BUILD AFRICA THURSDAYS Africa must move from being funded to becoming fundable, from receiving solutions to building them, and from dependence to capability.

BUILD AFRICA THURSDAY: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE FUNDING STOPS?

Recently, I had a conversation with a colleague who has a background in psychology and previously worked in a government health programme supporting communities affected by HIV and AIDS. She described the work that used to happen on the ground: health workers moving into communities, educating people about HIV prevention, family planning, condoms, sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies, while also connecting people to treatment and support. What struck me was not only the importance of that work, but how vulnerable an entire system can become when a significant part of its financing comes from outside the continent. When the funding stops, it is not simply a budget line that disappears. People, programmes, jobs, medicines, education, prevention and community services can disappear with it.

We saw a real example of this after the United States paused foreign assistance in January 2025 under the Trump administration. PEPFAR, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, had supported HIV programmes across 55 countries and, by the end of 2024, was supporting more than 20 million people with life-saving antiretroviral treatment. Since its creation in 2003, PEPFAR had helped save more than 26 million lives and avert almost 5 million HIV infections. ([UNAIDS][1])

Then came the ripple effect. UNAIDS reported that, among 70 country offices that supplied information, 40% reported that community-led HIV services had stopped because of the U.S. funding cuts; 30% reported interruptions to services provided by international NGOs, while 3% reported government services being stopped. ([UNAIDS])

The employment impact was equally significant. In Kenya alone, UNAIDS reported that the funding disruption affected 1,952 doctors, 1,234 nurses and 918 technical and management staff supported partly or fully by U.S. funding. That is more than 4,000 people whose work was connected to the HIV response. In Côte d'Ivoire, approximately 8,600 healthcare providers and community workers were affected. In Namibia, 423 medical and technical staff were affected, while South Africa reported more than 15,374 HIV-response staff affected nationally and across 27 priority districts. ([UNAIDS])

And these numbers represent much more than lost salaries. When a health worker loses a job, a community can lose someone who was testing people, counselling families, distributing prevention information, following up patients, supporting vulnerable groups or connecting people to treatment. When an outreach programme closes, people who previously received information may no longer receive it. When prevention programmes disappear, condom distribution and PrEP access can fall. UNAIDS reported that Kenya experienced dangerously low condom stocks during the disruption, while Malawi reported reduced capacity for PrEP, early infant diagnosis and outreach to hard-to-reach communities. ([UNAIDS])

The disruption was not limited to Africa. A 2026 amfAR assessment of PEPFAR-funded organisations found that among 166 organisations surveyed across 46 countries, funding terminations were associated with the closure of more than 1,700 clinics, drop-in centres and other service-delivery sites and the loss of more than 16,000 full-time staff positions. The survey also found that HIV-prevention spending fell by 51% between fiscal years 2024 and 2025. ([AP News]])

These figures should make Africa uncomfortable not because international partners should not support Africa, but because essential African systems should not become permanently dependent on decisions made somewhere else.

The question for Africa therefore cannot simply be: Who will fund us next?

The bigger question must be: How do we build the capacity to sustain what matters to us?

If we know that HIV prevention, maternal health, education, youth employment, food security and community development are critical, then African governments, businesses, philanthropists, investors, communities and entrepreneurs must begin designing models that can survive changes in donor priorities.

That means developing African-funded social enterprises. It means strengthening domestic government financing. It means encouraging African corporations to invest in long-term community programmes. It means building cooperatives, businesses and community enterprises that generate income. It means developing vocational and digital skills so that people are not only recipients of programmes but become producers, entrepreneurs and employers. It means creating partnerships where communities are equipped with knowledge, skills, capital and systems not simply temporary projects.

This is where the idea of Build Africa becomes bigger than entrepreneurship.

Building Africa means building the capacity to continue when the money changes.

A young person should not only receive a programme for three years; they should leave with a skill that can earn them an income. A community should not only receive health education; it should have institutions capable of continuing that education. A social organisation should not only survive from grant to grant; it should explore sustainable revenue models. A government should not only wait for development partners; it should progressively invest domestic resources into its own priorities.

