The Iran war is gifting oil companies big-time profits ($150 billion and counting). But it has sped up investments in renewables by both countries and consumers looking for more reliable and less costly energy sources.

So the world’s first international conference for transitioning away from fossil fuels, which kicks off today in Santa Marta, Colombia and runs through next Wednesday, comes at an opportune moment. “We are not going back to where we were,” Fatih Birol, chief of the International Energy Agency, said last week at the IMF & World Bank Spring meetings.

Indeed, that’s the goal of the conference’s organisers and attendees: to bring together a coalition of the willing to do things differently (read: better & faster). The conference is being billed as an implementation-focused event for those already prepared to take action. That sets a different tone than climate negotiations at COP or the UN, where fossil fuel interests have successfully slowed down progress for decades.

But dear reader, lest you get carried away by hope, here’s a friendly reminder that bureaucracy and diplomacy tend to tether even the grandest ambitions. Organisers expect the official conference outcome to “acknowledge the need for negotiation of a new international treaty to regulate fossil fuels.” Not exactly an inspiring pep rally chant, nor the outcome one might hope for given the urgency. But it’s the first step in a longer process; a second conference hosted by Tuvalu sometime in the next year will aim to secure a formal mandate to negotiate a fossil fuel treaty. So settle in.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1a. Who’s attending: At least 53 countries with a combined GDP of over $40 trillion, annual oil demand of 10 billion barrels, and 30 trillion cubic feet of gas consumption. That includes Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, and the UK.

1b. Who’s not attending: Some of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers and consumers. That includes China, the US, India, and major Gulf states.

Why it matters: Even though some major players like the US and China are staying away, the conference includes several significant fossil fuel producers, including Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria. That makes it harder for skeptics to dismiss the event as a gathering with no teeth. A serious commitment by those countries to transition away from fossil fuels would be hard to ignore, and could entice others to follow suit.

2. How we got here: Any mention of a fossil fuel phaseout was stripped from the final outcome text at COP30 last November, to the frustration of the more than 80 countries that supported it. Instead, the Brazil presidency announced a non-binding fossil fuel roadmap process, to be shaped by the conference that’s taking place over the next several days and then presented at COP31 later this year. Notably, the roadmap will exist outside the formal COP process, meaning it will begin from a relatively weak position.

Subscribe now

Why it matters: 30 years of COPs have resulted in some notable—but painfully slow—progress. Fossil fuel producers (and lobbyists) have blocked needed action and will continue to do so in perpetuity. It’s clear that real ambition will only happen through coalitions of the willing that bypass the blockers and move forward outside the formal COP process. That’s likely the best chance for urgent climate action to happen at scale. And the willingness of dozens of countries to effectively go rogue at last year’s COP and start a parallel process indicates that the genie is out of the bottle, and will make COP31 fascinating to watch.

3. The world’s largest economies spend 2.5x more on fossil fuels than on renewables. Nine fossil fuel importing countries spent $314 billion subsidizing fossil fuels in 2024. That doesn’t include the United States, the world’s largest economy, which stopped reporting official figures (the US provided an estimated $14 billion in subsidies in 2022). So spare a thought for climate scientists, whose dire warnings—now proving true—continue to be downplayed or ignored by the world’s biggest polluters.

But that is changing, and fast: The Iran war is speeding up a shift already well underway. 99% of electricity demand growth in 2025 was met by solar and wind power. If you add hydropower and nuclear to the mix, carbon-free sources of power are displacing fossil fuel sources, meaning the energy transition is already underway. And China and India are investing massive sums in green hydrogen, a technology largely overlooked by the West. Fossil fuel usage remains a major concern, however, particularly in industry, jets, ships, and many automobiles. That makes this week’s conference worth paying attention to.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Devex highlights ONE Data’s analysis on the rising cost of new debt.

• William Menson on how health reform in Ghana will succeed or fail.

• David McNair on why the social good sector today looks a lot like the railway systems of the 1840s.

• Africa is being repriced. But not in the way people think.

• Justin McAuley on what it feels like to visit war-torn Sudan.

IN THE QUEUE:

• A survey suggests that G7 citizens overstate foreign aid spending by 20 times.

• A year after USAID’s death, fired workers have found few jobs and much loss.

• Transparency is the Swiss Army Knife of development.

• Why you should start a company instead of working in aid.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

There’s been a lot of discussion (including by us) about the likely effects of the Iran war on African countries, including higher interest rates and living costs. But even before the war, those countries were quietly experiencing higher borrowing costs, driving up the cost of sovereign existence. The war is likely to exacerbate those costs, but the underlying pressures on governments were already in place.

New analysis by my colleagues at ONE Data reveals a troubling pricing trend for new lending over the past five years. Higher lending costs couldn’t come at a worse time, not least of all because international aid declined by 23% in 2025, a $50 billion contraction that no country saw coming.

We’ve seen this movie before: ballooning debt and unsustainable debt payments in the Global South. The question is whether decision-makers will find ways to course correct before it’s too late.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. African borrowing costs have surged 91% amid global interest rate pressures. These countries were paying 2.7% on average across all creditors in 2020; by 2024, that had risen to 5.1%. With African debt doubling over the past decade, rising debt costs pose a threat to growth, stability, and people’s wellbeing.

Explore an interactive version

Why it matters: Debt plays an important role in supporting economic growth and funding investments in health, education, and infrastructure when domestic resources are insufficient, but it also carries risks. High debt levels and debt servicing costs can divert resources away from essential public services: 28 African countries spend more on debt than they do on health. And rising interest rates will put already at-risk countries in further jeopardy. Even before the current crisis, 21 low-income African countries were either bankrupt or at high risk of debt distress.

Explore an interactive version

2. China’s African lending rates climbed 3.2 percentage points. China’s lending rates have risen from an average of 2.5% for African countries in 2020 to 5.7% in 2024. China also happens to be Africa’s biggest bilateral lender. Its public and private lenders held over $82 billion of Africa’s external debt in 2024, though the rate of Chinese lending to Africa has slowed in recent years.

Explore an interactive version

Why it matters: Chinese lending has long been cited as an alternative to Western-dominated finance. But Chinese finance has undergone a “Great Reversal” in recent years. China went from being a net provider of finance—transferring $48 billion to low- and lower-middle-income countries (via official and private lenders) a decade ago—to a net extractor of $24 billion. Africa has experienced the most dramatic reversal in Chinese finance. It went from receiving $30 billion to paying out $22 billion, a $52 billion swing.

3. World Bank IBRD rates have risen 3.8 percentage points. World Bank lending to Africa has surged, jumping from under $40 billion in 2017 to an estimated $100 billion last year. But the price tag on that borrowing has increased as well. The cost of borrowing from the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (for IBRD countries) rose from 1.4% to 5.2% between 2020 and 2024.

