The day after: Future of development aid in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova – European Leadership Network

Report on the Shifting Landscape of Development Aid and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Crisis in Global Development Partnerships

Global development aid is confronting a significant crisis, threatening the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This situation is exacerbated by two primary factors: the redirection of European Union assistance towards conflict stabilization following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the 2025 withdrawal and restructuring of USAID programs. The abrupt nature of these changes has created a substantial financial and institutional vacuum, directly impacting long-term development initiatives and undermining progress towards the 2030 Agenda, particularly in vulnerable states such as Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova.

This report, informed by consultations with regional analysts and practitioners, examines the consequences of this evolving aid landscape, with a specific focus on its implications for the SDGs.

Impact of Aid Reduction on Sustainable Development Goals

Erosion of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The withdrawal of development support, particularly from USAID, represents a direct threat to SDG 16. USAID’s role extended beyond financial contributions to include the promotion of democratic norms, transparency, and institutional capacity-building. The sudden termination of programs has weakened governance structures and civil society organizations, which are crucial for accountability and justice.

• In Georgia, the reduction in Western support has coincided with the passage of legislation restricting non-governmental organizations, effectively stifling civil society and undermining the core tenets of SDG 16.
• The loss of USAID’s political leverage removes a protective layer for civil society, leaving local organizations more vulnerable to state repression and hindering their ability to advocate for peace and human rights.
• The retreat of Western aid creates a vacuum that emboldens authoritarian influences, further degrading democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Setbacks for Social and Economic Development Goals

The financial shortfall has immediate and severe consequences for a range of SDGs focused on human well-being and economic stability.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The scaling back of humanitarian and development aid disproportionately affects marginalized communities, increasing their vulnerability to poverty and exacerbating existing inequalities.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 4 (Quality Education): The abrupt termination of projects has left critical health and education initiatives in limbo across more than 80 countries, reversing progress on these fundamental goals.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Long-term projects in rural development and energy, such as those in Moldova, were designed to foster sustainable economic growth. Their cessation jeopardizes local economies and livelihoods.

Geopolitical Realignment and its Implications for the 2030 Agenda

The Rise of Alternative Development Models

The retreat of Western development partners creates an opportunity for actors like Russia and China to expand their influence. This shift introduces development models that often lack commitment to the core principles of the SDGs, such as transparency, human rights, and sustainability.

• China’s “no-strings-attached” funding for large infrastructure, such as the $2 billion port project in Georgia, presents a challenge to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). While appearing to advance these goals, such projects often lack transparency and risk creating unsustainable debt, placing critical infrastructure under foreign control.
• The growing influence of these actors undermines efforts to achieve SDG 16 by empowering non-democratic governments and weakening accountability mechanisms.

The European Union’s Evolving Role in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

While the EU remains a significant development actor, current trends indicate a reduction in its Official Development Assistance (ODA) as resources are redirected toward defence. The OECD projects a significant decline in total ODA, compounding the impact of US cuts. The EU’s approach, often perceived as bureaucratic, has historically lacked the strategic political engagement of USAID. However, recent actions, such as conditioning aid to Ukraine on the independence of anti-corruption bodies, demonstrate a potential for the EU to more assertively leverage its partnerships to uphold SDG 16. Nevertheless, the EU is not currently positioned to fully compensate for the US withdrawal, creating a net loss for global development partnerships.

Recommendations for Upholding the Sustainable Development Goals

Based on analysis of the current aid crisis, the following recommendations are proposed to mitigate the negative impacts on the 2030 Agenda:

