down USAID. But the center is up and running today due to an emergency cash flow the center received from the UMC General Board of Global Ministries. The UMC is historically Nashville-based. The past six months have been a witness to the hardship a critical medical service faced in the wake of USAID’s termination and of faith-based organizations stepping in to fill the gap. Violla Chimwayi, insectary assistant, carries a tray of mosquito pupa and larva in the Zimbabwe Entomological Support in Malaria Control Programme’s insectary at Africa University in Mutare, Zimbabwe, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. “It means a lot for us. It’s not usual that you have the church funding a research center like in this manner,” Masendu said. “It’s the first of its kind as far as I’m concerned.” Masendu said it’s unlikely the center would have received this funding if not for its affiliation with Africa University, which houses the center on its campus. The university even provided the bricks that went toward the center’s construction, an enterprise that began in 2017 with USAID funding. In 2021, the center received a three-year grant from USAID as part of the U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative. In September 2024, it received a one-year extension of that grant. Under its new grant it received from the UMC General Board of Global Ministries, the malaria center needs to show progress with the distribution of mosquitoes it’s raising and of insecticide resistance it’s raising the mosquitoes to test. “The ball is now in our court,” Masendu said. “We want to take advantage of that and prove our worth.” The UMC and schooling in Zimbabwe: As fracturing harms UMC brand, how a Zimbabwe high school displays pride in denomination Maintaining a mosquito colony The malaria center is responsible for two groups of mosquitoes. One group comes from collections at local streams. The other group, they grow. In one room, Kawadza feeds the mosquitoes with a rabbit, whose back he’s shaven. The mosquitoes then lay eggs, and the eggs are brought into a second room. In that room, insectary assistant Violla Chimyni then oversees the hatching of the larvae and their development into pupae. Violla Chimwayi, insectary assistant, works on separating mosquito pupa from larva in the Zimbabwe Entomological Support in Malaria Control Programme’s insectary at Africa University in Mutare, Zimbabwe, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. Since the center received its first colony in 2017, it’s now on its 244th generation. The need for both categories of mosquitoes is to test insecticide resistance. “The biggest threat is insecticide resistance,” Masendu said. “So, you do everything according to the book, but you still get malaria cases. And you start asking questions. One of the biggest questions is: are the mosquitoes responding to the chemical as expected?” This testing is done in two different ways, both of which occur during the peak malaria season – typically, from October through December. The first type of test is when government health officials come to center at Africa University and spray 10 mosquitoes in a special cone. All 10 mosquitoes should be dead within 24 hours. The other testing is when the center provides hundreds of mosquitoes to the health ministry to use to continue testing the effectiveness of insecticide. Insectary assistant Fanuel Toto collects those hundreds every week using the pump. Fanuel Toto, insectary assistant, works on transferring female mosquitos to a container using a suction tube in the Zimbabwe Entomological Support in Malaria Control Programme’s insectary at Africa University in Mutare, Zimbabwe, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. This work is critical to informing the Zimbabwe government whether it can continue using the same insecticide or if it needs to purchase a different one, a costly endeavor. When there are fewer than five cases of malaria per a population of 1,000, the health ministry stops spraying insecticide within those communities and transitions its residents to using mosquito nets. “We have made tremendous progress to the point we are now talking about eliminating malaria in Zimbabwe,” Masendu said. Other reporting from Zimbabwe: What a United Methodist conference in Zimbabwe says about churches' desire to stay in UMC Maintain sustainable funding The malaria research center at Africa University is one of two organizations that oversee “sentinel sites” across the country that monitor mosquito populations and malaria transmission. But the other organization, a branch of the Zimbabwe health ministry, is suffering from poor funding and has had difficulty keeping pace with Masendu’s team. Masendu said that’s why it’s even more important his center is operating on all cylinders. But a stop work order in March in the wake of USAID closing torpedoed that momentum. Petros Kawadza, senior insectary assistant, works in the Zimbabwe Entomological Support in Malaria Control Programme’s insectary at Africa University in Mutare, Zimbabwe, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. “The transition, it was terrible. Not just the case for myself, but my colleagues as well,” Masendu said. “You have your career ahead of you and it’s disrupted.” The team of veteran researchers went months without pay or benefits. They were uncertain if they would ever return and were increasingly anxious about the nearing malaria season. The UMC General Board of Global Ministries grant relieved that anxiety, but only on a short-term basis. The grant lasts until March, allowing the center to get through peak malaria season. Assuming the center is able to show its continued success, it’s likely it will continue operating. Hundreds of mosquitos are seen inside of a container in the Zimbabwe Entomological Support in Malaria Control Programme’s insectary at Africa University in Mutare, Zimbabwe, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. “As long as we do our part and perform, I’m told we are assured of more funding coming from the UMC,” Masendu said. Liam Adams covers religion for The Tennessean, part of the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at ladams@tennessean.com or on social media @liamsadams. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: UMC resurrects Zimbabwe malaria research after USAID cuts