Explore an interactive version

Why it matters: While IBRD lending has become more expensive, it is still far cheaper than markets. In 2024, every $100 from IBRD cost $78 in present value, a savings of $22 relative to market terms. This was narrower than in earlier years (the savings reached $52 per $100 in 2022) because IBRD rates rose along with benchmark rates. The longer maturity and grace periods of IBRD loans compared to the bond market push principal repayments far into the future, making them a more attractive (and less expensive) option. The stable low rates of the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) loans are an even better option for qualifying countries.

Explore an interactive version

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE Data’s analysis on the rising cost of debt was featured in Bloomberg, Reuters, Semafor, CNBC Africa, Africa Business, and Financial Post, and referenced by senior officials at the IMF & World Bank Spring meetings.

• David McNair spoke to the World Bank about how development finance resembles a Shakespearean tragedy, and to Devex about the Spring meetings.

• Sara Harcourt details the key findings of ONE Data’s analysis on lending costs.

IN THE QUEUE:

• What happens in Sudan will not stay in Sudan.

• “We’ve won this war”: Inside the Sudanese army’s quest for legitimacy.

• Money for nothing: the role of evidence in GiveDirectly’s success.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Last year, when a family member in the US had a serious health scare, I called several Catholic churches in and around the area, looking for a priest to administer last rites. I was struck by how many of the priests serving in those rural, mostly white communities were African.

That is no fluke. While the number of priests has declined in much of the world, it’s grown by nearly 3% in Africa in recent years. That has made Africa the Catholic Church’s primary source of talent.

While Catholicism’s growth in the US and other parts of the Global North has stagnated, it has surged in parts of the Global South. No more so than in Africa, where it is growing so quickly that it’s shifting Catholicism’s epicenter and soon will play a significant role in shaping the religion’s future.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. 20% of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics are African. A century ago, it was just 1%. Catholicism has grown by more than 30% in Africa over the past decade. Africa’s Catholic population has surpassed Europe’s and now trails only Latin America. Meanwhile, Catholicism’s growth has stalled or regressed in Europe and the Americas.

The surge in Catholicism’s popularity in Africa has been building for decades. A priest in Benin in the mid-1990s recounted seeing 10,000 people show up each week for catechism (a Catholic teaching), and cohorts of over 1,000 people per day receiving Confirmation (one of the religion’s seven sacraments). Today, Africa is the world’s only region where the number of men studying for the priesthood is increasing. If current trends continue, Africa could account for half of all Catholics by the 2060s.

2. Getting political is key to the church’s success in Africa. In a continent plagued by poverty and ineffective or corrupt governments, the Catholic Church addresses people’s needs and frustrations. It provides education: one in nine students in primary school attend a Catholic school. In many countries, it helps provide healthcare. It plays mediator during conflicts, monitors elections, champions democracy, and publicly calls out human rights violations and government corruption.

Part of the religion’s success is attributable to its ability to be relevant to people’s daily lives, both spiritually and physically. Rather than forcing people to wholesale adopt its traditions, the Catholic Church in Africa has managed to incorporate the dynamism of local cultures and traditions into something uniquely African while maintaining the religion’s core elements.

3. Africa’s representation at senior levels of the church lag behind. A pope didn’t visit the African continent until 1969, 11 days after the first man walked on the moon. The church’s disengagement with Africa has since changed: For instance, Pope Leo’s first major foreign trip—which kicks off on Monday—includes stops in Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea. But Africa doesn’t quite yet have full equality in the church. It has the fewest Bishops per parishioner in the world. It’s also underrepresented at the Vatican, where just 12% of Cardinals under the age of 80—the ones that select the pope—are African. That’s likely to change, eventually. Increased African representation at the Vatican seems “inevitable”, and many believe the next pope will be African.

Other issues pose challenges for the Catholic Church in Africa. They include simmering tensions between the Vatican and African Catholics on issues like same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights (same-sex relations are prohibited by law in most African countries). And despite its rapid growth, African Catholicism has fierce competition: it is losing ground to Pentecostal churches, Africa’s fastest-growing Christian denomination. In addition, inter-religious intolerance has led to violence, most notably in countries along the Sahel with both sizable Muslim and Christian populations.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• The latest ODA data signals risks to future global health, prosperity, and security.

• ONE’s reaction to new figures showing the drastic cuts to UK aid in 2025.

• Our ODA dashboard makes the latest aid data easy to find and use.

• David McNair breaks down the latest aid cuts.

IN THE QUEUE:

• How Africa is changing the Catholic Church.

• How Pope Leo will approach Africa.

• America’s war is adding to Africa’s debt burden.

• How think tanks defeated democracy.

• An ingredient added to Coke, Pepsi, and M&Ms is fuelling conflict in Sudan.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Where you live shouldn’t determine whether you live. I’d wager that the vast majority of people would agree with that statement. And yet, we live in a world in which it isn’t true. Adding insult to injury, deeply rooted structural systems exacerbate and perpetuate health inequalities, with deadly consequences.

If you’re reading this newsletter, you likely already know that. So let’s dig deeper and quantify and visualise those inequalities. My colleague, Luca Picci, recently dug into the inequitable distribution of healthcare spending. His analysis—and the cool data visualisations he designed—are worth your time.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. A fraction of the world’s health spending goes to low-income countries. High-income countries account for 78% of total health spending. That enables them to fund preventive care, robust health infrastructure, and oftentimes universal coverage. They spend $3,038 per person on average on healthcare. Low-income countries, meanwhile, spend just $45 per person—67 times less.

That spending disparity hits hard: If you live in a high-income country, you stand a good chance of celebrating at least 80 birthdays. The average person living in a low-income country will experience 15 fewer birthdays. That’s roughly 5,500 fewer sunrises, sunsets, and days spent building memories with children, grandchildren, and friends.

2. People in low-income countries often pick up the healthcare tab. Out-of-pocket payments account for 43% of health spending in low-income countries, compared to around 13% in high-income ones. In 27 countries, out-of-pocket payments account for over half of all health spending. In some countries, like Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, and Cameroon, over two-thirds of health expenditure is paid out-of-pocket.

That exacerbates inequality: Out-of-pocket spending is one of the most inequitable ways to finance healthcare. Families without resources often deplete savings, sell assets, or cut spending on other essentials like food, education, and housing to cover medical bills. Others avoid treatment altogether, leaving health needs unmet. Sustainable public financing, pooling of resources, and stronger financial protection policies are essential to shift that burden away from individuals and families.

3. Preventative healthcare gets squeezed. Most governments tend to prioritise treating illness and disease over preventing them. Our analysis found a counterintuitive pattern: The share of prevention spending is higher in lower-income countries than in high-income countries. That is something to celebrate, right? Right??