1. Reaffirm Commitment to SDG 16: Development aid must continue to prioritize support for democratic institutions, civil society, and human rights. A long-term commitment to strengthening governance is essential for creating the stability required to achieve all other SDGs.
2. Strengthen the EU’s Role in SDG 17: The EU should enhance its strategic impact by adopting models that include deeper local engagement and clear conditionality, reinforcing its role as a key partner for sustainable development. Aid should be clearly framed as a tool for enhancing long-term security and stability.
3. Counter Influences Detrimental to Sustainable Development: Policymakers must actively monitor and counter the influence of actors whose development models undermine the principles of the SDGs. This includes robust support for independent media and civic education to ensure local priorities and democratic norms are upheld.
4. Promote Transparency and Data for Development: In the face of diminishing transparency, international partners must reinforce their commitment to credible and comparable metrics. Upholding the role of international organizations in providing accepted metrics is crucial for monitoring progress towards the SDGs and ensuring accountability in all development activities.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article highlights issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following relevant SDGs:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is a central theme of the article. The text extensively discusses the impact of aid cuts on governance, democratic institutions, civil society, media freedom, and anti-corruption efforts in countries like Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. The retreat of USAID is described as weakening a “stabilising force” and a “promoter of democratic norms,” leading to laws that restrict civil society and embolden authoritarian influence.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article’s core subject is the changing landscape of international development aid, which is a key component of global partnerships. It details the reduction of Official Development Assistance (ODA) from major donors like the US and EU countries and discusses the geopolitical implications as other actors like China and Russia fill the void. This directly relates to the financing and partnership aspects of SDG 17.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article mentions the disruption of “humanitarian aid,” of which USAID was the largest single donor. Humanitarian aid is critical for addressing the immediate needs of the most vulnerable populations, and its reduction directly impacts efforts to alleviate poverty and suffering, especially in conflict-affected regions like Ukraine.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The text explicitly states that the freeze on foreign aid programs “disrupted critical health… initiatives across more than 80 countries.” A former USAID official’s account of a terminated cooperative agreement leaving “critical health… programs in limbo” further reinforces this connection.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: Similar to health, the article mentions that aid cuts “disrupted critical… education… initiatives.” This indicates a direct negative impact on funding for educational projects in recipient countries.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: The article provides a specific example related to this goal by mentioning that the Georgian government selected a Chinese state-controlled entity to build a new “$2 billion port on the Black Sea.” This highlights a shift in infrastructure development partnerships, with potential negative consequences regarding debt and foreign control over critical infrastructure.

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

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.
   • The article directly addresses this target by describing how the loss of USAID’s influence has “emboldened the Georgian government to pass laws restricting civil society, media freedom, and public assembly.” The specific example of the Georgian law that labels NGOs as “foreign agents” is a clear setback for the fundamental freedom of association.
2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article highlights that aid cuts disrupt “governance initiatives” and undermine support for “long-term development and institution-building.” The recommendation to “Reaffirm commitment to democratic aid” to support “democratic institutions” directly aligns with this target.
3. Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.
   • This target is explicitly referenced when the article notes that the EU cancelled new financing for Ukraine “when the Ukrainian government introduced a law curtailing the independence of anti-corruption bodies.” This demonstrates the use of aid conditionality to promote anti-corruption efforts.
4. Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments…
   • The entire article is framed around the failure to meet this target. It details the “unprecedented challenges” facing development aid, citing the “withdrawal and restructuring of USAID programs” and cuts in Official Development Assistance (ODA) from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
5. Target 1.a: Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources… to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions.
   • The article’s focus on the massive cuts to humanitarian and development aid, which funds programs for the most vulnerable, directly relates to the challenge of mobilizing resources. The “sudden shortfall in support” undermines the implementation of policies aimed at poverty reduction.

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 (or regression) towards the identified targets.

• Financial Aid Flows (Indicator for Target 17.2): The article provides specific financial data that serve as direct indicators of ODA levels.
  • The OECD projection of a “decline of 9% to 17% in total ODA in 2025, in addition to a 9% decrease in 2024.”
  • The fact that “France, Germany, and the United Kingdom reduced their Official Development Assistance (ODA).”
  • Specific aid figures are given, such as USAID disbursing “47% of all humanitarian aid worldwide in 2024,” and providing over “$6 billion” to Ukraine, “$110 million” to Georgia, and “$150 million” to Moldova in 2024. These figures serve as a baseline to measure the scale of the cuts.
  • OCHA’s report of a “40% (y/y) drop in global aid in July 2025.”
• Legislation and Civil Liberties (Indicator for Target 16.10): The article points to legislative actions as a key indicator of the state of fundamental freedoms.
  • The passing of a law in Georgia that labels “nongovernmental organisations as foreign agents if at least 20% of their funding stems from foreign sources.” The existence and enforcement of such laws are a direct, measurable indicator of restrictions on civil society.
• Institutional Independence (Indicator for Target 16.5 & 16.6): The article implies that the independence of key state institutions is a crucial indicator.
  • The example of the Ukrainian government introducing “a law curtailing the independence of anti-corruption bodies” serves as a negative indicator for progress on building accountable institutions and fighting corruption.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: europeanleadershipnetwork.org