DevelopmentAid Dialogues

Every day, governments publish thousands of notices announcing who won a public procurement contract, for how much and for how long. These notices are an underused source of economic intelligence. One man has spent years exploring how they can help reveal future economic activity. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Malcolm Duff, founder and chief executive of DataTixx,the company behind the economic intelligence platform datixxia, about what public procurement data can predict and what it cannot see. A translator for nearly four decades before he became a technology founder, Duff came to the idea through a single contract that transformed his own small company.

Why -- public procurement contracts? Because, he argues, they are commitments rather than forecasts. datixxia analyses published contract awards as signals of committed expenditure and prospective economic activity; those records do not, by themselves, verify subsequent delivery or payment. Twenty years ago, Duff’s translation firm, then four people, won a contract with the European Commission. "Everything changed after that," he said. One translator on a short contract was made permanent. "The secretary we had wanted to buy a small apartment, and she hadn't been able to until we got that contract."

That, he says, is the cascade. He puts public procurement at around 13% of EU GDP directly, and 40 to 60% once the subcontracts it generates are counted. His illustration is the start of the pandemic, when a Chinese municipality, he says, began ordering large volumes of the cheapest wood available, to make coffins. Had his platform existed then, he argues, the data and AI’s capacity to interpret it would have flagged a medical emergency before the world knew there was one.

Asked about countries where contracts are still awarded on paper, he did not hedge. "Until those countries start using digital systems, then it is impossible. We can't keep track of paperwork."

And asked how wide the gap is between a contract signed and a contract delivered, his answer was shorter still.

"I don't know. I simply do not know."

He hopes investigative journalists, several of whose networks he has invited to test the platform, will be the ones to find out. Pushed on whether he is therefore measuring promises rather than results, he rejected the framing outright. "It's not promises, it's contracts."

Access costs 100 euros a month for up to five users, which he argues puts it within reach of a small firm in Nairobi or Dhaka. And why build it at all? His wife died of Alzheimer's in 2022, five years after she stopped recognising him. "I probably could make a lot of money, but I'm not particularly interested in that. What I'm interested in, is it being used."

Listen to the full episode with Malcolm Duff, founder and chief executive of DataTixx, the company behind the economic intelligence platform datixxia, on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

The world produces around 25 million metric tons of copper a year and needs to almost double that within a decade to meet the growing demand of various industries, including the one producing electric vehicles (EVs). It will not. By 2035, the shortfall could reach 12 million tons annually—enough copper for 150 million electric cars that will simply never be built. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Peter Bryant, Board Chair of Clareo, about the minerals behind the electric vehicle boom—and why the industry that supplies them cannot move at the speed the climate targets demand. Co-Founder and Board Chair of the Development Partner Institute and head of the Washington-based Key Minerals Forum, Bryant advises both the companies doing the extracting and the legislators setting the deadlines.

He begins with what he calls materials intensity.

“All the studies again try and quantify emissions from mines, but they don’t quantify water,” he said.

The omission is not minor. A report from the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), published a week before the recording, found that 67% of the world’s mines sit in water-stressed areas. Whose land they sit on is a second blind spot.

“Eighty percent of minerals that we require globally either sit directly on or adjacent to indigenous lands,” argues Bryant, citing the First Nations Major Projects Coalition in Canada.

He calls the gap a “minerals famine,” and he does not believe the market has priced it in.

“We will be 10 to 12 million tons short per annum of copper by 2035,” he warned. The same shortfall, he noted, would strand roughly 1,800 gigawatts of solar.

So, does he accept that an EV repays its manufacturing carbon debt within 40,000 km (25,000 miles)?

“I think it’s a utopian calculation,” he said.

His alternative is not to abandon electrification but to widen it.

“For the materials that we put into one EV, I can build 6 plug-ins and 90 hybrids,” he said, citing Toyota.

Those 90 hybrids, used to substitute cars aged over 10 years, cut emissions 26% more than the single EV would, he explained.

Why not recycle rather than mine? Copper already runs near 30%, and Bryant does not expect that to move much.

“Just to hope, throw out a number of 30% recycling, therefore we don’t need to do the hard work, creates a blind comfort,” he said.

On “who” should process the world’s minerals, he was blunter still.

“I don’t think it’s acceptable to tell a country that has a resource, just ship it to us and you lose all that downstream value,” he stressed.

Asked what an honest verdict ten years from now would sound like, Bryant set three tests: most of the world’s ageing vehicle fleet replaced, most new mineral demand met through innovation rather than new mines, and indigenous communities owning the resource and selling equity back to the operators.

Listen to the full episode with Peter Bryant on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

As carbon credits swell into a multi-billion-dollar global market, a persistent illusion keeps fueling it: that buying a credit erases the pollution a company - or a traveler - leaves behind. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Paolo Vaggi, Founder and Executive Advisor of BAIA Advisory, about what carbon credits can deliver - and the greenwashing that follows when they are asked to do more.

With over 15 years of international development experience across Southeast Asia and a base in Indonesia, one of the world's richest reserves of natural carbon, Vaggi brings a practitioner's view of a market caught between promise and hype.

The confusion, he says, starts with the very first purchase.

"Your flight still happens, so the pollution still happens. Climate change is not better off for it," Vaggi explained. "A better way to think about it is that by purchasing a carbon credit, you have paid for the equivalent reduction or removal somewhere else."

Whether that payment means anything depends on quality. Good credits, he said, play a positive role in the overall equation - "if not, they're just nice pieces of paper."

At the heart of his argument is a distinction he believes the market keeps missing.

"A lot of companies see them as a climate strategy themselves, but they are not. They are a mechanism - and this is a very different thing," he said. "Internal reductions should become the priority and the core of a strategy."