Aid can accelerate development. But dependency cannot be the development model.

Africa has talent. Africa has markets. Africa has natural resources. Africa has entrepreneurs. Africa has wealthy individuals, corporations, institutions and governments. What we need increasingly is the willingness to organise these resources into systems that can fund, operate and sustain African priorities.

Because the real test of development is not what happens while the funding is flowing.

The real test is what remains when the funding stops.

WHO FUNDS AFRICA WHEN THE DONORS LEAVE?

The question of sustainability is now becoming impossible to ignore. Africa CDC estimates that external health aid to Africa could fall by approximately 70% between 2021 and 2025. Its 2025 health-financing analysis also found that government sources account for only about 35% of total health expenditure across Africa, external assistance about 23%, while out-of-pocket payments account for another 35%. In February 2026, Africa CDC reported that development assistance for health had fallen from a peak of US$25.8 billion in 2021 to approximately US$13 billion in 2025. ([Africa CDC])

That should force a different conversation. The answer cannot simply be finding another donor. The answer has to be building financing systems that can survive the exit of any single donor.

Africa is already exploring some of these alternatives. Africa CDC's health-financing strategy calls for stronger domestic resource mobilisation, innovative financing mechanisms, blended finance and greater participation from the private sector. Proposals include health-related levies, solidarity contributions, taxes on products such as alcohol, airline-ticket levies and mechanisms that could channel a portion of Africa's enormous diaspora remittances toward national priorities. Africa CDC estimates African diaspora remittances at approximately US$95 billion annually. ([Africa CDC])

There is also a continental institution specifically being developed around this problem: the African Epidemics Fund. designed to mobilise resources from multiple sources and make financing available for epidemic preparedness and response. In 2026, the African Union Assembly also welcomed Angola's commitment of US$5 million annually to the fund and encouraged other Member States to increase voluntary contributions. ([Africa CDC])

But government and continental institutions cannot carry the entire burden.

This is where African business must enter the conversation not simply through charity, but through responsible business.

For too long, corporate social responsibility has sometimes been treated as an annual cheque, a donation, a sponsorship or a photograph. We need to move towards something more strategic: corporate investment in the resilience of the communities and ecosystems from which businesses themselves benefit.

A telecommunications company, for example, could support digital health education and community digital-literacy programmes. A bank could fund financial-literacy, entrepreneurship and savings programmes while connecting participants to appropriate financial products. A pharmaceutical company could invest in health education, local capacity and supply-chain resilience. A hospitality company could support vocational training in hospitality and tourism, creating future employees and entrepreneurs. An agricultural company could train farmers, develop suppliers and create market linkages. A technology company could provide digital skills and tools that enable young people to earn independently.

That is where ESEnvironmental, Social and Governance becomes more meaningful than a report on a website.

The “S” in ESG should ask: Are we strengthening the social systems around our business, or merely reporting on donations?

Responsible business should ask a harder question:

If our funding stopped tomorrow, what capability would remain in the community because of our investment?

Imagine a company putting US$100,000 into a community programme. The traditional model might spend the money delivering activities for one year. A sustainability model would ask how that same investment could create an institution, enterprise, training system, digital platform, cooperative, revolving fund or income-generating activity capable of continuing beyond the original grant.

This is the difference between funding an activity and financing capability.

It also means changing how NGOs and community organisations design programmes. A programme should ideally have a sustainability plan from day one: What happens in year two? What happens when the grant ends? Which activities should government absorb? Which can generate revenue? Which can be supported by corporate partners? Which can become social enterprises? Which can be funded through community contributions? Which outcomes can attract impact investors?

Not every social programme can or should become commercially profitable. HIV treatment, emergency care and other essential services cannot simply be left to market forces. But even essential services can benefit from stronger domestic financing, better procurement, shared infrastructure, local manufacturing, efficient systems and diversified funding.