Wrong (sort of): Prevention in lower-income countries is largely financed by external sources. Donor-funded vaccine campaigns, disease control programs, and other preventive initiatives increase the amount spent on prevention. While it’s good that prevention gets funded, the reliance on external financing poses a vulnerability. If (ahem, when) that money dries up, so too does prevention spending.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Planning to be at the World Bank & IMF Spring Meetings? Register for our co-hosted event with the AU on translating G20 commitments into concrete action.

• ONE’s CEO Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli managed to find time in her busy schedule to finish a PhD.

• David McNair spoke with the Lead Change podcast about how data can mobilise coalitions for change.

• Adrian Lovett spoke to The i Paper about cuts to life-saving support leaving the world more vulnerable to the next pandemic.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Nigerians have a Taylor Swift problem.

• 10 clichés in African governance discourse that need to die.

• Make the world safe again.

• How the solar boom is playing out in one West African village.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

A Climate Impact Lab report published this week puts into perspective the inequality of global warming. Heat deaths are expected to increase dramatically in certain parts of the world, offset in part by fewer cold-related deaths in other places. Below, we look at the biggest losers of a warming planet (you’ll never guess who… 😳).

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

BUT FIRST, A QUIZ

We’re quietly cooking up the next version of ONE Data—and you’re a part of it.

Got 3 minutes? Fill out this short survey and tell us what works, what doesn’t, and what you wish existed. If this is your first time hearing that we have a data platform, even better—we want to hear from you, too.

As a thank you, respondents will be invited to:

• Test new data features before anyone else

• Join a small working group shaping ONE Data

• Attend off-the-record, closed-door sessions with our team and other major leaders in the development community

👉 Take the survey

3 things to know

1. Where you live determines how likely you are to die from climate change. Lower-income countries stand to lose 10 times more people to deaths from high temperatures than rich countries. Hotter regions, including North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia, will be hit hardest. Parts of Algeria, Burkina Faso, Niger, Pakistan, and Sudan are expected to see increases exceeding 80 deaths per 100,000 people. That’s on par with the rate of malaria deaths in places like Nigeria and Sierra Leone today.

Why it matters: Add climate change to the many ways in which people in high- and lower-income countries experience the world differently. Inequality is a key factor. The East African country of Djibouti is projected to see an increase in heat-related deaths double that of oil-rich Kuwait, despite their similar climate.

Subscribe now

2. Without economic growth, there would be seven times more temperature-related deaths globally. That’s roughly equivalent to global deaths from suicide. That points to the importance of sustained economic growth and development. Because without both, the fatal impact of heatwaves will be far greater. And they’ll be centred on the populations already struggling the most to get by: 16 of the 20 countries facing the most new heat-related deaths are lower income.

Why it matters: Lower-income countries are in desperate need of climate finance to help them address the climate change caused by rich countries. Yet rich countries have dragged their feet and offered plentiful excuses and insufficient finance. At the same time, they’ve designed a climate finance reporting system that enables them to claim more in climate finance than they actually contribute.

3. People in lower-income countries are being disproportionately impacted by a climate crisis they didn’t create. Having neither caused nor benefited from climate change, they now bear the brunt of its impacts. Meanwhile, the US and China have caused an estimated $10 trillion and $9 trillion in climate damages since 1990.

Why it matters: The injustices of colonialism and imperialism continue to compound. Today’s industrialised countries burned massive amounts of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels to catalyse their economic growth. A lot of that fossil fuel was extracted from lower-income countries. Now those countries are being told (often by people in rich countries) to reduce their use of fossil fuels to protect the planet at the same time they are trying to industrialise and grow. It’s a dark irony not lost on populations tired of being told to “do as we say, not as we do” by Western powers.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Climate finance reporting is a mess. Here’s how to fix it.

• David McNair offers five observations on how the world is being changed during a volatile time.

IN THE QUEUE:

• The Iran war is pushing consumers to break up with fossil fuels.

• Why debt restructuring may be the least bad option for Senegal.

• Turning polycrisis into polytunity (and why “polycrisis” may be a Western-centric term).

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

I once spent several months living with a family in rural Uganda. Few people in the village had access to electricity or running water. One of the family members, a 13-year old boy named Mikey, spent his days at the local school and the rest of his time cooking, cleaning, and hauling water from a nearby stream.

Mikey was hardworking and resourceful, but he was not well educated. His school had some 200 students ages 5-18, and one teacher. At night, I would sometimes try to help Mikey with his homework. Two things quickly became clear: There were no textbooks; the students just wrote down what the teacher said, and 2) all of the classes were taught in English. Mikey spoke so little English that most of our communication involved hand gestures and smiles. He wasn’t learning anything.

Mikey’s story is a microcosm of a big problem: Billions of people living in lower-income countries are unable to achieve their full potential because the systems in which they live don’t enable it. Some of them are amongst the most innovative and hardworking people I’ve met. With access to better education and more opportunities, many of them would no doubt do great things.

The unrealised potential of billions of people is an unspoken tragedy of our time. Poverty and inequality are imposing a tax on humanity.

And we are all paying.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. Untapped potential is the single most significant difference between someone living in a high vs. a lower-income country. The global average for R&D researchers—the people involved in conceiving or creating new knowledge, products, or innovation—is 1,420 per million people. For context, Europe’s average is 3,935, North America’s exceeds 4,800. Denmark’s? 8,736. In contrast, the average number of researchers per 1 million people in low-income countries is 176. In Uganda, it’s 12. TWELVE.

Here’s what that means in practice: Denmark has over 51,000 researchers. Uganda, with a population eight times larger, has fewer than 700. That has obvious implications for the ability of Uganda—or dozens of other countries with relatively few researchers—to discover and develop new innovations, advance their economies, and help people escape poverty. Factors like poverty, poor education, and a lack of electricity, amongst others, limit opportunities for individuals to become researchers and innovators.

2. The disparity between rich and lower-income countries starts at an early age. In most high-income countries, less than 1% of children aged 6-11 are out of school. The average across low-income countries is 21%. In Nigeria—Africa’s most populous country—nearly 1 in 4 children are out of school.

Why it matters: That means that millions of children around the world are not learning the knowledge and skills needed to reach their full potential. And unequal access to primary education impacts higher education levels. Just 8% of Africans over the age of 25 have a bachelor’s degree. That’s half the global average and four times lower than in high-income countries.

3. Having few university graduates results in fewer people with technical expertise. Take IT, for instance. Africa has just four IT professionals per 10,000 people. That’s 10 times below the global average, and 30 times less than high-income countries.

Why it matters: The low number of IT professionals will make it difficult—if not impossible—for African countries to compete in a world in which AI and computer technology dominate. It also significantly diminishes the possibilities for new technology discoveries and tech start-ups. Who knows how many inventions or Apples, Googles, Nvidias, or OpenAIs will fail to be launched as a result?