A company that cuts its own emissions and then finances mangrove restoration or peatland protection creates real climate value, he explained. One that buys credits to keep polluting is "not a real benefit for the planet."

So how does a buyer tell a credible credit from a worthless one? Vaggi offered three tests: is the reduction additional, is it durable, and is it unique?

"The credit cannot be sold twice," he stressed, noting that registries and retirement mechanisms "have been improving the most in the market in the last 10 or even just five years, which is very encouraging."

But for developing countries rich in forests, mangroves, and peatlands, a harder question looms: who captures the value?

"Oftentimes value may end up outside of the country that originated it," he warned. "If a project generates millions of dollars in carbon finance but there is no ownership and no tangible benefit for the communities, then we have missed a lot of the point."

His verdict pairs hope with caution: the market's turn toward integrity and transparency is real - but carbon credits "cannot replace the decarbonization processes."

Listen to the full episode with Paolo Vaggi on DevelopmentAid Dialogues.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

Neglected tropical diseases affect more than 1.5 billion people, close to one in six worldwide, yet they remain among the least visible and mediatized health problems on the planet. The medicines to treat most of them already exist, often for less than US$0.50 a dose. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, host Hisham Allam speaks with Dr. Wendy Harrison, CEO of Unlimit Health, about why that arithmetic has not been enough, and what it will take to end diseases that feed on poverty and neglect.

The label “Neglected Tropical Diseases” covers around 21 conditions that share little biologically but a great deal socially. “They’re often thought of as diseases of poverty, or diseases of really marginalized, neglected populations,” Harrison explains. The numbers are large and oddly unknown. Schistosomiasis alone affects more than 250 million people, several times the number living with HIV, while soil-transmitted worms reach over 1.5 billion. Children carry the heaviest burden, through anemia, stunting and chronic organ damage, and the damage rarely stops at the health dimension. By keeping children out of school and adults out of work, the diseases “really perpetuate this cycle of poverty,” she says.

Unlimit Health works directly with ministries of health to treat schistosomiasis and three soil-transmitted worms, and Harrison is firm that everything it deploys must be “very well scientifically validated.” The reach is considerable: more than 30 million treatments in the last financial year, and over a billion across the organization’s history in some 15 countries.

Delivery only works through long partnerships, she argues, citing an African proverb the team has adopted. “If you want to go quickly, you go alone,” she says, “but if you want to travel far, you must travel together.” In practice, that means decisions stay with the country, with programs designed so that authority “sits within the Ministry of Health,” rather than with outside funders.

Money has never been an obstacle. NTD treatment is widely seen as “one of the top global investments,” a “best buy in global health.” But Harrison is wary of letting price settle the argument. “Cost-effectiveness is actually only part of the picture,” she says. “It’s quite a short-term measure.” For two decades, treatment ran through standalone, disease-specific campaigns that hit their coverage targets while sitting outside the everyday machinery of national health systems. That approach, she argues, “really missed the opportunity” to leave anything stronger behind. The organization is now folding treatment into platforms that already exist, such as Uganda’s child health days, so that monitoring, reporting and supply chains outlast any single campaign.

The strategy matters more now because the money is tightening. Harrison says plainly that the collapse of USAID support “has had very, very profound effects,” pointing to a recent World Health Organization figure of more than 140 million people who missed the preventive treatment they were due. Rebuilding donor confidence, in her view, means demonstrating the long-term value of stronger systems rather than reciting cost-per-treatment figures, a case that has drawn interest even from the evidence-driven Effective Altruism movement.

Listen to the full episode with Dr. Wendy Harrison of Unlimit Health on DevelopmentAid Dialogues.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

As the ongoing U.S./Israel–Iran war reverberates across the region—affecting energy markets, transport routes, and economic stability in the Middle East and North Africa—the question for the development sector is becoming more urgent: can Gulf donors sustain their expanding role in global aid, or will their priorities shift inward?

In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam spoke with Dr. Damyana Bakardzhieva, Senior Research Fellow at the Anwar Gargash Diplomacy Academy, to examine whether the Gulf’s rise as a development partner is resilient, or more constrained than headlines suggest.

Bakardzhieva pushed back on the idea that Gulf countries are simply stepping in to replace Western donors. “There are two fundamental flaws with that narrative,” she explained. “The first is to consider that the Gulf approach to foreign aid is purely opportunistic. Their approach is way more strategic and structured than this kind of reasoning would assume.”

She warned against overstating the scale of Gulf contributions. “The second flaw is to consider the Gulf countries as bottomless wallets on standby,” she said. Referring to recent OECD data published in April 2026, she noted that even a significant increase in Gulf aid would fall far short of compensating for Western cuts. “Even if they were to double their 2025 foreign aid contributions, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait would only be adding four and a half to five billion dollars,” she said, compared to “over US$40 billion” withdrawn by Development Assistance Committee countries in the past two years. “No matter how much the Gulf countries contribute extra, they cannot compensate for the major gaps.”

She also pointed to structural differences in how aid is delivered. “A lot of Western aid has traditionally been tied,” she explained, often limiting how recipients can use it. “The case of Gulf aid is different. It is not tied aid in general.” That flexibility, combined with regional priorities, shapes where funding flows.

Bakardzhieva drew a distinction between redirection and retrenchment. “Geopolitical conflicts lead to increased aid within that region,” she said, adding “though often in the form of humanitarian assistance.” Broader macroeconomic pressures—rising energy prices, inflation, and constrained fiscal space—could also affect aid globally. “With the same amount of cash, you can basically purchase much less real goods,” she noted.

However, she argued that Gulf countries are structurally better positioned than most to maintain commitments. “They have very strong fiscal fundamentals and well-stocked sovereign wealth funds,” she said. While defense spending may rise, “they do not need to redirect aid spending into defense spending.”

