Home » There’s been a global trend in the reduction of aid to Africa since 2018. Donors are shifting their funding priorities in response to domestic and international agendas. Germany, France and Norway, for instance, have all reduced their aid to Africa in the past five years. And, in 2020, the UK government reduced its Overseas Development Aid from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%. Many health services across the African continent rely heavily on overseas aid to provide essential care. International funding supports everything from vaccines and HIV treatment to maternal health programmes. Cuts to aid, particularly unilateral ones, can have widespread implications. For instance, about 72 million people missed out on treatment for neglected tropical diseases between 2021 and 2022 due to UK aid cuts. The freeze of US aid to Africa in January 2025 is the latest in this trend. It’s already having significant and wide-ranging impacts across the African continent. For example, vaccination campaigns for polio eradication and HIV/Aids treatment through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar) have been stopped. This puts millions of lives at risk. In South Africa alone, the cut of Pepfar’s US$400 million a year to HIV programmes risks patients defaulting on treatment, infection rates going up and eventually a rise in deaths. President Donald Trump’s actions have highlighted Africa’s reliance on foreign aid for health funding. I’m a global health expert who sits on various funding and advisory boards, including those of the World Health Organization (WHO), the UK government and boards of global resource mobilisation organisations. I am well aware of the competing funding priorities for international funders and have long advocated for local, sustainable health funding mechanisms. Long-term strategies to reduce aid dependency are critical. Breaking away from this current funding status requires concerted efforts building on proven best practice. Country-leadership and ownership African countries currently face the unique challenge of simultaneously dealing with high rates of communicable diseases, such as malaria and HIV/Aids, and rising levels of non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. But Africa’s health systems are not sufficiently resourced. They’re not able to provide appropriate, accessible and affordable healthcare to address these challenges. African governments spend less than 10% of their GDP on health, amounting to capital expenditure of US$4.5 billion. This falls short of the estimated US$26 billion annual investment needed to meet evolving health needs. Aid goes towards filling this funding gap. For example, in 2021, half of sub-Saharan African countries relied on external financing, such as grants and loans, for more than one-third of their health expenditures. Foreign aid has helped. But it clearly leaves African countries vulnerable to the political mood swings among funders. It also leads to loss of self-determination in terms of health priorities as, ultimately, the funder determines the health priorities. This is one reason why many programmes in Africa focus on a single disease, such as HIV. This leads to poorly integrated health services. For instance health workers or services are channelled into managing a single disease. New, underutilised financing options The current trajectory of reduced aid to Africa is likely to continue. Global aid is being directed to other challenges, such as conflict and illegal immigration. The continent cannot continue on the same path while hoping for different outcomes. Africa needs to grow a range of immediately available domestic financing options. Many of these are underutilised and include: 1.) Diversifying domestic resource mobilisation. This should include commodity taxation to fund health. For instance, tobacco taxes which are currently underutilised in Africa. Zimbabwe offers a successful example. It has bridged donor resource gaps through its 3% Aids levy (started in 1999). Imposed on both individual and corporate incomes, it funds domestic HIV/Aids prevention, care and treatment programmes. Nigeria’s another country that’s taken initiative, prioritising domestic budget allocation to health. It recently absorbed the 28,000 healthworkers formerly paid by USAid. This demonstrates that domestic health financing in Africa is possible. 2.) More private-public partnerships. Formed between local and international philanthropies or institutions, these can bridge financing gaps. One successful example is the 2015 health service provision partnership between the Kenyan government and GE Healthcare. GE Healthcare provides radiography equipment and services which the government pays for over time. This allows the government to budget and plan healthcare expenditure over several years. 3.) Promotion of regional integration to boost local production. This will reduce the need for aid-funded imported medical products. For instance, the African Union’s harmonised Africa Medicines Authority registration facility creates a single continental market for medicines. This supports local producers and exporters, by allowing them to operate on a larger scale. It also makes production and distribution more cost-effective. Finally, it reduces the reliance on imported medicines, strengthening Africa’s pharmaceutical industry. 4.) Leverage development finance institutions. These are specialised financial organisations – such as the Africa Development Bank, African Export-Import Bank and the Development Bank of Southern Africa. They can provide capital and expertise to projects deemed too risky for traditional investors. This includes support for health financing for infrastructure development, private sector development for small and medium-sized enterprises and the regional integration. One transformative initiative is the AfricInvest investment platform. With support from development finance institutions in the US and Europe, AfricInvest has raised over US$100 million for health investment in Africa. It has funded at least 45 dialysis facilities in Africa, delivering over 130,000 dialysis sessions annually, primarily to remote and underserved communities all at affordable costs. A combination of these approaches at national, regional and continental level will accelerate Africa’s withdrawal from aid dependency. Professor Francisca Mutapi is a professor in global health infection and immunity at the University of Edinburgh, where she is also the deputy director of the TIBA (Tackling Infections to Benefit Africa) Partnership, and co-director of the Global Health Academy at the university.
Health care

