Countries grappling with intense humanitarian crises, like South Sudan, DR Congo, and Somalia, quickly emerged as areas of concern. Famine, displacement, and mounting distress made them susceptible to further turmoil. Have you found yourself pondering, “How do these regions cope?”
The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) highlighted a stark reality. In 2022, approximately 282 million people in Africa found themselves undernourished, which accounts for nearly 20% of the continent’s population. This number was tragically up by 57 million since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s a climb that’s hard to ignore.
A heart-wrenching revelation: 868 million individuals were bogged down by moderate to severe food insecurity. Among them, more than a third, close to 342 million, faced the harsh grip of extreme hunger. These figures confront us with the undeniable urgency that experts attribute to the halted USAID assistance being a profound detriment to Africa on a broad scale.
Effects of USAID Cuts in Africa So Far
Delving into the aftermath of these funding reductions, many Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) across critical sectors such as health, agriculture, and education found themselves abruptly shutting their doors. This shift left vast areas in Africa scrambling for alternatives. Uganda, for instance, faced a daunting challenge. Just weeks after the Trump administration’s decision, the nation faced a shortfall of 300 billion shillings (about $82 million) within its HIV relief initiatives.
US contributions had played a pivotal role in Uganda’s health sector, offering about $417 million by the end of June 2024. These funds were vital, particularly in treating 1.2 million patients. Imagine the ripple effects of such a substantial financial gap.
Similarly, Nigeria had its immediate response strategy, aiming to shoulder the welfare responsibilities of approximately 28,000 employees who faced layoffs due to the funding pause. However, not all narratives painted USAID’s absence as purely negative. Reports surfaced suggesting that perhaps, Africa hadn’t felt the cut as deeply as anticipated.
In February, unexpected calls emerged from elders in northern Nigeria. The requests were clear—it was time for USAID and other foreign donors to exit their region. The accusations were grave, with allegations suggesting these entities indirectly supported terrorism. Incidents where USAID supposedly aided groups like ISIS and Boko Haram caused much unrest.
The shadow of doubt only deepened when Nigeria’s lawmakers voiced concerns about non-profits funded by international donors. They questioned transparency, accountability, and how effectively these organizations truly implemented development programs.
The drama didn’t conclude there. Still in Nigeria, a significant revelation shook many: during a raid in Lagos, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) unearthed USAID-funded medications and expired items. This discovery underscored glaring issues in aid distribution.
In one particular case, the agency seized no less than 87 truckloads containing banned, expired, and substandard medicinal products. These included contributions from prominent organizations like USAID and UNFPA. Such incidents eerily echo an industry where aid materials either lay wastefully stored or find a secondary life through resale.
Caitlin Burton, a senior figure at Zipline, shed light on another dimension in an exclusive with Business Insider Africa. She posited a startling insight into international aid dynamics: “US-supported programs often cost us 2 to 10 times what they ideally should. This inadvertently nurtures a contractor ecosystem in places like D.C.,” Burton explained. For Africa, the material support lost may certainly be less significant than the dollar value suggests.
The U.S. Foreign Assistance Office last reported Ethiopia, Egypt, Somalia, Nigeria, and the DRC as Africa’s top aid recipients, collectively drawing billions in 2023. Yet, these robust figures required an introspective look at how they translate into tangible impacts.
The Path Forward for Africa Outside USAID
Debates continue on the real value of US funding across African developmental areas. The narrative of over-reliance persists, but it might not be as formidable as many Africans perceive. Caitlin Burton remarked on USAID projects’ efficacy—or lack thereof. She opined, “Many initiatives weren’t truly effective. What Africa loses in potential impact may be not as profound as portrayed.”
She further elaborated, “Redirecting a fraction of previous US expenditure could sustain nutrition and essential medicines flows in humanitarian contexts. Beyond that, we should keenly focus on pathways toward sustainable development.” In her tenure with Zipline, she witnessed marked improvements in logistics efficiencies post-USAID funding cuts.
“Countries streamline supplies through alternate systems, ensuring patient needs remain met sans major disruption. Surprisingly, despite spending less, product access stays viable,” Burton elucidated.
Reflecting on this, while USAID’s absence initially wreaked disruptions, it has sparked a reexamination of Africa’s potential. A testament to resilience and a call to reimagine partnerships and solutions for an empowered continent.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