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE Data’s analysis of shifting development finance flows featured in Devex.

• Adrian Lovett’s response to the UK’s disastrous aid cuts featured in The Guardian, Independent, The Telegraph, and Daily Mirror.

• Elise Legault and Anthony Salloum highlight a glaring gap in Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s travel itinerary: Africa.

IN THE QUEUE:

• African sports fans, doctors, and musicians lament US travel ban.

• Africa’s energy revolution must be African-led.

• A former Pakistani minister on AI’s potential and dangers for developing countries.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Once again, billions of people find themselves impacted by a war of choice they had no say over. Four years ago, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global supply chains, causing oil, food, and fertiliser prices to skyrocket and leading to higher interest rates. That had impacts far beyond Ukraine (as we noted at the time).

The US-Israel war with Iran is evolving quickly, so its fallout remains uncertain. But should it continue for several weeks or months, the consequences for developing countries are predictable, and likely dire, as we outline below.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director at ONE Data

Subscribe now

4 things to know

1. Oil price hikes will yield some winners and a lot of losers. Oil producing countries—think Angola, Brazil, Guyana, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Mexico—stand to benefit from higher oil prices. Oil importing countries, on the other hand, are poised for tough times. Some African countries only carry enough oil to cover a few days’ worth of demand; many others carry less than three weeks worth.

Source: Bloomberg

Why it matters: Angola and Nigeria planned for an average oil price of $61 and $65 per barrel in their 2026 budgets. Higher prices would represent a revenue windfall, especially if prices stay elevated for months. Many oil rich countries, however—especially in sub-Saharan Africa—lack sufficient domestic refining capabilities to meet their growing needs. So while they export oil and gas, they also import refined fuels. That means higher prices cut both ways. The budgets of non-oil producing developing countries would be hit hardest by higher prices, forcing them to take on more debt or cut spending (read: cut public services). Both options are bad, and could prove destabilising.

Source: Bloomberg

2. Say hello to higher food prices. Oil and gas are used to help grow or transport almost everything we eat. Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilisers like urea. About one-third of the global fertiliser trade flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which is effectively closed. That’s caused a rapid spike in fertiliser prices, with more on the horizon. The average price of urea is up nearly 30% since the war’s outbreak. Nitrogen prices could double and phosphate prices may increase 50% if the war doesn’t end quickly.

Source: Global Footprint Network

Why it matters: Higher fertiliser prices can quickly lead to higher food prices. The World Bank estimates that every 1% increase in fertiliser prices can push up global food prices by 0.45%. That puts the squeeze on both farmers and consumers. High oil and gas prices played a key role the three times this century (2008, 2011, 2022) when food prices spiked. And higher food prices would come at a time when more than 300 million people already face acute hunger, aid budgets are shrinking, and existing humanitarian needs are underfunded.

3. Stronger dollar, rising interest rates, precarious debt. Price increases on oil, food, and other products could help strengthen the US dollar and lead to weaker local currencies and rising inflation. That would put further pressure on developing countries’ trade balances and likely force governments to hike interest rates. That dynamic is already on display in South Africa, where traders spooked by the war in Iran quickly reversed expectations of an interest rate cut.

Source: Bloomberg

Why it matters: Developing countries will pay roughly $450 billion to service $3.5 trillion in debt. 33 of those countries are already in or at high risk of debt distress. Higher interest rates—exacerbated by higher import costs and weaker currencies—would put government budgets in a serious bind. If the war and its aftershocks last for an extended period, some countries may need to restructure their debt or risk defaulting. The lack of an effective international debt restructuring mechanism increases the risk of the latter.

Developing countries’ debt stocks

Explore an interactive version of the chart

4. Significant losses of remittances from migrant workers. Foreign residents account for the majority of the population in several Middle East countries, including nearly 90% in Qatar and the UAE. Most of those workers send money home to support their families. The war has caused a number of Gulf countries to reduce or pause activities, including oil production and transportation. Should the war drag on, the loss of remittances will be felt back home by people who depend on them and are being squeezed by higher costs of living.

Explore an interactive version of the chart

Why it matters: The impact could be consequential. Millions of people in Africa and Asia are highly reliant on income generated in the Middle East, a critical pipeline now threatened by the war. Global remittances to developing countries exceed foreign direct investment and development aid, combined. The Middle East accounts for 15-20% of total remittances to developing countries; in recent years, that’s been $110-120 billion annually. That makes it one of the world’s largest remittance corridors. India receives over one-third of its $135 billion in remittances from the Middle East. Over half of the remittances received in Bangladesh and Pakistan originated in Gulf countries.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Elise Legault on Canada’s open goal with Africa.

• Adrian Lovett spoke to The Independent about the UK’s questionable use of an already slimmed down aid budget.

HELP WANTED:

• Data Engineer: Help build the data infrastructure that powers ONE Data’s products and platforms.

• Senior Product Manager: Lead the strategy, development, and ongoing improvement of ONE Data’s digital products and platforms.

IN THE QUEUE:

• How the war in Iran could ravage global food security.

• Migrant workers are disproportionately impacted by war in Iran.

• The little-known commodity fueling Sudan’s civil war.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

“Brilliance is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not.” — Linda Kamau

Empowering Africa’s women

Africa is on its way to becoming one of the world’s largest markets, with a young, vibrant population. The continent’s startup scene is defying expectations. Kenya alone has more than 50 tech hubs, and Francophone Africa is quietly cultivating a generation of disruptors.

Yet women are under-represented in Africa’s emerging tech sector: they account for less than 25% of the continent’s tech workforce. To understand how that gets changed, I spoke to someone who’s dedicated her career to lifting women up.

Linda Kamau is the Founder and Executive Director of AkiraChix. Based in Nairobi, AkiraChix’s mission is to provide promising young women in Africa with technology skills to compete economically and bridge the gender gap in tech. The organisation’s codeHive program is the only fully residential tech training program for young women in Africa.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. All images courtesy of AkiraChix.

Subscribe now

Linda (2nd from the right) and the AkiraChix team

Joe: Kenya’s tech sector has been labeled the “Silicon Savannah.” Why is developing a thriving tech sector so critical for the future of African youth, especially young women?

Linda: There is immense brilliance and untapped potential among Africa’s youth, a generation that holds the key to the continent’s future. It is essential to tap into this talent to develop homegrown solutions to the most pressing challenges. A thriving tech industry creates high-growth and high-income employment opportunities that would help accomplish this.

When girls are included in building technology, the solutions created are more inclusive and responsive to real community needs. Diverse perspectives lead to better products, stronger innovation, and more sustainable development outcomes.

