PEPFAR is a Foreign Aid program launched by President George Bush in 2003 to address the AIDS epidemics in several developing countries. It is almost universally acclaimed as one of the most successful foreign aid programs in history, saving around 25 million lives. Apart from lives saved, the program has been useful for controlling the epidemics. 

The current US administration has stopped most of its foreign aid programs until an audit is carried on, and while I sincerely wish that after the review PEPFAR will be kept in the US Aid portfolio, there a significant chance that the US now considers itself overburdened by its long commitment to the provision of Global Public Goods. This is an extraordinary opportunity for the European Union to step in and fund the program either completely or in its near vicinity (Africa, Ukraine and Central America are natural regions for the EU intervention). Being an American ally, the European commission can ask the US to provide all information to complete a smooth transition (other partners, as Japan or Corea can perhaps commit to replace the US in their natural areas of influence).  Given the urgency of the task, in my view the EU shall begin its preparation even before the US completes its review.

By its multilateral nature, the European Union cannot act in the world with the freedom of manoeuvre that a single national government can. On the other hand, foreign aid is less controversial than other influence tools, and the European Union shall compensate for its weaknesses by an intelligent use of its limited resources. By the friendly substitution of a close ally in a well-tested and effective Aid program, Europe can both enhance its internal cohesion and signal its external stance in the difficult period ahead. 

I propose to all interested groups and persons to contact the President of the European Commission to ask her for the necessary arrangements to prepare for the eventuality of replacing the United States in the PEPFAR program. For your convenience, I provide the letter I have written to the President, while I suppose others will prefer to produce their own text.

 

-----------------

Dear President von der Leyen,

I am writing to bring to your attention the pressing matter of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a Foreign Aid initiative launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 to combat the AIDS epidemic in several developing countries. PEPFAR has been nearly universally acclaimed as one of the most successful Foreign Aid programs in history, having saved approximately 25 million lives and proving instrumental in controlling the epidemic.

Unfortunately, the current US administration has suspended most of its Foreign Aid programs pending a comprehensive audit. While I fervently hope that PEPFAR will remain a cornerstone of the US Aid portfolio post-review, there is a significant possibility that the US may now deem its commitment to PEPFAR as overly burdensome.

This scenario presents an extraordinary opportunity for the European Union to step in and assume funding of the PEPFAR program, either in its entirety or in specific regions (Africa, Ukraine and Central America look like natural priorities for Europe). As a close ally, the European Commission can request the United States government to provide all necessary information and support to facilitate a smooth transition. 

Given the urgency of the situation, I believe it is prudent for the European Union to begin preparations even before the United States completes its review.  By amicably substituting a close ally in a well-tested and effective aid program, Europe can not only enhance its internal cohesion but also signal its external stance in the challenging period ahead.

Thank you for considering this vital matter.

Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I really like the ambition here! 


Some numbers to add context:
1. The previous U.S. administration requested $6.1 billion of funding for PEPFAR for FY 2025[1]. That's the equivalent of €5.856 billion[2]
2. 449.2 million people live in the European Union[3]. That is significantly more than the United States population. 
3. The cost of funding PEPFAR would be €13.04 per year per EU resident. That's only slightly more than €1 per month. 

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^

It is worth noting that the European Union itself does not have that many financial resources: the EU's 2025 budget is ~€200 billion [1]. That is an order of magnitude less than the U.S. federal government budget.  This means that the EU member states would need to provide funding for this program from their national budgets.

  1. ^

Just a detail: The name of the President of the European Commission is "von der Leyen" with "e" instead of "a".

I am also curious if you have any donation recommendations if the decision on PEPFAR will be final. Obvious candidates would be Give Well or the Global Development Fund of Effektiv Spenden if you live in Germany. But maybe you have other suggestions. 

My God! Misspelling a surname is probably the worst you can do when are asking for something. Thanks for correction.

Positive suggestion, but the title for the post is confusing

In which sense? Any suggestion for a more clear one? In fact I changed once already, because it did not fit well in the Forum (was too long).

The use of the word “shall” makes it sound like you are confidently predicting the EU will do it, as opposed to to proposing asking the EU to do it.

Thank you for the redaction suggestions. I have decided to use "must" and I have corrected the misspelling in the president surname.

Regarding individual donations, I do not have suggestions, because this is too big for individuals. In my view this is a political opportunity for Europe: we know that the program works well, so it is low risk. 

I would say that being replaced by the europeans is not exactly the optics that the current US government want in this issue, so probably the offer would increase the probability of continuation.

I think it was "will replace" when I wrote the comment but now it's "must replace"? If that's the case, it's better now.

See here (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FTTPCtkizkAQ9fkvM/unicode-wvyp) for the Rapid Response Fund: https://www.founderspledge.com/funds/rapid-response-fund. It's an opportunity to donate to help mitigate the worst immediate consequences of the aid freeze.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
20
Eva
· · 1m read