Listen to the full episode with Damyana Bakardzhieva on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed and stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam spoke with Lotfullah Najafizada, an Afghan journalist and founder of Amu TV, a Washington-based international news outlet reaching audiences inside and outside Afghanistan.

With nearly 20 years on Afghan media frontlines—including over a decade as Tolo News director and multiple Press Freedom Awards— he joined us ahead of the Ottawa Civic Space Summit, a global platform to resist repression and reimagine inclusive democracy, where Lotfullah will be a speaker within the panel entitled: Reclaim the Public Square: Media Freedom, Journalism and Civic Space.

"The public square, where the public should have its say, is eroding," Najafizada said, citing Democracy Without Borders' count of 91 or 92 autocracies versus 85 or 87 democracies—a recession hitting discourse hardest. State actors erode trust fastest through systematic censorship, as in Taliban Afghanistan where the region's freest media became most closed. "Censorship is killing trust," he told DevelopmentAid Dialogues, with even democracies pressuring media per Reporters Without Borders' reddening index.

U.S. media shows resilience against Trump's post-2025 attacks on CNN and NYT, but polarization creates silos: "You can easily live in one world and be very distant from the other." Journalists face constraints—hundreds arrested by the Taliban, rising legal woes—making them civic space's last defense. "We are working very hard for our own survival," he said, urging alliances to protect reporters.

Governments pledge free expression yet pass surveillance laws without follow-through, like Canada's G7 transnational repression nod. Newsrooms must get creative despite cuts: Amu TV's WhatsApp call-in draws 6,000 Afghan callers hourly, bypassing the Taliban firewalls that ban women interviewing men, while being uncovered. "That makes blanket censorship impossible," Najafizada said.

For 2026 survival, he ranks independent funding first—"if you don't survive, how can you do your job?"—then legal shields, tech tools like Citizen Lab, and platform accountability. Social media lacks editorial oversight; push digital literacy against AI floods and X algorithms. A healthy civic space lets reporters probe without fear and citizens criticize sans punishment—rights which are currently under global attack.

This podcast episode is part of a collaboration between DevelopmentAid, Resilient Societies and Cooperation Canada around the Ottawa Civic Space Summit, a new global platform to resist repression, reclaim civic power, and reimagine a more inclusive democratic future. The Summit will take place in Ottawa, Canada, from April 21 to 23, 2025. This bold gathering will bring together civil society leaders, civic space activists, governments, donors, media, academics, and private sector allies to ignite hope and drive change. For registration, follow this link.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

In this episode of Development Aid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam spoke with Jonathan Criss, CEO and Founder of Vital Lyfe. After more than 13 years working on Dragon and Starlink, from cargo racks to reusable spacecraft, Criss left to establish Vital Lyfe, a company building small-scale purification systems for remote villages, disaster zones and infrastructure-poor communities already feeling the pressure of climate change. "All the way throughout my SpaceX career, it was just another step of what is the next hard challenge that needs to be solved," he said.

Criss pushed back against the idea that the global water crisis was purely about scarcity. Earth's surface was mostly water, and the overwhelming majority was in the oceans, yet almost all drinking water still came from the tiny slice of accessible freshwater that existing systems were built to use. For him, this was "a technology gap" as much as a resource gap: "We have abundant water resources. We just have a technology gap in getting that water to people," he said.

Vital Lyfe's answer was a family of units that households, communities, or local institutions could own and operate themselves. Criss was candid that "decentralized" had become a buzzword but defined it clearly: "Decentralized means giving traditional centralized systems to individuals that can own and operate them themselves. That means that you have to make a product that is easy to operate, is affordable, and it is not reliant on traditional infrastructure," Criss said.

SpaceX reliability shaped the design: aggressively testing for corner cases like intermittent power and rough transport. "Reliability is a core part of our design. It's a core part of aerospace design. We put our products through the most rigorous reliability and qualification campaigns that we can even think of," Criss said.

The conversation did not shy away from hard economics. Desalination was often criticized as energy-hungry and expensive, a poor fit for low-income and humanitarian settings. Criss agreed there were trade-offs on energy use, flow rate and maintenance, but argued that the real barrier had been the upfront of capital cost and the way that locked solutions into government-scale projects. "If you look at traditional systems, they're extremely expensive to manufacture, produce, and maintain," he said.

Scaling that model forced hard questions about who these systems really served first. Vital Lyfe's business model borrowed from Starlink's tiered pricing: early units sold into affluent markets like maritime users and militaries subsidized cheaper models for humanitarian partners and Global South communities, Criss explained.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

In this episode of Development Aid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam interviewed Fadi Bou Ali, a sustainable finance specialist working at the intersection of capital markets and climate solutions, for an in-depth look at how green and blue bonds are reshaping climate finance. Fadi, an expert within ABAAD - Resource Centre for Gender Equality, explains that green bonds and regular loans are “identical twins with different jobs”: structurally similar but governed by a legal contract that strictly earmarks money for climate-related projects rather than general spending. Blue bonds, he notes, are a subset of green bonds “where the money is earmarked for water,” financing marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, and wastewater treatment instead of roads or militaries.

Fadi walks listeners through how a country issues a blue bond, from building a credible framework and getting a robust second-party opinion to ringfencing funds in dedicated accounts and subjecting them to independent audits. He points to Poland’s early sovereign green bond as a success story, where proceeds went to sectors like sustainable agriculture, clean transport, and national parks, backed by strict exclusion criteria that “legally barred any of this money from funding fossil fuel power or nuclear energy.” At the same time, he warns that rapid growth—sustainable bonds now amount to trillions—does not guarantee real-world impact. “We are falling into the semantic nerves,” he says, using ever fancier labels without knowing “if we are going to harvest tangible results.”

