America’s Suspension of USAID Funding and Withdrawal from WHO: Implications for Africa, Zimbabwe, and the Role of NGOs

The United States’ decision to suspend funding to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO) comes at a critical juncture for Africa and Zimbabwe, where foreign aid underpins essential services.

Compounding the challenge in Zimbabwe is the government’s recent push to pass a controversial Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Bill, which seeks to regulate and restrict the operations of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

This intersection of diminishing external aid and tightened local regulatory controls has profound implications for the country’s health, education, and development landscape.

The Intersection of the PVO Amendment Bill and Donor Withdrawal

The PVO Amendment Bill has sparked widespread debate due to its potential to stifle civil society operations. The bill includes provisions to:

• Mandate the registration of all NGOs with the government, subjecting them to strict oversight.
• Prohibit NGOs from engaging in “political activities,” a term vaguely defined, raising concerns of arbitrary enforcement.
• Empower authorities to deregister organisations deemed non-compliant.

Zimbabwe’s civil society has been instrumental in bridging the gap left by inadequate government funding in critical areas such as healthcare, education, and disaster relief.

However, this proposed law may severely curtail the ability of NGOs to operate, coinciding with the cessation of USAID and WHO funding.

What the PVO Amendment Bill Means for Zimbabwe

1. Restricted Operations Amid Funding Losses
   • NGOs dependent on USAID or WHO funds face a dual threat: the drying up of external resources and heightened regulatory hurdles. Many organisations, particularly those addressing HIV/AIDS, food security, and education, risk closure.
   • Donor-funded programs often serve politically sensitive areas, such as governance, human rights, and democracy-building, which could now be targeted under the bill’s provisions.
2. Increased Government Control over Development Aid
   • The bill could centralise the distribution of development aid under government oversight, limiting NGOs’ independence. This risks politicising aid allocation, leaving vulnerable communities exposed to inefficiencies or biases.
   • Civil society, a critical voice in holding governments accountable, may be weakened, reducing public participation in development and governance.
3. Implications for Beneficiaries
   • Zimbabwe’s most vulnerable populations—HIV/AIDS patients, food-insecure families, and marginalised communities—will face heightened challenges. NGOs often act as intermediaries between donors and beneficiaries; their reduced capacity may further alienate the needy.

What USAID and WHO Withdrawal Means in This Context

The U.S. decision to withdraw from WHO and suspend USAID funding amplifies these challenges, as Zimbabwe’s already fragile economy and overstretched public services are ill-equipped to shoulder the burden.

1. Impact on NGOs

• NGOs dependent on U.S. funding may struggle to secure alternative resources. Combined with the PVO Amendment Bill, their operational environment becomes increasingly hostile.
• International NGOs may scale back operations or exit Zimbabwe altogether, leaving local NGOs to carry the weight of critical programs.

2. Impact on Governance and Accountability

• The withdrawal of USAID funding affects governance programs aimed at promoting transparency, electoral reforms, and the rule of law. With fewer watchdogs, corruption and mismanagement may increase.
• Reduced donor support also means less international pressure on Zimbabwe to maintain democratic practices, weakening advocacy for human rights and good governance.

Development Discourse in the Shadow of the PVO Amendment Bill

The global development landscape is witnessing a shift, with donor fatigue, rising nationalism, and calls for reduced dependency dominating discourse.

For Zimbabwe, the PVO Amendment Bill reflects a broader trend of state centralisation in development, which could reshape how aid is delivered.

1. Aid Dependency vs. Sovereignty
   • The government’s argument for the bill emphasises sovereignty and the need to reduce foreign interference in domestic affairs.
   • However, critics argue that Zimbabwe’s fiscal constraints necessitate donor involvement, making the bill counterproductive.
2. Shrinking Civic Space
   • Globally, there is concern about shrinking civic spaces in authoritarian regimes. Zimbabwe’s PVO Amendment Bill aligns with this trend, curtailing freedoms of expression, association, and assembly, particularly for NGOs engaged in advocacy.
3. Reimagining Development
   • The withdrawal of USAID and WHO funding, coupled with restrictive policies, may push Zimbabwe to explore self-reliant development models. However, this requires robust governance, transparency, and a commitment to long-term investment in social services.

What Can Be Done? Immediate and Long-term Plans

1. Short-term Contingencies

• Regional Cooperation: The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU) should step in to fill critical funding gaps, particularly in health and food security.
• Alternative Funding Sources: Zimbabwean NGOs can seek funding from emerging donors like China and the Gulf States or diversify into private sector partnerships.
• Legal Challenges: Civil society must unite to contest restrictive provisions of the PVO Amendment Bill through the courts and international advocacy.

2. Long-term Strategies

• Invest in Domestic Resource Mobilisation: Zimbabwe must strengthen its tax base, curb illicit financial flows, and reinvest in social services to reduce reliance on donor aid.
• Foster NGO-Government Collaboration: Constructive engagement between the government and NGOs can ensure alignment on development priorities without compromising operational independence.
• Leverage Technology: Digital platforms can enhance resource mobilisation, improve transparency, and strengthen monitoring of development programs.

3. Empowering Local Communities

• Building community resilience through local capacity development is crucial. Encouraging grassroots participation in development ensures sustainability even when external aid diminishes.

Navigating the Crossroads

The simultaneous withdrawal of USAID and WHO funding and the introduction of the PVO Amendment Bill present a formidable challenge for Zimbabwe.

For decades, donor aid has been a lifeline for millions of Zimbabweans, filling gaps in healthcare, education, and food security.

Yet, this crisis also highlights the urgent need for Zimbabwe to recalibrate its development strategy.

While the PVO Amendment Bill reflects legitimate concerns about sovereignty, its implementation must not come at the expense of civil liberties or human welfare.

A balanced approach that fosters collaboration between the government, NGOs, and private sector actors is critical to ensuring that development gains are not reversed.

Ultimately, Zimbabwe’s resilience will depend on its ability to adapt, innovate, and leverage its own resources.

This moment is a wake-up call—not just for Zimbabwe, but for Africa at large—to take charge of its development destiny. The decisions made now will shape the continent’s future for generations to come.