 Tanzania President Samia Suluhu Hassan. Michael Jamson/AFP via Getty Image In Tanzania, something snapped this year. Protests followed the 29 October 2025 elections. They are unprecedented in their scale, national breadth and political content since the country’s independence in 1961. But the repression unleashed by newly re-elected President Samia Suluhu Hassan has also been unprecedented. She has gone further than her autocratic predecessors in closing off the political space and silencing opposition figures. By putting her main rival Tundu Lissu on trial for treason and barring others from contesting the presidency, Hassan has crossed autocratic thresholds that other leaders have not. Activists have been arrested, brutalised or disappeared. The protests spread across a series of major cities and towns in Tanzania. However, an internet blackout created a fog of war in which details are difficult to ascertain. I am an assistant professor of politics at the University of Sussex. I have dedicated 11 years to studying Tanzania’s anti-authoritarian struggle. Amateur and professional coverage found its way through the internet blackout. What I see in this footage is anger and tragedy running through these protests, and the struggle of the anti-authoritarian movement at large. However, at least fleetingly, there has been hope as well. The anger is directed at the regime. It simultaneously focuses on Tanzanians’ material circumstances and what they see as the political sources of those circumstances. The hope comes from a changing sense of what is possible – the regime long seemed invulnerable. The protests have thrown its authority into doubt. The protests The immediate trigger for the public protests was the sham general election. The protests turned violent. Protesters set police stations and other buildings ablaze, hijacked police and ruling party vehicles, and ransacked polling stations. The regime responded with force. Police met civilians with gunfire and teargas. Two people were reportedly killed and several others injured on election day. Media sources, who include opposition leaders and diplomats in Tanzania, put the number of those killed over three days of protests in the hundreds. The triggers Tanzanians have plenty of reasons to be angry at the government. The causes are many. About 72% of citizens work as street vendors, motorcycle taxi drivers and in other informal jobs. Yet Hassan’s neo-liberal government suppresses the demands of these constituencies. Under Hassan’s rule, young people in particular have been neglected. Tanzania is a youthful country, with more than half of the population below the age of 18. They have especially suffered from Tanzania’s under-investment in education and health relative to its regional neighbours. While Hassan has presided over an economy that has continued to steadily grow, it has remained deeply unequal. More than 66% of Tanzanians remain poor. The anger is not just about policy, but politics too. The ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), has deep roots. It has ruled Tanzania in one form or another since the country’s independence from Britain in 1961. For years, CCM has used autocratic measures to tip the playing field in its favour. Since 2014, under former president John Pombe Magufuli, it has been steadily extending those measures. By 2020, the playing field had become all but closed. Protesters are directing their anger against the regime. They have torn down posters of Hassan. They are demanding constitutional reform, a truly independent electoral commission, and free and fair elections. Unprecedented protests These people’s-power protesters, in short, are defining their cause in terms of democracy. There is no precedent for protests like this in Tanzania. There have been many vigorous protests over the year. However, they have been localised protests against the forced eviction of the Maasai from ancestral lands, extraction by transnational gold mining corporations and exclusion of the public from the proceeds of natural gas extraction. In semi-autonomous archipelago Zanzibar, electoral manipulation has been consistently protested for three decades, Yet, Zanzibar aside, protests against the regime itself have always remained anaemic, until now. It is not for want of trying. The main opposition party Chadema has steadily turned to protest since 2016. It called for nationwide protests in the wake of the apparent rigging of the 2020 elections. Yet, few turned out to join them. Chadema, and the opposition at large, has struggled in the face of a violent state apparatus to draw protesters beyond a cadre of committed activists to its banner. Until now. What’s different Until days ago, the sort of protests unfolding across Tanzania seemed like a fool’s hope. The CCM regime, and its security apparatus, would never allow them. Protesters were arrested, brutalised, abducted or killed. Resistance, it seemed, was futile. The 2025 protests have thrown all of this into doubt. As political scientists Adam Branch and Zachariah Mamphilly observe, in protests, what seems possible can change profoundly and suddenly. Whenever protests gather momentum, the dynamics of their formation and repression change. Security personnel can seem hopelessly outnumbered. Protests can seem unassailably large. In this context, protesters have created spaces in which they – rather than the regime – rule, at least temporarily. The footage of protesters making off with ballot boxes, tearing down posters and saying the previously unsayable shows moments that have an air of emancipation. The exuberance may not last. Tanzania’s regime has not endured for 64 years for nothing. If the crackdown hardens, and the death toll climbs, the streets may clear quickly. If, in contrast, the police are unable to contain the protests and the military refuse to support them, they may quickly lose control. Whatever follows, Tanzania has changed almost overnight. One way or another, the change is almost certainly not yet over.