Africa CDC is already advocating this broader approach. Its strategy aims to help at least 20 African countries finance 50% or more of their health budgets through sustainable domestic sources by 2030, while encouraging blended finance to bring public and private capital into areas such as health infrastructure, digital health and local production. ([Africa CDC][)

There is another opportunity that deserves much more attention: African philanthropy.

Africa does not lack wealth. The challenge is how much of that wealth is organised towards long-term social investment. African corporations, successful entrepreneurs, family businesses, foundations, high-net-worth individuals and diaspora communities could become strategic co-investors in African development.

Imagine 100 African companies each taking responsibility for a specific community challenge not merely donating once, but investing over five or ten years in measurable outcomes. Imagine banks creating social-impact investment products. Imagine pension funds and institutional investors participating in carefully structured blended-finance vehicles where appropriate. Imagine diaspora Africans investing not only in property and consumption but also in enterprises, health infrastructure, education and community businesses.

This is not about asking African businesses to become charities.

It is about recognising that responsible business and healthy societies are interconnected.

A company cannot sustainably grow in a community where young people have no opportunities, families have no economic resilience, health systems are fragile and education is failing. Businesses need customers, employees, suppliers, infrastructure, security and functioning communities.

Therefore, social investment should increasingly be viewed as ecosystem investment.

The private sector can contribute in five powerful ways: capital, skills, technology, markets and jobs. Sometimes the most valuable contribution is not money. A bank can provide financial expertise. A technology company can provide infrastructure. A logistics company can provide distribution. A hotel can provide training. A manufacturer can create apprenticeships. A professional-services firm can provide accounting, legal or marketing support to a growing social enterprise.

And this is where Build Africa becomes practical.

We should not only ask, How much money can we raise?

We should ask:

What can we build that continues creating value after the money has been spent?

A community health programme could train people who later become paid community health workers. An entrepreneurship programme could create businesses that employ others. A women's programme could create cooperatives with real market access. A youth programme could develop digital professionals whose income no longer depends on grants. A health organisation could develop partnerships with government, corporates and communities so that one donor's exit does not mean the programme's death.

The goal is not to eliminate international partnerships. Africa still benefits enormously from global expertise, technology, capital and solidarity. The goal is to change the relationship from dependency to partnership; from donor-recipient to co-investor; from temporary project to sustainable institution.

Because when a donor leaves, the question should not be:

Who will replace them?

It should be:

What did we build while they were here?

That is the sustainability test.

BUILD AFRICA THURSDAY

MN COLLECTIVE INSIGHTS UNFILTERED

BELIEVE • BRAND • BUILD AFRICA

Responsible business is not only about giving back. It is about helping build systems strong enough to keep giving long after the cheque is gone.

https://africacdc.org/news-item/africa-cdc-unveils-strategic-plan-to-transform-health-financing-and-advance-self-reliance/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Africa CDC Unveils Strategic Plan to Transform Health Financing and Advance Self-Reliance – Africa CDC"

https://africacdc.org/news-item/africa-cdc-unveils-a-new-vision-for-health-security-and-sovereignty-across-the-continent/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Africa CDC Unveils a New Vision for Health Security and Sovereignty Across the Continent – Africa CDC"

Africa must move from being funded to becoming fundable, from receiving solutions to building them, and from dependence to capability.

https://www.unaids.org/en/impact-US-funding-cuts/About?utm_source=chatgpt.com "About the impact of US funding cuts on the global HIV response | UNAIDS"

 https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2025/april/20250408_funding-sitrep?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Impact of US funding cuts on the global AIDS response — Weekly update | UNAIDS"

 https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2025/march/20250312_sitrep?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Impact of US funding cuts on the global AIDS response — Weekly update 10 March 2025 | UNAIDS"

 https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2025/march/20250328_sitrep?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Impact of US funding cuts on the global AIDS response — 28 March 2025 update | UNAIDS"

 https://apnews.com/article/2165879c1def1369264b795793d6351d?utm_source=chatgpt.com "US actions harm global efforts to prevent and treat HIV in dozens of countries, new report says"