The conversation tackles uncomfortable questions about scale, politics, and justice. Fadi is blunt: “I’m not optimistic,” arguing that market-based solutions alone cannot solve a crisis that demands a radical shift in mindset, especially in a world of polarization and rising climate denial. He highlights failures like supposedly “clean” hydropower that destroys river ecosystems and livelihoods, and the “bankable trap” that channels money into profitable projects while least developed countries struggle with capacity, higher borrowing costs, and weak institutional trust. For many in the Global South, he says, “they are paying market rates for saving the planet,” raising deep fairness concerns.

Looking ahead, Fadi sees the system slowly shifting toward sustainability-linked bonds that tie an issuer’s interest rate to clear, measurable KPIs so “the entire entity transforms, not just one department.” Real progress, he insists, means moving from counting outputs to tracking outcomes like tones of CO₂ avoided, increased fish biomass, or the number of endemic species protected. Yet he cautions that environmental payoffs “often lie beyond the timetable of the loan,” making it hard to align finance, politics, and climate timelines. This episode is a candid reminder that while green and blue bonds can be powerful tools, they only advance climate justice and resilience if backed by rigorous governance, honest metrics, and genuine participation from the communities who live with the consequences.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

Every year, the World NGO Day is a moment to recognize the work nonprofits and community-based organizations do in some of the world’s toughest places—and to be honest about the pressures they face, from shrinking civic space to falling budgets and rising security risks. To mark the day, DevelopmentAid Dialogues host Hisham Allam speaks with Linda Nordby, Head of the Humanitarian Division at Norwegian Church Aid (NCA), about what it really means for an international NGO to work “together with local communities and local civil society” rather than directing everything from the head office.

For Nordby, this way of working “is part of our DNA,” not a new fashion. NCA’s aim is to tap into and strengthen “already existing networks or structures so that [they] become stronger and more resilient when a crisis hits,” instead of building parallel systems. In Sudan, that means combining humanitarian and development funding to support internally displaced people with cash, while also working with small-scale farmers and local markets so that “the local community can sort of sustain itself” after the emergency phase.

NCA’s dual mandate allows it to address “underlying vulnerabilities” and “immediate needs” at the same time, but it also exposes tensions that many NGOs recognize. Building “proper partnership” and trust with grassroots movements and local organizations takes time, especially in fragile settings, and Nordby is clear that there is a power imbalance due to funding and audit requirements. She notes that NCA is consulting partners on its partnership policy and collecting regular feedback on “how we’re doing on basically being a partner,” yet donors’ compliance demands still make it hard for many national actors to “stand on their own.”

Global aid cuts are tightening the screw further: 14 of 20 OECD DAC countries reduced aid in 2025, and efficiency gains “will not” compensate for all the losses. In response, NCA is trying to stay flexible on access, adjusting locations and approaches with partners rather than walking away when security or bureaucracy blocks the original plan.

Nordby’s message to smaller organizations on this World NGO Day is to “challenge international NGOs” and “stand your ground” so that partnership does not slide into pure service provision. Her final words are for frontline staff who are “often IDPs or affected themselves”: a mix of gratitude for holding communities together, and a promise that head office will keep trying to “make your life easier” rather than adding burdens.​

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

In this episode of Development Aid Dialogues—marking International NGO Day at the end of February—podcast host Hisham Allam interviewed Dara Johnston, Chief of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for UNICEF in Palestine, for an in-depth look at how nonprofits complement big institutions on the ground. With a month-long series spotlighting NGOs' grassroots role in crises, community voices and global agendas, this conversation zeroes in on water, sanitation and hygiene access for the most vulnerable.

Johnston made it clear why NGOs stand out: they fill the gaps large agencies like UNICEF can't reach alone. "NGOs have the proximity, speed and operational capacity to implement effectively on the ground," he said. That played out in Bangladesh, where partners tackled sanitation in remote areas alongside arsenic in water. "The program at the end was very successful... they collaborated very effectively."

Those strengths prove even more critical in emergencies. Take the 2017 Rohingya crisis, when NGOs ramped up fast for nearly a million displaced people despite years away from disaster work. "It was a very successful intervention, which undoubtedly saved many lives," Johnston said. When government red tape slows things, UNICEF steps in as a link: "We can be a sort of a bridge between the NGO partner and the government."

That trust opens doors to real innovation on the ground. In one Myanmar village, locals expanded a UNICEF-NGO solar water system with elevated tanks, home pipes and meters—fully funded by the community itself. "This was something that we found when we came back... because it was all locally brought together," he recalled. And with aid budgets shrinking, such partnerships grow more vital. "With reduction in resources, we need to find ways to work more effectively."

Still, pitfalls threaten this model, like donors pushing NGOs to act more like for-profit contractors. "It's not just the numbers, it's the quality... the sustainability," Johnston warned. Constant, honest communication keeps things solid: "If they’re able to be upfront and tell us when some issue is happening... this builds trust." In the end, NGOs give communities a direct voice. "NGOs can often be our most direct communication channel to the most vulnerable in the community."

"NGOs have played a vital role... they’re needed even more than ever," he summed up.

Listen to the full episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast on your favorite streaming platform.

In February, we celebrate International NGO Day. Look out for our next episode on this topic, to be released on February 18, and follow us on LinkedIn for editorials and Expert Opinions on this important subject.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

Reframing Dutch Aid: Steven Collet on Mutual Interests and Smart Partnerships in 2026

How does the international aid sector survive shrinking budgets? Hisham Allam asks Steven Collet, Deputy Director-General of International Cooperation at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With a background ranging from the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) to diplomatic missions in Tanzania and Vietnam, Collet knows the terrain cold. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, he provides a straight-talking analysis of the European funding crisis, outlining the critical shifts in Dutch policy and what they mean for the future of global aid.

