EXCLUSIVE: EU mulls copying US with end to aid for global health funds – Euractiv

Report on the European Commission’s Proposed Funding Shift and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An internal European Commission document indicates a potential cessation of funding for key global health organizations, Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance) and the Global Fund, by 2030. This proposed strategic shift in Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is aimed at increasing the European Union’s geopolitical influence by focusing on funds where it can more directly shape governance. However, this move poses a significant threat to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Proposed Strategic Realignment of EU Development Aid

Rationale for Funding Re-evaluation

The internal briefing suggests a revision of future ODA to be more “strategic.” The document notes that despite the EU’s status as a top global contributor, its “political influence does not yet match our financial weight.” The proposal includes introducing sunset clauses for funding to organizations like Gavi and the Global Fund, which are perceived as “overlapping” initiatives. This realignment is intended to coincide with the EU’s next long-term budget for 2028-2034, which will prioritize European private-sector investments and the bloc’s national interests.

Conflict with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The potential withdrawal of support from established and effective multilateral health partnerships directly contravenes the principles of SDG 17. This goal emphasizes the need for a strong global partnership for sustainable development, which relies on predictable and long-term financial commitments from partners like the EU. Shifting away from proven mechanisms like Gavi and the Global Fund in favor of more nationally-oriented investment hubs, such as the new Global Gateway Investment Hub, could weaken the collaborative global health architecture essential for achieving the SDGs.

Direct Threat to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Impact on Lifesaving Global Health Initiatives

A funding withdrawal would directly impact the core mission of Gavi and the Global Fund, organizations with a proven track record of advancing global health. Their combined contributions are critical to achieving SDG 3.

• Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance: Aims to improve vaccine access for children in developing countries, having saved an estimated 20.6 million lives through immunization programmes against diseases like polio, diphtheria, and mpox.
• The Global Fund: Fights epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and is credited with saving an estimated 70 million lives through prevention and treatment programmes, including the administration of PrEP for HIV.

Jeopardizing Key SDG 3 Targets

The work of these organizations is fundamental to meeting several specific targets within SDG 3. The proposed funding cuts would severely undermine progress in the following areas:

1. Target 3.3: End the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other communicable diseases.
2. Target 3.2: End preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age.
3. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.

Wider Context: Declining Global Commitments and Rising Inequalities (SDG 10)

Trend of Reduced Official Development Assistance

The EU’s proposal is part of a broader, concerning trend of waning global commitment to development assistance. Major donors, including the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France, have already scaled back their ODA commitments, often to reallocate funds for other priorities such as defence. The UK, for instance, recently cut its funding to Gavi by £400 million. This collective reduction in global health funding places immense strain on the international system and its ability to respond to health crises.

Exacerbating Global Health Disparities

The withdrawal of funding from organizations that primarily serve low- and middle-income countries would exacerbate existing health disparities, directly hindering progress on SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). By weakening the health systems of the most vulnerable nations, such a policy shift risks reversing decades of progress in global health equity and leaving millions without access to lifesaving vaccines and treatments.

Future Outlook and Strategic Challenges

Uncertainty for Health Organizations

The proposed changes create significant uncertainty for Gavi and the Global Fund. Gavi recently fell short of its 2026-2030 fundraising target by $2.4 billion, even with a €360 million pledge from the EU. The organization acknowledges it has “no clear exit plan,” as its beneficiaries will require long-term support to build sustainable vaccine capacity, a core tenet of strengthening health systems under SDG 3. The Commission has stated it is considering “reduced resources and shifting paradigms in favour of country ownership,” but the transition plan remains undefined.

Conclusion

The European Commission’s consideration of defunding Gavi and the Global Fund by 2030 represents a pivotal moment for global development policy. While motivated by a desire to enhance the EU’s geopolitical standing, this strategic shift carries a substantial risk of undermining the global effort to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The potential negative impact on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) necessitates a thorough re-evaluation of the long-term consequences for global health security and equity.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses issues related to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

     This is the most central SDG in the article. The text revolves around funding for global health initiatives, specifically Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund. These organizations work to “improve vaccine access for children,” fight diseases like “tuberculosis, AIDS, and malaria,” and have collectively “saved an estimated 20.6 million and 70 million lives, respectively.” The potential funding cuts directly threaten progress on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages.

   • SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

     The article’s core theme is the state of global partnerships and development financing. It discusses the European Commission’s re-evaluation of its overseas development aid (ODA), the withdrawal of funding by major donors like the US, and the overall decline in global health funding. This directly relates to the goal of strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable development. The article highlights the tension between financial contributions and political influence, as noted in the document: “despite the scale of funding, ‘our political influence does not yet match our financial weight.'”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

   • Targets under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

     • Target 3.2: By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age. This is directly relevant to the work of Gavi, which “aims to improve vaccine access for children in developing countries” and has a “five-year plan to immunise 500 children” against diseases like diphtheria and polio.
     • Target 3.3: By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases. This is the explicit mission of the Global Fund, which “fights tuberculosis, AIDS, and malaria.” The article also mentions its work in administering “pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV in low- and middle-income countries.”
     • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all. Gavi’s work to provide vaccines is a key component of achieving universal health coverage. The potential funding cuts threaten this access for people in low- and middle-income countries.

   • Targets under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

     • Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments. The article directly addresses this target by highlighting how major donors are failing to meet or are scaling back their ODA commitments. It states, “This year, US President Donald Trump has cut Washington’s funding to Gavi and the Global Fund,” and that “Germany, France, and Belgium, have also scaled back their ODA commitments, as has the European Commission.”
     • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships. The article discusses a shift in funding models, noting the EU is “gradually shifting its global health financing from providing predictable cash to more public-private and conditional funds.” The announcement of a “new Global Gateway Investment Hub, an ‘agile’ single-entry point for public and private actors” is a direct example of promoting such partnerships.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   Yes, the article mentions several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

   • Indicators for SDG 3 Targets

     • Lives Saved: The article provides a direct impact indicator, stating that Gavi and the Global Fund “claim to have saved an estimated 20.6 million and 70 million lives, respectively.” This is a powerful measure of progress towards reducing mortality from preventable diseases (Targets 3.2 and 3.3).
     • Number of People Immunized: A specific, forward-looking indicator is mentioned in Gavi’s “five-year plan to immunise 500 children,” which directly measures progress on vaccination coverage (relevant to Targets 3.2 and 3.8).
     • Disease Prevention: The mention of “administering pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV” is an indicator for efforts to prevent new HIV infections (Target 3.3).

   • Indicators for SDG 17 Targets

     • Official Development Assistance (ODA) Funding Levels: The article provides specific financial figures that serve as indicators for Target 17.2. These include the EU’s contribution of “€3.5 billion to global funds, including €1.5 billion annually through UN agencies” since 2021, and the UK’s decision to “cut funding by £400 million to Gavi.” These figures track the flow of development assistance.
     • Resource Mobilization and Funding Gaps: The results of Gavi’s fundraising event serve as a clear indicator of resource mobilization for partnerships. The article states it “generated around $9.5 (€8.1) billion” but “fell short of its $11.9 (€10.2) billion target,” indicating a significant funding gap.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
   SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.2: End preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5. 3.3: End the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including access to vaccines.	– Number of lives saved by Gavi (20.6 million) and the Global Fund (70 million). – Gavi’s plan to “immunise 500 children.” – The Global Fund’s work fighting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. – Administration of PrEP for HIV prevention.
   SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals	17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their ODA commitments. 17.17: Encourage effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.	– Specific ODA funding amounts and cuts (e.g., EU’s €3.5 billion contribution, UK’s £400 million cut). – Gavi’s fundraising results: $9.5 billion raised against an $11.9 billion target, indicating a funding gap. – EU’s shift towards public-private partnerships and the creation of the “Global Gateway Investment Hub.”

Source: euractiv.com