Investing in girls’ participation in tech is not just a gender issue, it is an economic and development imperative.

J: Imagine it’s 2050. What is your ideal vision for African women innovators in technology?

L: In my 2050 vision, African women are founders, investors, engineers, and policymakers. Their leadership is no longer the exception but the norm, transforming the tech sector and accelerating inclusive economic development across the continent. The evidence shows that when women are included, industries perform better. Diverse leadership drives innovation, strengthens problem-solving, and contributes to stronger economic growth.

J: What are the major obstacles that could derail that vision from becoming reality?

L: One of the major obstacles is the widening gap between academic education and the future of work. The education systems in many African countries are not adequately preparing young women for emerging industries and the evolving demands of the labor market. As a result, many do not have the competencies required for high-growth sectors like technology. This disconnect limits their ability to access job opportunities and compete in a rapidly changing global economy.

Without deliberate reforms to align education systems with the skills required for the future of work, particularly in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics], young women risk being excluded from the very opportunities that economic transformation is creating.

J: What is AkiraChix doing to help empower Africa’s women?

L: We believe that training young women to enter Africa’s burgeoning tech industry is the single greatest opportunity to improve their economic independence. Rather than traditional classroom instruction, codeHive uses a hands-on, human-centered design approach that fosters creativity, critical thinking, and practical problem-solving. Students graduate not just as coders, but as confident problem-solvers and innovators. The transformation is not just professional, it is deeply personal.

A key part of our success lies in our partnerships with the tech industry. We collaborate closely with tech allies to set inclusive standards for hiring and retaining talent, ensuring brilliant young women who might otherwise be overlooked have the opportunity to succeed.

AkiraChix’s impact to date

The impact is already evident. Our graduates are securing high-paying jobs earning more than their peers, supporting their families, transforming communities, and influencing conversations and policies in a tech industry that has historically excluded women. They are not just participating in tech, they are shaping it.

Yet, we have only scratched the surface. As we expand across sub-Saharan Africa, our goal is to reach more talented young women who lack access to opportunity.

We believe brilliance is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not.

We’re working to close that gap and ensure young women are not only prepared for the future of work but positioned to lead it.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• David McNair joined the China in Africa Podcast to discuss why China isn’t Africa’s biggest debt problem.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Women globally hold just 64% of the legal rights of men.

• China’s effort to shape the news in Africa isn’t finding an audience.

• Zambia’s president says Africa should not pick sides in minerals race.

• The case for a historic reallocation to emerging markets.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

One day while doing research for my dissertation in Equatorial Guinea—an oil rich yet poverty-stricken country marred by rampant corruption—I sprinted for cover under an awning to escape a sudden downpour. There, I sat and chatted with a local man I’d never met before and never saw again.

He began to talk about corruption by government elites, no small act in a place where people get arbitrarily arrested, or worse, for criticising the government. At one point he gestured toward a new Mercedes sedan driving by, noting that corruption was what enabled government officials to drive expensive vehicles in a country where most people lack reliable electricity.

As we parted, he said something that both moved me and made me feel incredibly inadequate: “When you leave, don’t forget us.” It was a plea for help by a man surviving in a country where citizens feel powerless against an iron-fisted ruling regime.

Later, I spoke to a civil society activist in the country. He told me that the US Embassy was one of the only places in the country where he and other democracy activists felt safe using the internet without fear of government surveillance. I’ve since encouraged US foreign service members serving in Equatorial Guinea and other democratically-challenged countries to find ways big and small to support the efforts of local activists taking incredible risks.

Until very recently, the US was a champion of democracy, good governance, and human rights around the world. Sure, there were plenty of things it got wrong, but there’s no denying the considerable resources—billions of dollars per year—allocated to the task.

Much of that funding fell victim to the drastic cuts to US aid in 2025. 97% of USAID’s democracy, human rights, and governance portfolio was terminated, and the agency itself dismantled. Over half of the related State Department programs were killed. All told, over $14 billion in US government-funded democracy and governance assistance was cut, affecting work in more than 120 countries.

We’re starting to learn about the consequences of those cuts, and well, it’s not great.

Below, we look at the emerging evidence and what it means for a world in which democracy is on the decline.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. The US cuts have crippled organisations worldwide. In surveys, respondents have reported that US funding made up over 40% of their organisational budgets. The result has been widespread layoffs, suspended programs, and in some cases, closure.

Source: Global Democracy Coalition

Why it matters: The loss of US funding is significantly weakening the democracy and good governance ecosystems. Civil society organisations and independent media, which play a critical role in pushing for government transparency and accountability, are hampered or disappearing. Repressive regimes are happily doing more repression. As Regina Waugh from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems recounted being told by an activist in an authoritarian country: “My government is so happy that the US doesn’t care about democracy anymore.”

2. An estimated $150 million in annual support for media and internet freedom was lost in the US aid cuts. That includes cuts in places where media already face considerable challenges, like Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Ukraine. In South Sudan, the only independent national FM radio outlet had to cut three-quarters of its staff. Independent journalists in Myanmar are working without pay.

Why it matters: “Governments are taking advantage of the cuts—and the decreased international attention they entail—to arrest or harass citizens and civil society organisations that have advocated for governance reforms and human rights.” That’s the view of Rene Valiente from the human rights organisation, Cristosal, speaking at a Devex event this week.

She would know: She and dozens of other journalists have fled El Salvador since January 2025 as the country’s strongman leader cracked down on the media and civil society following the retreat of the US’s support for democracy programs. In May 2025, the government passed a Foreign Agents law that imposes a 30% tax on any funding organisations receive from international donors. Nearly all community radio stations in the country received USAID support before the aid cuts; most say that the Foreign Agents law will negatively impact their work and sustainability.

3. The US funding cuts are happening alongside a global deterioration in freedom and civil liberties. Just 7% of the world’s population lives in countries with free or relatively open civic space. Civil society is under severe attack in 122 of 198 countries and territories. And freedom in the world has declined for 19 consecutive years, according to Freedom House.

Source: Freedom House

Why it matters: Democratic backsliding isn’t a new phenomenon, but ceding the battle for freedom to authoritarian regimes is. While some other donors—like the EU, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and certain philanthropies—have upped their funding for democracy and good governance over the past year, they aren’t able to fill the enormous gap left by the US cuts. Nearly 60% of surveyed democracy and rights organisations report having been unable to make up for the loss of US funding from bilateral, multilateral, or philanthropic donors.

FIND DATA FAST

• The ONE Data Agent™: An AI-enabled tool that enables you to search tens of millions of data points on health financing in seconds.

• Net flows dashboard: Tired of scouring complex databases for developing country data on debt service and loans? Same. So we built an easy-to-use dashboard.