Netherlands aid takes a 2.4 billion euro hit, sliding from 0.65% to 0.5% of Gross National Income (GNI), due to austerity measures, defense spending jumping to 2.2% of GDP, and public fatigue with blank-check aid. "Whilst we do face budget cuts and we are going down from .65% of GNI to .5% we still also have a considerable budget of 3.5 billion euro," Collet says, pointing to carve-outs for humanitarian work, Ukraine rebuilding, and asylum costs capped at 10%. The October 2025 general elections in the Netherlands could nudge it up—coalition talks show parties warmer to ODA. "This is not the final verdict; it could be different," he adds. Defense pressures hit everywhere in Europe, tied to Russia's war and less U.S. cover, while voters demand clear payoffs: "People want to understand why do we do this? Why does the government spend our taxpayer’s money in these countries?"

The focus sharpens on shared stakes—security, trade, migration—in Africa's Sahel, Horn, and the Middle East. Humanitarian cash stays untouched, funneled unearmarked to NGOs and UN funds for spots like Sudan. "When you support without earmarking... that funding can be utilized at the moment it is required and wherever it is required," Collet explains. Partnerships lean on Dutch know-how in health, water, food to rebuild frayed social contracts and head off chaos. Private cash flows bigger: pension funds dumped over a billion into development banks; risks backed by decades of data. "The risks and the returns of development finance are very acceptable and even profitable... it will generate billions of dollars which we need also for climate finance," he says. Examples like Seed.NL mix Dutch firms, NGOs, African researchers for drought-tough seeds that boost farm output and teach lessons both ways.

Climate money swings to adaptation—food security, water—with 60% as grants, since solar costs crashed 90% in five years. Multilaterals get trimmed for duplicate mandates, but UN core, development banks, and EU hold firmly if they slim down. Tax transparency ramps up domestic cash in partner nations, via G20 deals on multinational profits: "Domestic resource mobilization is... the cornerstone of investing into your own economy." Equal footing beats handouts: "If we do it right, we can come to a model which is not extractive... a truly equal partnership based on mutual understanding and mutual interests."

Listen to the full episode with Steven Collet on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

In climate politics, it is easy to treat COP summits as a travelling show: intense media noise, careful drafting marathons, and then a quick shift to the next crisis. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, host Hisham Allam talked with Paulo C. De Miranda about when these summits stopped being just diplomacy and started to matter for people, balance sheets and fragile communities.

Paulo, Chairman and Co-Founder of DEEP and a senior executive in impact management, argued that COPs only truly mattered “when they shape real investment decisions,” when declarations coming out of Belém or Dubai “flow into budgets, balance sheets and investment mandates” instead of remaining on paper.

A central thread in the conversation was the gap between climate text and the financial system. Paulo said that the language of COP had improved and the scale of the problem was widely recognised, but he stressed that the world was “still not very close to closing the gap between the climate text and the financial system.” He pointed to the distance between trillion dollar announcements and the much smaller flows that reached communities living with volatility, displacement and compounded risks, and warned against “accounting optimism” that repackaged existing instruments without changing the rules of capital allocation.

Politically, COP30 in Belém also exposed structural hesitation. Paulo highlighted one glaring omission: the failure to name fossil fuels explicitly in the outcome. He called this a critical signal that global politics around the fossil fuel economy “has not broken ties with the past,” despite the technology and resources available to move faster. If something as central as fossil fuel phaseout could not be clearly stated, he argued, it revealed the limits of the deal and showed how issues that should be nonnegotiable – fossil fuels, deforestation, protection of vulnerable communities – were still treated as bargaining chips.

From a development perspective, Paulo argued that COP needed to evolve into something closer to a “conference for sustainable humanity” because, in fragile and crisis affected settings he had worked in, climate change was part of daily survival, not an abstract risk.

Paulo closed with three blunt points: leaders must rewrite the rules of the game around sustainable humanity, finance must treat sustainable living as a core asset, and citizens must own accountability “here and now.” He recalled Georgina, a 10yearold from Tanzania who said she was in Belém to help solve problems she did not cause – a reminder that climate summits should be judged by whether they change incentives, capital flows and accountability for those with the least room for error.

Listen to the full episode with Paulo De Miranda on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

The United Nations Office for Project Services, widely known as UNOPS, is pushing climate accountability into the core of development work by tackling the most elusive part of its carbon footprint: Scope 3 emissions. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, host Hisham Allam speaks with Samantha Stratton-Short, Head of Strategic Initiatives, Infrastructure and Project Management at UNOPS and Manager of the UNOPS Climate Action Programme, about a new methodology designed to map, measure, and manage the emissions embedded in every stage of UNOPS’s value chain.

Scope 3 emissions – those generated by suppliers, contractors, travel and the full life cycle of procured goods and infrastructure – typically account for 70-90% of an organization’s greenhouse gas footprint yet are the hardest to track because they depend on external data and lie outside direct operational control.

“Reducing our direct operational emissions is a core responsibility for UNOPS,” Stratton-Short notes, “but we must go beyond that and measure the emissions of our suppliers, our partners and our implementation activities as well.” This broader view, she argues, “allows us to understand the full climate impact of our work and gives us the ability to influence others, even markets, to adopt new low-carbon solutions.”​

Over three years, UNOPS developed a step-by-step methodology that is compliant with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol but tailored to non-commercial, humanitarian operations and UN values such as inclusivity and stakeholder engagement. “We couldn’t just copy-paste private sector solutions,” she says, pointing to the unique way UN entities operate across more than 150 countries and project types. The result is a materiality framework that, in her words, is “robust enough to be scientifically sound, yet flexible enough for the UN’s complexity,” capable of systematically identifying “the highest emitting areas in our value chain with a specific focus on the delivery of development projects.”​

The stakes are especially high in conflict-affected contexts such as Yemen, Afghanistan or Somalia, where resource scarcity and climate stress already feed instability. Here, the methodology helps UNOPS “prioritize solar-powered infrastructure and green procurement,” reducing dependence on diesel and making essential services less vulnerable to supply shocks and price volatility.