There’s been a global trend in the reduction of aid to Africa since 2018. Donors are shifting their funding priorities in response to domestic and international agendas. Germany, France and Norway, for instance, have all reduced their aid to Africa in the past five years. And, in 2020, the UK government reduced its Overseas Development Aid from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5%. Many health services across the African continent rely heavily on overseas aid to provide essential care. International funding supports everything from vaccines and HIV treatment to maternal health programmes. Cuts to aid, particularly unilateral ones, can have widespread implications. For instance, about 72 million people missed out on treatment for neglected tropical diseases between 2021 and 2022 due to UK aid cuts. The freeze of US aid to Africa in January 2025 is the latest in this trend. It’s already having significant and wide-ranging impacts across the African continent. For example, vaccination campaigns for polio eradication and HIV/Aids treatment through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar) have been stopped. This puts millions of lives at risk. In South Africa alone, the cut of Pepfar’s US$400 million a year to HIV programmes risks patients defaulting on treatment, infection rates going up and eventually a rise in deaths. President Donald Trump’s actions have highlighted Africa’s reliance on foreign aid for health funding. I’m a global health expert who sits on various funding and advisory boards, including those of the World Health Organization (WHO), the UK government and boards of global resource mobilisation organisations. I am well aware of the competing funding priorities for international funders and have long advocated for local, sustainable health funding mechanisms. Long-term strategies to reduce aid dependency are critical. Breaking away from this current funding status requires concerted efforts building on proven best practice. Country-leadership and ownership African countries currently face the unique challenge of simultaneously dealing with high rates of communicable diseases, such as malaria and HIV/Aids, and rising levels of non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. But Africa’s health systems are not sufficiently resourced. They’re not able to provide appropriate, accessible and affordable healthcare to address these challenges. African governments spend less than 10% of their GDP on health, amounting to capital expenditure of US$4.5 billion. This falls short of the estimated US$26 billion annual investment needed to meet evolving health needs. Aid goes towards filling this funding gap. For example, in 2021, half of sub-Saharan African countries relied on external financing, such as grants and loans, for more than one-third of their health expenditures. Foreign aid has helped. But it clearly leaves African countries vulnerable to the political mood swings among funders. It also leads to loss of self-determination in terms of health priorities as, ultimately, the funder determines the health priorities. This is one reason why many programmes in Africa focus on a single disease, such as HIV. This leads to poorly integrated health services. For instance health workers or services are channelled into managing a single disease. New, underutilised financing options The current trajectory of reduced aid to Africa is likely to continue. Global aid is being directed to other challenges, such as conflict and illegal immigration. The continent cannot continue on the same path while hoping for different outcomes. Africa needs to grow a range of immediately available domestic financing options. Many of these are underutilised and include: 1.) Diversifying domestic resource mobilisation. This should include commodity taxation to fund health. For instance, tobacco taxes which are currently underutilised in Africa. Zimbabwe offers a successful example. It has bridged donor resource gaps through its 3% Aids levy (started in 1999). Imposed on both individual and corporate incomes, it funds domestic HIV/Aids prevention, care and treatment programmes. Nigeria’s another country that’s taken initiative, prioritising domestic budget allocation to health. It recently absorbed the 28,000 healthworkers formerly paid by USAid. This demonstrates that domestic health financing in Africa is possible. 2.) More private-public partnerships. Formed between local and international philanthropies or institutions, these can bridge financing gaps. One successful example is the 2015 health service provision partnership between the Kenyan government and GE Healthcare. GE Healthcare provides radiography equipment and services which the government pays for over time. This allows the government to budget and plan healthcare expenditure over several years. 3.) Promotion of regional integration to boost local production. This will reduce the need for aid-funded imported medical products. For instance, the African Union’s harmonised Africa Medicines Authority registration facility creates a single continental market for medicines. This supports local producers and exporters, by allowing them to operate on a larger scale. It also makes production and distribution more cost-effective. Finally, it reduces the reliance on imported medicines, strengthening Africa’s pharmaceutical industry. 4.) Leverage development finance institutions. These are specialised financial organisations – such as the Africa Development Bank, African Export-Import Bank and the Development Bank of Southern Africa. They can provide capital and expertise to projects deemed too risky for traditional investors. This includes support for health financing for infrastructure development, private sector development for small and medium-sized enterprises and the regional integration. One transformative initiative is the AfricInvest investment platform. With support from development finance institutions in the US and Europe, AfricInvest has raised over US$100 million for health investment in Africa. It has funded at least 45 dialysis facilities in Africa, delivering over 130,000 dialysis sessions annually, primarily to remote and underserved communities all at affordable costs. A combination of these approaches at national, regional and continental level will accelerate Africa’s withdrawal from aid dependency. Professor Francisca Mutapi is a professor in global health infection and immunity at the University of Edinburgh, where she is also the deputy director of the TIBA (Tackling Infections to Benefit Africa) Partnership, and co-director of the Global Health Academy at the university.