• ODA dashboard: Reliable data on aid to developing countries, searchable and downloadable by recipient, sector, and more.

• Trade Explorer: Explore, visualise, and download data on annual global trade flows by country and product.

FROM THE ONE TEAM

• ONE’s Adrian Lovett on the UK’s failed aid cuts and why it should change course.

IN THE QUEUE

• US aid cuts fueled conflict in Africa.

• Don’t look now, but the Green Transition is still happening.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

One in four people on the planet will live in Africa by 2050. The continent’s population will nearly double between now and then, to 2.5 billion.

Powering that growth poses a major challenge. Currently, 600 million Africans lack access to electricity. How will African countries solve that problem and catalyse economic growth without worsening the effects of climate change already impacting them?

A few years ago, my colleague Olawunmi Ola-Busari and I wrote about how Africa—given its geographic and natural resource advantages—could become a green energy powerhouse.

There is now evidence that a “solar take-off” is happening in Africa. Should it continue to soar, it will have major implications for both the region and the world.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Renewables are the world’s fastest growing source of electricity. And it isn’t even close: They’ve grown five times faster than gas and 16 times faster than coal since 2014. Meanwhile, the use of coal and gas to generate electricity has plateaued over the past five years.

Why it matters: Readers of IPCC reports or, well, the news, are painfully aware that the world is doing a rather poor job of keeping its climate promises. But it’s not all bad news: The rapid expansion of renewable energy over the past decade has been pretty incredible. That’s especially important given the rapid population growth—and increased energy demands—in developing regions. Every solar panel or wind turbine that gets erected keeps a little more carbon in the global carbon budget.

Subscribe now

2. Africa has 60% of the world’s best solar resources. Yet it has just 1.5% of the world’s installed solar capacity. Eighteen of the top 30 countries globally with the potential to generate solar power are in Africa. That presents an incredible opportunity—if governments can seize it. There’s evidence that they are: Africa’s installed solar increased ninefold over the past decade. And Africa’s solar imports from China (which makes 80% of the world’s solar panels) rose by 60% in 2024-25. Over half of Africa’s new electricity capacity this year will come from solar.

Source: Ember

Why it matters: In many ways, Africa is an important climate and renewables bellwether. Given its rapid population growth, rising energy needs, and enormous solar (and wind) potential, Africa will play a pivotal role in shaping the climate. If it harnesses its unmatched solar potential alongside its many critical minerals, its future looks, ahem, bright. 😎

3. 25 African countries imported at least 100 MW of solar panels in 2024-25. That’s an increase from 15 countries the year before. That could significantly boost many countries’ ability to generate electricity. For instance, if Sierra Leone installed all the solar panels it imported last year, they would generate electricity equivalent to 61% of its existing electricity. And solar is a critical part of the Mission 300 initiative, which aims to expand electricity access to 300 million people in Africa by 2030.

Source: Ember

Why it matters: Solar panels are cheap and getting cheaper. That makes them an appealing option, both for governments and for individuals looking to generate electricity without breaking the bank. Rooftop solar could help overcome the challenges of getting electricity to rural areas far from the electrical grid, and help cut down the number of people living without electricity. But utility-scale solar projects will be critical for ensuring that robust grid systems exist to meet the heavy electricity demands of industries and urban areas.

FIND DATA FAST:

• The ONE Data Agent™: An AI-enabled tool that enables you to search tens of millions of data points on health financing in seconds.

• Net flows dashboard: Tired of scouring complex databases for developing country data on debt service and loans? Same. So we built an easy-to-use dashboard.

• ODA dashboard: Reliable data on aid to developing countries, searchable and downloadable by recipient, sector, and more.

• Trade Explorer: Explore, visualise, and download data on annual global trade flows by country and product.

MORE FROM ONE DATA:

• The answer to attacks on the UN is to revitalise it — not sideline it, says David McNair.

• 🎧 Must listen: David had a riveting conversation with Dan Banik about the future of activism and global development in an age of overlapping crises for the In Pursuit of Development podcast.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Africa’s energy sector faces pivotal choices.

• Africa needs solar farms, not just solar islands.

• At the Munich Security Conference, development tried to remain relevant.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

The world has a munitions problem. Global military spending surpassed $2.6 trillion in 2024 (the latest year for which there is data). That’s a 350% increase since 2000. Annual military spending has risen by one trillion dollars in just the past decade.

Meanwhile, governments are cutting funding for development and spending far less than is needed to address climate change. They claim there is no money for such things. Yet many of those same governments spend billions of dollars each year buying guns, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and more.

Countries have a right to protect themselves. The problem is that many countries spend massive amounts on their militaries while underfunding development and diplomacy. Those programs help mitigate future risks and conflicts—at a much smaller price tag—and make military intervention less likely.

With the annual Munich Security Conference about to start, a new ONE Campaign analysis highlights just how stark the imbalance is between military spending and spending on development and diplomacy. The latter two get much less attention, but are incredibly cost-effective.

As former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pithily put it: “Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.”

— Joe Kraus, ONE Data Senior Policy Director

3 things to know

1. The top 10 OECD defense spenders allocate $7 to defense for every $1 spent on development and diplomacy, combined. Overall, more than 85% of their security-relevant spending is devoted to defense. That leaves less than 15% for the tools that help reduce fragility, manage shocks, and sustain political stability. Those 10 countries spent a combined $1.45 trillion on their militaries in 2024, up nearly 30% over the previous decade.

Source: The ONE Campaign

Why it matters: Investing disproportionately in defense without corresponding support for development and diplomacy may yield temporary deterrence, but it does not deliver the broader human security—health, stability, economic opportunity—on which lasting peace depends. True security is not only what protects the state but what safeguards people’s lives, rights, and resilience.

2. The top 10 OECD defense spenders spent 65 times more on defense than on global health in 2024. Spending on development by those countries has plateaued or declined as a share of GDP. Their share of development spending directed to fragile and conflict-affected states has fallen sharply, even as global fragility rises.

Source: The ONE Campaign

Why it matters: Health’s share of total development spending among these countries has declined by almost 15% over the past decade. That’s despite overwhelming evidence that strong health systems are among the most effective investments for preventing instability, protecting human capital, and reinforcing state legitimacy. This retreat from prevention is strategically inefficient. Fragile contexts now host the majority of the world’s extreme poor and generate insecurity spillovers that are far more expensive to manage with military tools than to prevent through sustained civilian investment.

3. None of the top 10 risks over a 10‑year horizon are military in nature. That’s according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025. Instead, extreme weather, environmental degradation, large‑scale forced migration, and technological disruption dominate the list of long‑term risks.