Listen to the full episode with Samantha Stratton-Short on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

International development is heading into a crunch moment, and this episode with Professor Raj M. Desai puts numbers, mechanisms, and politics around what “shrinking aid” really means for countries that still depend on it—especially in the context of USAID cuts and the growing push toward blended finance. In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam speaks with Desai, a leading scholar of foreign aid and development finance at Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution, about how the sharp fall in official development assistance is reshaping global development and what options remain for countries trying to close financing gaps.

The conversation opens with Desai’s diagnosis of why aid is falling just as needs spike: long-standing donor fatigue, the fiscal and political aftershocks of conflicts and refugee crises, and lingering budget pressures from the 2008 financial crash. He explains that foreign aid has become an easy political target in many donor countries, with bipartisan support in the United States for shrinking budgets and European donors increasingly redirecting funds to refugee resettlement and security spending at home, tightening the space for traditional development programs and setting the stage for debates on USAID cuts.

Desai then outlines five strategies for countries facing declining concessional flows: mobilizing more domestic revenue, tapping diaspora financing, engaging cross-border philanthropy, expanding the use of blended finance and impact investment, and working more actively with newer bilateral and multilateral donors. He stresses that remittances, diaspora bonds and structured instruments can all play a role, and that newer players such as China, Gulf countries and emerging-economy funds could expand options if recipient governments strengthen their own aid coordination systems and avoid fragmented deals that respond only to short-term shocks like the 2025 USAID cuts rather than long-term development strategies.

In the final part of the discussion, Desai connects the projected collapse of U.S. development assistance—from roughly US$65 billion to about US$10 billion per year by 2026—to the broader need for joint financing frameworks that integrate domestic revenue, philanthropic flows, private capital and official aid around national priorities. He calls for open data architectures, better tracking of cross-border philanthropy, and unified strategies that align domestic resource mobilization, diaspora investment and blended finance, arguing that in an era defined by the USAID cuts and the organization’s dismantling and more volatile financial flows, the future of development finance will depend on combining smarter public oversight with genuine country ownership instead of treating new instruments as a simple fix for shrinking aid.​

Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

In this episode of DevelopmentAid Dialogues, podcast host Hisham Allam interviewed Rebecca Thissen, Global Advocacy Lead at CAN International, for an in-depth look at the real outcomes of COP30 in Belem, Brazil. Thissen, a veteran defender of climate justice, shared her perspective as a COP30 participant on how high-stakes negotiations and geopolitical tensions shaped both the atmosphere and the decisions at this much-anticipated summit.

Thissen described COP30 as “very challenging,” and pointed to “geopolitical tensions, wars and trade conflicts” influencing positions and making consensus elusive. Yet, she recognized one key shift: “For the first time, countries acknowledged that social justice and the realities of people, communities and workers are part of the climate action discourse.” The episode explored why climate action must move “beyond headlines and buzzwords,” and how real change depended on connecting global decisions to the lived experiences of those most affected.

A major outcome of COP30, Thissen explained, was the Belem Action Mechanism—a just transition framework designed to bridge global commitments with local realities. “It was probably the most important decision made at COP30,” she said, “with the potential to help connect, in a much more concrete manner, the reality of transition on the ground to decisions.” She emphasized the power of bringing marginalized voices, from workers to trade unions to civil society, “to the table” for meaningful solutions.

The conversation turned to finance, where Thissen was candid about ongoing obstacles: “Beyond the fact there was no new money on the table… we also saw backsliding from any commitment they had on climate finance. That was a very worrying trend.” And while the summit pledged to triple adaptation finance by 2035, she cautioned, “there is no clarity, no baseline, no timeline—just logos rather than concrete action.”

Still, Thissen chose optimism, grounded in science and solidarity: “We didn’t have the luxury to not be optimistic… Every tiny degree saved was already impacting billions of lives. But climate action without centering people, communities and justice was just not working.” Her closing message: for COP31 and beyond, climate justice must move from preamble to principle—otherwise, “we risk leaving most of the world behind.”

Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

Artificial intelligence is changing the way we think about healthcare, offering new ways to connect, diagnose, and support patients—especially through telemedicine. More people than ever are speaking to their doctor from home, getting advice online, and sharing data from their devices. It’s fast, it’s convenient, and it’s full of promise. But is it enough? Where does technology stop and real human insight begin?

In a recent episode of Development Aid Dialogues, host Hisham Allam sat down with Professor Krishnan Ganapathy, a veteran neurosurgeon and one of the world’s leading voices on digital health. Together, they cut through the hype to talk honestly about what AI can—and can’t—do for medicine today.

Ganapathy doesn’t shy away from the benefits. He’s seen firsthand how remote consultations and wearable gadgets make it possible to spot health issues early, save time, and reach people who might otherwise be left behind. He’s comfortable with the future—“A clinician who’s not AI literate is a menace to society,” he says. Still, the heart of his message is caution. “Chatbots may handle routine questions, but they cannot get inside my brain—or understand my patient’s real needs.” No app or algorithm, he insists, can read the whole story behind a symptom.

Instead, Ganapathy believes that good care depends on context, conversation, and trust. “The human-trained brain understands not just symptoms, but a patient’s story—their social status, their context, and can factor in what matters most.” He’s wary of putting too much faith in technology and sees doctors as the guardians of real judgment. “AI can recommend, but only humans should decide management for real people, at real moments.”

