How can we reimagine development programmes in a post-aid world? – Alliance magazine

Global Development Funding Crisis and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Contraction in Official Development Assistance (ODA)

A significant and sustained reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) is altering the landscape of global development funding. Projections from the OECD indicate a potential 9 to 17 percent decrease in funding for 2025, compounding a 9 percent reduction from the previous year. This trend is widespread, with at least eleven countries announcing ODA cutbacks through 2027. This contraction directly challenges the fulfillment of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), particularly Target 17.2, which calls for developed countries to fully implement their ODA commitments.

Human Cost and Setbacks to SDG 3

The reduction in development funding has severe humanitarian consequences, undermining progress towards SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). A study published in The Lancet estimates that cuts from USAID alone could lead to approximately 14 million additional deaths by 2030. These figures illustrate the direct correlation between development assistance and fundamental public health outcomes, highlighting the risk of reversing decades of progress.

Systemic Failures in Traditional Development Models

The Vulnerability of Top-Down Approaches

The current funding crisis exposes a systemic weakness in the development sector: a historical reliance on ‘top-down’ programming. This model has proven highly vulnerable to global political shifts and economic crises, creating instability and jeopardizing the long-term sustainability required to achieve the 2030 Agenda.

Unmet Commitments to Localization and SDG 16

Despite recognizing the importance of locally led development, the sector has failed to meet established targets. The 2016 ‘Grand Bargain’ committed to providing 25 percent of funding to local organizations, yet in 2024, only 5.5 percent of project funding was directed to local actors. This shortfall represents a failure to foster the inclusive, participatory, and accountable institutions central to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

A Strategic Pivot to Community-Driven Change (CDC) for SDG Acceleration

Defining Community-Driven Change

The current environment necessitates a strategic shift towards Community-Driven Change (CDC). This approach redefines development by empowering communities to become owners and partners in programs rather than passive recipients. The core of CDC is the intentional building of community power (agency, voice, participation in decision-making) and assets (technical skills, resources, social capital).

CDC as a Catalyst for Achieving Multiple SDGs

By fostering local ownership, CDC builds resilience and creates more sustainable outcomes, thereby accelerating progress across the SDG framework. This model directly contributes to:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): By enabling communities to unlock domestic, non-philanthropic capital and access government resources.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality): By ceding power and ensuring the agency of marginalized populations in local decision-making.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): By equipping communities to lead and sustain their own development programs, making them more resilient to external shocks.

Empirical Evidence of CDC Efficacy

Multiyear research and surveys involving over 800 community members across India, Kenya, and South Africa demonstrate the effectiveness of the CDC model. Key findings indicate significant empowerment and capacity building:

• 83 percent of respondents reported the emergence of strong community leaders.
• Over 50 percent gained access to additional government resources.
• Over 66 percent felt their ability to influence local decision-making had increased.

Recommendations for Philanthropic Action to Advance the 2030 Agenda

To navigate the current transition and effectively support the SDGs, philanthropy must adopt a new operational framework centered on CDC principles. The following actions are recommended:

1. Identify and Support Authentic Community-Driven Organizations: Funders must conduct due diligence to distinguish and provide resources to organizations that genuinely partner with and cede power to communities, thereby upholding the participatory principles of SDG 16.
2. Invest in Process to Ensure Sustainable Outcomes: Investment must extend beyond programmatic outcomes to include the process of strengthening community power and assets. This foundational work is critical for the long-term achievement of all SDGs.
3. Provide Long-Term, Flexible Funding: Achieving complex social change requires patient, multiyear, and unrestricted capital. This funding structure provides the stability necessary for CDC organizations to make meaningful progress on systemic issues like poverty (SDG 1) and inequality (SDG 10).
4. Adopt a Listen-and-Learn Approach: Transitioning to a CDC approach requires funders to actively listen to community priorities and adapt programs accordingly. This commitment to inclusive feedback mechanisms is a core tenet of SDG 16.7.
5. Foster Collaborative Partnerships (SDG 17): In a climate of uncertainty, pooling resources, expertise, and networks is essential. Collaboration among funders and with public and private stakeholders can mitigate risk and more effectively address the multidimensional needs of communities, directly advancing the spirit of SDG 17.

Conclusion: An Opportunity to Reimagine Development for the SDG Era

The contemporary challenges facing the development sector present a critical opportunity to transition away from fragile, top-down models. By embracing Community-Driven Change, philanthropy can foster a more resilient, equitable, and effective approach to development. This strategic pivot is essential for creating meaningful and sustainable impact that places communities at the center of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

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

SDG 1: No Poverty

• The article’s central theme is development funding (Official Development Assistance – ODA), which is a primary tool for global poverty eradication efforts. The discussion of “devastating impact on lives” due to funding cuts directly relates to setbacks in poverty reduction.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article explicitly links cuts in development aid to negative health outcomes, citing a Lancet study that estimated “around 14 million additional deaths brought on by the USAID cuts alone by 2030.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The critique of the traditional “top-down” approach to development funding and the call for a “community-driven change (CDC)” model addresses the power imbalance and inequality between international funders and local communities. The goal is to empower communities and give them agency, thus reducing inequality in the development process.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article advocates for strengthening local communities’ ability to participate in governance. The CDC approach aims to build community power, including their “voice” and “ability to participate in decision making,” which fosters more inclusive and participatory local institutions.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• The entire article is a critique and reimagining of the partnership model for development. It discusses the failure of ODA commitments, the need for new funding models, and the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration (“working together with other funders, or public and private stakeholders”).

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

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.a: Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources… to implement programmes and policies to end poverty. The article discusses the failure of resource mobilization from traditional ODA sources and highlights the importance of CDC in helping communities “unlock domestic, non-philanthropic sources of capital” and access “government resources.”

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.c: Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries. The article’s mention of “14 million additional deaths” resulting from USAID cuts implies a direct negative impact on health financing and the systems it supports.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all. The article’s core proposal of “community-driven change” is designed to achieve this by supporting “communities to build their power (their agency, their voice, their ability to participate in decision making).”

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article directly supports this target by advocating for a model where communities become “owners and partners of development programmes” and by citing survey results where “over 66 per cent felt that their ability to influence local decision making had increased.”

5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments. The article opens by stating this target is not being met, highlighting that “Slashed official development assistance (ODA) budgets are not coming back” and that many countries “will be cutting back on ODA.”
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships. The article calls for funders to “Work together to accelerate efforts” by “pooling resources, expertise, and networks” with “other funders, or public and private stakeholders.”

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

1. Indicator for SDG 17 (Partnerships)

   • The article provides a direct indicator for measuring progress on localization in development partnerships. It references the “Grand Bargain” commitment “to provide 25 per cent of their funding to local organisations” and contrasts this with the reality that in “2024, only 5.5 per cent of project funding… went directly to local actors.” This percentage serves as a clear metric.

2. Indicator for SDG 3 (Health)

   • While not a formal SDG indicator, the article implies a critical measure of health system resilience by citing the estimate of “around 14 million additional deaths” due to aid cuts. This points to mortality rates as a key indicator of the impact of development funding on health.

3. Indicators for SDG 10 (Inequality) & SDG 16 (Institutions)

   • The article provides specific, quantifiable indicators from its survey that measure community empowerment and participation in decision-making. These can be used to track progress towards more inclusive societies and institutions:
     • “83 per cent said they now have strong community leaders.”
     • “over 66 per cent felt that their ability to influence local decision making had increased.”
     • “over 50 per cent gained access to additional government resources.”

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.

Source: alliancemagazine.org