Global risks ranked by severity over the short and long term

Source: World Economic Forum

Why it matters: The current one-dimensional focus on defense leaves the world dangerously unprepared for the defining security challenges of the future. Climate change illustrates this mismatch: Under current trajectories, unchecked climate change could reduce global GDP by 17% and cause economic losses of $38 trillion per year by 2050 through damage to health, productivity, agriculture, and infrastructure.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Report: The Security Paradox: More Defense, Less Stability?

• Analysis: Conflict prevention is 100 times less costly than crisis response.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Google backs African push to reclaim AI language data

• DR Congo inks AI deal with US firm to map country’s critical minerals

• Trump cut the cash. The African Development Bank raised a record $11bn anyway

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

“Diamonds are forever.” That catch phrase, crafted in 1947 for De Beers, has—much like the product it was designed to sell—proved to be very durable. It’s been a mainstay of ad campaigns ever since, and has inspired movies, music, and even a book.

Diamond revenues, on the other hand, are not as permanent, as diamond-exporting countries are finding out. The market for natural diamonds is amid a historic reset.

It may never recover.

That has major implications for the countries that rely on diamond revenues to drive their economies and fund health systems and schools. They are experiencing an abrupt wake-up call without many good short-term solutions.

Turns out, diamonds are forever, until they aren’t.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director at ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Diamond prices have dropped precipitously in recent years. Since hitting a 20-year high in March 2022, prices have declined by 47%. That’s in large part due to the surge in demand for lab-grown diamonds (though US tariffs certainly haven’t helped).

Explore an interactive version of the chart

Why it matters: The average price for polished natural diamonds is at its lowest point in over two decades, lower today than during the global financial crisis. In response, a group of diamond-producing countries in southern Africa have joined forces to invest 1% of annual diamond revenues into a global marketing campaign to put the shine back on natural diamonds. They launched a “Real. Rare. Responsible” campaign to brand natural diamonds as unique and ethically sourced.

2. Lab-grown diamonds enjoy several market advantages. They can be produced relatively rapidly, in weeks instead of aeons (the fancy term for billions of years), like their natural counterparts. That makes lab diamonds a lot less expensive—they are generally 70-85% cheaper at retail than natural diamonds. And concerns about “blood diamonds” have helped popularise synthetic diamonds, which are visually identical to the naked eye.

Can you tell the difference?

Source: With Clarity

Why it matters: Diamonds were always a stretch purchase for anyone not in an upper-income class. Synthetic diamonds have changed that. They’ve made it easier for people to enjoy the luxe of a diamond at a fraction of the cost. That has upended the natural diamond market. Lab-grown diamonds now account for 20% of global sales, up from 1% just a decade ago.

3. Diamond-producing countries are feeling the pain. Botswana—the world’s top diamond producer by value—relies on diamond revenues for 80% of its exports and a third of government income. Falling diamond prices have hit the country hard: Mineral revenues dropped 60% in 2025/26 from their long-term average. That caused Botswana to have the largest budget gap in sub-Saharan Africa last year. The country has taken on loads of new debt, causing its debt-to-gdp ratio to nearly double over the past two years, exceeding a legislative limit. Meanwhile, Botswana is sitting on a glut of diamonds for which it can’t find a buyer.

Source: Bloomberg

Why it matters: Botswana’s President Duma Boko has called the drop in diamond prices “a national social existential threat.” The government has been forced to cut spending and declared a public health emergency last August due to a shortage of medicines and medical equipment. And unlike oil—a cyclical natural resource that many countries are dependent upon—diamond prices are unlikely to rebound. The price drop is due to structural, not cyclical, factors. That reality is reflected in repeated devaluations of De Beers by its owner Anglo American Plc. The firm is reportedly trying to sell De Beers, the world’s largest diamond company.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Media: The great reversal: Why Africa is now paying more than it receives in global development finance.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Trump advisers refine their Africa strategy

• How a coup attempt in Nigeria is a stark warning to the region

• Ghana and Google ink an AI education deal

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Welcome to The Insider newsletter! (formerly known as Aftershocks). We’ll continue to deliver the same incisive, world class analysis and commentary, just under a new name. With change comes opportunity: You can now join the conversation by clicking on the comment button at the bottom of the page. We want to hear your perspective!

That’s not the only exciting news. At ONE Data, we’re pursuing an ambitious agenda to make development finance an easily accessible public good. To learn more, see our white paper. As part of that vision, we’ve just announced the “Development Finance Observatory,” a $4 million collaboration with Google.org and The Rockefeller Foundation. Launching this year, this first-of-its-kind, interactive data collaboration will improve the accessibility of development finance data and reduce data fragmentation. That will help collapse the time between data and insight, enabling finance ministers, journalists, investors, and analysts to follow the money by asking natural language questions.

Today, with technical infrastructure support from Google’s Data Commons and produced by ONE Data, we launched a new analysis, which discovered a “Great Reversal” in Chinese finance to developing countries. Below, we highlight a few of the key takeaways.

— Joe Kraus, Editor of The Insider and Senior Policy Director at ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Net flows to low- and middle-income countries have declined by 25%. That’s when comparing flows for the period 2010-14 with 2020-24. Rising debt service payments have consumed an ever-larger share of gross inflows.

Why it matters: For the last few years, developing countries have been spending more money on debt repayments to official and private lenders than they are receiving in new loans. Investments in official development assistance have kept most countries above water. With countries like the US, France, Germany, and the UK announcing drastic cuts to development assistance—at least 23% by 2027—low- and middle-income countries will struggle to access the affordable capital needed to stay afloat.

2. Chinese finance has undergone a “Great Reversal.” China went from being a net provider of finance—transferring $48 billion to low- and lower-middle-income countries a decade ago—to a net extractor of $24 billion. Africa has experienced the most dramatic reversal: It went from receiving $30 billion to paying out $22 billion, a $52 billion swing.

The “Great Reversal” of Chinese finance

Source: ONE Data

Why it matters: Developing country governments are increasingly facing the reality of financing health, education, and infrastructure spending from domestic budgets. Some countries have the fiscal space to finance their domestic needs. But others are grappling with expensive debt service payments that threaten to cut into domestic spending. Dozens of countries are spending more to service debt than they spend on health or education.

3. Multilateral providers now account for 56% of net flows. That’s up from 28% just a decade ago. Multilateral institutions—including multilateral development banks—have increased their financing by 124%. Private finance, on the other hand, has evaporated. It plummeted from $115 billion in net new resources over the 2010-14 period to only $7.3 billion in the last five years, and now accounts for just 1% of net finance flows.

Why it matters: The dominance in multilateral funding is likely to continue as bilateral flows continue to retreat. That may not be all bad: Developing country leaders say that multilateral providers are the most influential and helpful, according to a 2024 survey. But at a time of declining bilateral aid, the precipitous drop in private sector finance is concerning.