He calls for proper training, careful oversight, and honest conversations between doctors and their patients about what technology can—and cannot—be trusted to do. “A fool with a tool is still a fool,” Ganapathy says with a smile. “Technology is only useful in the right hands.”

This episode reminds us that new tools are exciting, but real care is personal. As healthcare moves forward, it’s the human touch—and the wisdom behind it—that will always matter most.

In line with his vision for advancing digital health, Professor Ganapathy is playing a pivotal role as Scientific Advisor for the upcoming Transforming Healthcare with IT (THIT 2026), South Asia’s leading international conference on telemedicine and digital health. Scheduled for January 30–31, 2026 in Hyderabad, India, THIT brings together global experts, innovators, and policymakers for keynotes, workshops, and interactive sessions designed to translate talk into real-world technology adoption. While Ganapathy is a staunch advocate of telemedicine, he emphasizes the importance of physical, face-to-face conferences in driving collaboration and meaningful change. His tireless efforts not only elevate the conversation but help bridge the gap between concept and impact, ensuring technology serves the cause of accessible, patient-centered care. For more details or to participate, visit http://www.transformhealth-it.org/.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

The age of artificial intelligence is reshaping healthcare delivery worldwide, with telemedicine at the forefront of this transformation. In episode five of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Dr. med. Jan Niclas Strickling, a German board-certified interventional cardiologist who has played a key role in advancing telemedicine through Germany’s certified centers and holds multiple certifications from the German Society of Cardiology.

“AI is redefining what’s possible in telemedicine—but at every step, it’s collaboration, not competition,” Strickling said, unpacking how digital tools are changing patient care.”

Across Germany and the EU, AI-driven triage systems, medical imaging analysis, and real-time language translation are making healthcare more accessible. “If AI takes the strain out of documentation—which is half my daily work—it frees me to focus on the patient,” Strickling explained. Wearables like the Apple Watch, CPAP machines, and glucose sensors generate continuous data streams that help identify patients’ needs remotely, especially in underserved areas.

But he cautioned that technology alone isn’t enough. “AI can bridge gaps, but equity depends on broadband access, device availability, and whether AI models are trained on diverse populations.” Without representative data, AI risks missing or misdiagnosing patients from different demographic groups.

Alongside opportunity, risks persist. Strickling described “alert fatigue” where oversensitive AI systems overwhelm clinicians with notifications, potentially obscuring urgent issues. The bigger danger is “automation bias”—over-relying on AI recommendations while sidelining clinical judgment. “The final decision must remain human,” he stressed. He recalled uploading his own ECG to ChatGPT, which wrongly diagnosed a life-threatening arrhythmia. “For patients, that can cause needless fear and erode trust in doctors.”

Highlighting the promise of AI, Strickling described a heart failure project in Germany where wearable defibrillator vests and smart scales transmit continuous health information. AI analyzes daily blood pressure, weight, and body movement to preempt hospitalizations by advising medication adjustments. “The data flood makes sense only when paired with human judgment to determine who needs attention now.”

Hybrid care models blending remote monitoring with targeted in-person visits are expanding, with virtual rounds led by nurses and specialists joining as needed. Yet, the human connection—empathy, understanding, and trust—remains irreplaceable

As digital health advances Strickling calls for transparency, patient consent, and robust regulation. “We must disclose AI’s use and limits, monitor for biases, and ensure privacy through encryption and strict data controls.” The need for accountable human oversight is paramount. “Who bears responsibility for AI-driven errors? That must be a clinician.”

Echoing the complex future, he said, “Experience and learning from mistakes remain at medicine’s core. AI assists but can’t replace the wisdom patients deserve.”

Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

The global humanitarian landscape is marked by stark contrasts: while some crises like Ukraine dominate international attention and resources, others such as Sudan, the Sahel, and Haiti struggle in the shadows. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam had a lightning interview with Désirée Ketabchi, Head of Humanitarian Action & Advocacy at Oxfam Belgium and a Brussels-based expert with experience at the European Parliament and Première Urgence Internationale. Ketabchi is a woman of action, with little time to be spent on talks. She offers a candid perspective on the drivers behind aid allocation, the real impact of funding cuts, and the urgent need to center humanitarian action on people’s needs beyond geopolitical interests.

“The challenge is that aid increasingly follows politics rather than pure humanitarian need, leaving many crises forgotten and underserved,” Ketabchi explained. “We try to be people-centered, but funding is shrinking even as needs grow, forcing difficult choices.”

Ketabchi described how geopolitical interests heavily shape donor decisions, creating disparities in which emergencies receive support. “When it’s not in the media spotlight, it’s hard to raise funds or public awareness, even if needs are severe.” She cited the impact of the Gaza conflict overshadowing crises like Sudan, where vulnerable populations especially women and children bear the brunt without sufficient attention from donors or the public.

Calls for more flexible funding echo across her experience. “Rigid donor restrictions complicate rapid response,” she noted, observing that some governments’ foreign ministries and humanitarian agencies often struggle to align on priorities and modalities. Flexibility would enable aid organizations to deliver assistance based on evolving needs, not political calculations.

Ketabchi highlighted the tangible fallout of recent funding cuts, particularly from USAID in the Democratic Republic of Congo. “Cuts mean fewer teams on the ground, less support for essential services like health and water, and ultimately, greater suffering for vulnerable communities,” she said.

“When one organization steps back, another can step in—but only if collaboration is strong,” Ketabchi emphasized, calling for deeper cooperation even amid financial constraints.

Beyond immediate relief, Ketabchi underlined Oxfam’s integrated approach linking humanitarian action with long-term advocacy on inequality and economic justice. “Most crises have interconnected root causes—climate, conflict, systemic inequality—that demand holistic solutions.” Youth engagement is a vital part of this, with younger generations volunteering and campaigning for inclusive policies around the world.