Focusing foreign aid on infectious diseases has allowed a rise in cancer and diabetes that African governments don’t have resources to fight, says Dr Githinji Gitahi

Health services in Africa are at risk of “collapse in the next few years” due to soaring chronic diseases, a senior public health leader has warned.

Foreign aid to Africa has been focused on infectious diseases, leaving conditions such as cancer and diabetes to escalate, said Dr Githinji Gitahi, group CEO of Amref Health Africa.

In sub-Saharan Africa, non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including hypertension, diabetes and heart disease accounted for 37% of deaths in 2019, up from 24% in 2000. They are forecast to become the leading cause of death in the region by 2030 – driven by factors such as unhealthy western-style diets, less active lifestyles and air pollution.

“Aid is not charity” and will inevitably follow donor countries’ own interests such as stopping infectious diseases that could spread overseas, said Gitahi, who called for Africa’s leaders to step up their own work on controlling NCDs.

Gitahi spoke to the Guardian at the Global NCD Alliance Forum in Kigali, Rwanda, earlier this month, a gathering of more than 700 delegates from 89 countries.

A conference hall filled with people
Delegates attend the opening ceremony of the Global NCD Alliance Forum in Kigali, Rwanda. Photograph: Gilberto Lontro/NCD Alliance

The challenge is vast, according to Gitahi. “Africa has a big risk of collapse of health systems in the next few years because of NCDs […] 50% of all admissions in a typical African hospital are NCDs, yet 80% of NCD care is out of pocket. And governments don’t have money to actually take care of NCDs.”

The blame lies with multinational corporations chasing profits, he said, and with governments failing to bring in regulations to put a brake on their activities. “Politicians think about the next election,” he said. “This issue is about the next generation.”

Gitahi, from Kenya, said global health and foreign aid spending had historically focused on diseases that could affect the donors themselves. Less than 3% of development spending for health goes to NCDs.

“That is why there is so much focus on TB, HIV, because when you keep HIV low in Kenya, you keep it out of your country because people travel, and people carry diseases,” he said. “But for cancer, for hypertension, for diabetes … that’s non-infectious.

A smiling man in blazer and glasses sitting down
Dr Githinji Gitahi, group CEO of Amref Health Africa. Photograph: Amref

“The people who should care about that are their governments because [NCDs] are taking away people from active social and economic participation. Because the governments don’t have enough money […] it is likely to continue being a neglected problem.”

The forum’s delegates were meeting as a result of decisions by the US administration to freeze much of its overseas aid spending and to issue stop work orders to current programmes. Amref’s work has been affected, Gitahi said.

“We do about $250m [£197m] of work a year […] about $50m of that is actually US government partnerships,” he said, in areas including maternal and child health, HIV work and laboratory and health system strengthening.

Some Amref staff have been placed on unpaid leave, Gitahi said, though he was optimistic that some of the work will restart after the 90-day review period announced by Donald Trump’s officials.

“We hope that at the end of it, they will continue with programming, as they say, that’s aligned to their foreign policy, but actually protects communities and community lives and protects Americans themselves,” Gitahi said. “I keep saying aid is not charity. Aid is strategic investment by a country to protect its own internal interests. That’s what it has always been.”

African governments will need to become more efficient and to tackle corruption, he suggested, and to embrace taxation of unhealthy goods, such as tobacco, alcohol and sugar, with the proceeds earmarked for health programmes. They will also need to work on the prevention of ill health, Gitahi said, suggesting they “copy and paste” regulations from western countries that ban things such as the advertising of foods high in sugar, salt or fat to children.

A black wall with positive health messages written on it in neon colours
A ‘call to action wall’ at the Global NCD Alliance Forum in Kigali this month. Photograph: Gilberto Lontro/NCD Alliance

US funding accounts for half of all development assistance in Africa, he said, or $6.5bn out of $13bn. African governments will not be able to completely replace lost funding, Gitahi said, because their economies are not large enough. It may mean reframing goals to provide universal health care to cover “100% of the poor” rather than the entire population.

“Africa cannot raise enough money from its fiscal space, from its GDP, to actually take care of all social services,” he said. “Africa needs solidarity.”

In the end, the international community should see that solidarity was important for global security, he said. “When you have a weak health system in any country, it is like having an insecure airspace in any country. That [poses] a risk to the entire world.”

Source: The Guardian