Looking to donors, she urged renewed commitment and solidarity: “Cutting funding and overlooking international law fuels more conflicts and humanitarian crises. The human cost is immense.” For listeners, she emphasized the urgent human toll behind headline debates: “Every withdrawal affects families seeking safe water, children awaiting a meal, communities desperate for protection.”

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

World Humanitarian Day 2025, observed globally on August 19, stands as a solemn tribute to the courage and sacrifice of aid workers delivering hope amid crises. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast, host Hisham Allam speaks with Sajeda Shawa, head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the United Arab Emirates. With over 18 years of leadership in humanitarian affairs across the Middle East and beyond, Sajeda brings a rare combination of deep regional insight and global advocacy experience — notably serving as Special Advisor to the UN Assistant Secretary-General and Regional Humanitarian Coordinator for Syria.

“World Humanitarian Day is not a celebration; it’s a moment to remember those colleagues who have lost their lives delivering aid in some of the world’s most dangerous places,” Sajeda said. Last year alone, more than 380 humanitarian workers were killed, 98% of whom were national staff closely embedded with affected communities. Gaza remains the deadliest place for aid workers, with over 500 killed since October 2023. These numbers reflect not statistics, but human lives with stories, families, and profound loss.

The scale of need continues to expand against a backdrop of more than 130 active armed conflicts globally. Sajeda highlighted that 300 million people are currently in need of humanitarian assistance — driven foremost by conflict and forced displacement at historic highs. Women, children, and marginalized groups disproportionately bear the brunt of crises exacerbated by rising food insecurity, sexual and gender-based violence, and the devastating impact of war on children. Climate change and natural disasters add layers of complexity and urgency to response needs worldwide.

With attacks on aid workers reaching record levels, OCHA has intensified advocacy for protection and accountability. Sajeda described how the humanitarian community urges Member States and all parties to conflict to respect their obligations and end the culture of impunity regarding violence against civilians and responders. The independent voices of national staff, who endure disproportionate risks, anchor this call for global solidarity.

Deep cuts to humanitarian funding — notably from major donors like USAID, Germany, and the UK — have forced what Sajeda calls a “humanitarian reset.” With only 18% of assessed needs currently funded, aid actors must make difficult decisions, prioritizing life-saving interventions and protection for the 114 million most vulnerable people. This hyper prioritization demands agility and coordination across agencies and governments to maximize impact amid scarce resources.

Highlighting localization as central to effective humanitarian response, Sajeda stressed women’s vital role. Over 50% of affected populations are women and children, yet women historically have been underrepresented among decision-makers and responders. OCHA UAE works closely with local partners to boost women’s leadership and meaningful participation at all stages—from planning to diplomacy. Youth engagement is also a priority, aiming to nurture the next generation of humanitarian leaders across the region.

In a time of rising needs and dwindling resources, she emphasized that solidarity, collaboration, and courageous leadership are key to sustaining humanitarian action and saving lives.

Listen to the full episode on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected

The hard truth of modern humanitarian action was this: access had closed, risks had risen, and remote delivery had become unavoidable. In this episode of the DevelopmentAid Dialogues podcast (Season 3), host Hisham Allam spoke with Ina Bluemel—a veteran of emergency health, WASH, and logistics leadership across WHO, IFRC, and multiple NGOs—about what it took to keep aid effective when workers could not set foot on site, frameworks felt rigid, and trust was under strain.

Bluemel set the tone bluntly: remote operations demanded relationship-building, coordination, and response start-up all at once—without physical presence—and shifted risk onto local partners who faced the threats international teams avoided. “This is never a one-man show,” she said, arguing remote response only worked when integrated teams supported partners and respected existing local systems instead of overriding them.

On donors, she said the core challenge lay in accountability frameworks that scaled control but struggled with context. Many tools “lacked adaptability to a local context,” she argued, creating the familiar misfit where “your answer is A, but your structures are only providing B, C, and D.” The consequences, she added, included needs overlooked, wrong voices amplified, and vulnerable groups sidelined—unless agencies invested in triangulation, stronger local networks, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) shaped by the context rather than imposed upon it.

Her prescription was radical in its simplicity: transparency “to the bone.” Bluemel acknowledged the sector’s fear that admitting problems risked future funding—“If we admit we’ve got it wrong, the likelihood that we’re going to get money in the future is reduced,” she said—but she argued donors must engage as partners, not just gatekeepers, and agencies must institutionalize feedback loops that made communities as central to accountability as funders. On data quality, she added that teams should combine primary and secondary sources, resolve discrepancies through deeper research, and expand capabilities with GIS, spatial analysis, and AI—without abandoning the “good old” discipline of multi-source triangulation.

Remote management, she emphasized, was not a shortcut—it was “an enormous amount of extra work”—but it kept lifelines open where otherwise agencies would “pack up” and leave people to fend for themselves. At its best, it accelerated meaningful localization: investing so local partners “felt accountable,” ensuring local knowledge shaped plans and M&E, and making adaptability a first principle rather than an afterthought.

Against tightening budgets and donor retrenchment, Bluemel warned of a “humanitarian emergency” inside the system and called for genuine rethinking that amplified new actors and turned “lessons identified” into lessons truly implemented. “We claim we learn; we tick the box,” she said; real M&E should be “project enhancing and future influencing,” not mere paperwork.

Listen to the full episode with Ina Bluemel on DevelopmentAid Dialogues. Stay informed. Stay engaged.

The podcast is sponsored by DevelopmentAid. Procurement notices, funding and grants to opportunities, lists of potential partners, insights into market trends, databases of development professionals, webinars, latest news, and much more. Stay informed and connected.

Subscribe and Stay Connected