FROM THE ONE DATA TEAM:

• Press release: Google.org, ONE Data, and The Rockefeller Foundation to launch new Development Finance Observatory in 2026.

• Report: The Great Reversal: Multilaterals step up finance to developing countries as China steps back.

• White paper: Reimagining how evidence drives change.

• Media: ONE Data’s insights featured in African Business.

• Media: David McNair spoke to Al Jazeera about Greenland, AI, and progress on poverty and hunger.

• Analysis: David McNair on the need for institutional reform and strategic clarity in global development.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Adapt, shrink or die: the global crisis in humanitarian aid.

• Afreximbank cuts ties with Fitch over rating cut.

• Is the “Board of Peace” a threat to international cooperation?

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Leave a comment

Taxing problems

We live in an era of extreme inequality. The world’s 10 richest men—and yes, they are all men—own more than the bottom 3.1 billion people.

If that weren’t bad enough, avoiding taxes—a key source of government revenue—has become its own industry. Multinational corporations and wealthy individuals are avoiding taxes—often through technically legal means—at an alarming rate.

Meanwhile, lower-income countries are struggling to find the revenues needed to provide basic services. High-income countries are pointing to their own revenue challenges to defend aid cuts.

One solution for both groups of countries: Close tax loopholes. Doing so would raise hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues annually, as we outline below.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Countries lose an estimated $492 billion in tax a year to global tax abuse. 71% of that is due to tax abuse by multinational corporations; 29% is lost to offshore tax evasion by wealthy individuals.

Why it matters: The tax losses for higher-income countries are greater in absolute terms, but lower-income countries’ losses account for a greater share of their budgets. For example: lower-income countries lose five times as much as higher-income countries as a share of public health budgets. Africa lost an amount equivalent to 53% of health spending between 2016 and 2021 due to corporate tax abuse; that’s nearly 20 points higher than the global average. That means countries have far less money to spend on social services or their energy transitions than they otherwise would. Ultimately, their citizens pay the price.

Explore an interactive version of the chart

2. 33 lower-income countries are in—or at high risk of—debt distress. Debt service payments have increased substantially in the past decade, in part due to higher interest payments on private loans. 40% of the world’s population lives in countries that spend more on debt service than health or education.

Why it matters: High debt levels are, in part, a result of countries bringing in insufficient revenues. Case in point: Tax policies that favor corporations and the wealthy were a key driver of Sri Lanka’s 2022 debt default and economic crisis. Those policies also contributed to the country’s chronic underfunding of education and other public services. That’s a recurring problem across many lower-income countries trying to meet their debt obligations amidst revenue shortfalls.

3. A handful of countries are to blame for the majority of corporate tax losses. Nearly three quarters of those losses flow into tax havens with low effective tax rates. That includes the UK and its Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies (which account for 23% of global tax losses), Hong Kong (12.4%), Ireland (9.9%), Singapore (7.8%), and Switzerland (5.4%). For every $1 that corporations shift into tax havens, they avoid paying $5 in taxes, on average, to governments where the actual business activities take place.

Explore an interactive version of the chart

Why it matters: Corporate tax abuse amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from governments to corporations and their shareholders, most of whom live in the world’s wealthiest countries. It has contributed to—and helps perpetuate—historically high levels of inequality. But momentum for reform is growing. The African Group at the UN is leading an effort to establish a UN tax convention to make the global tax system fairer. And efforts to improve transparency of tax payments—a vital first step to tax reform—are gaining steam.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• We uncovered a hidden fragility in health spending.

• ONE’s CEO Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli highlights six opportunities to strengthen Africa’s food and nutrition systems.

• David McNair on the outcome of the 7th African Union–European Union Summit.

IN THE QUEUE:

• The world is round, but our tax loopholes shouldn’t be.

• How ultra-processed foods are reshaping diets in low- and middle-income countries.

• 2025 Goalkeepers report: We can’t stop at almost.

• How many lives would be saved if Africa had other regions’ child mortality rates?

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Africa’s mineral moment, explained

Africa has important mineral resources — but headlines about continent-wide statistics can be misleading.

You’ll often see the claim that Africa holds 30% of the world’s “critical minerals.” Bright Simons pushes back: with consistent definitions of reserves vs production and a strict view of what’s truly “critical” for the continent, the share looks closer to 4%. That matters because it changes what Africa can realistically deliver — and what policy should aim to achieve.

This primer cuts through the hype to show what to watch next: why China’s dominant role complicates diversification, and what countries need to turn raw potential into lasting development outcomes.

— Micaela Iveson, Policy & Projects Manager

Critical minerals vs. rare earths: “Critical minerals” is a policy label for materials essential to modern industries — from lithium and cobalt to copper and nickel — while “rare earth elements” are a scientific group of 17 minerals used in electric vehicle motors and wind turbines. Many rare earths are considered critical minerals, but not all critical minerals are rare earths. This important distinction is often blurred in the hype around Africa’s resource potential.

3 things to know

1. More African ore is coming, but not evenly. A handful of projects in South Africa, Angola, Malawi and Tanzania could meaningfully raise Africa’s rare-earth output, but this is a patchwork opportunity, not a continent-wide boom.

Why this matters: Mines alone don’t make wealth. To capture the big economic gains those projects need on-continent processing plants (separation and refining), reliable power, roads, rail and ports, and credit-backed offtake agreements — legally binding purchase contracts that reassure banks and underwrite local investment. Without those pieces, ore gets shipped out and the high-margin manufacturing stays elsewhere.

2. A lot of that supply still flows through China. Industry analysis shows 37% of Africa’s future rare earth element production is already contracted to Chinese buyers, and most processing and magnet-making capacity remains off-continent. Today only about 5% of Africa’s critical minerals are processed locally.

Why this matters: Over-estimating Africa’s rare earth potential has led some to optimistically speculate that Africa could be a competitor to Chinese influence. Bright argues that this notion is “overly dramatic” – although that while some countries, like Nigeria and Tanzania, will be key players on a smaller scale.

3. “Corridor finance” is the critical missing link. This means synchronizing different funding streams – roads, rail and ports to transport ore, the factories to refine it, and the energy infrastructure to power them – to create commercial certainty. This enables countries to move beyond “dig-and-ship” and build on-continent separation, refining and component manufacturing.

Why this matters: The payoff is huge. For electric vehicles, the mining slice is about $11 billion — but full battery production sits around $7,000 billion globally. Shipping ore is the small end of the ladder; the real prize is the factories, chemistry plants, magnet assembly and certified recycling that keep value in the country. Corridor finance is the mechanism that makes those factories bankable.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• 23 million lives are on the line at the upcoming Global Fund Replenishment. Our team built a live pledge tracker so you can follow the money.

DIG DEEPER:

• From ore to more: Mineral partnerships for African industrialisation.

• The ‘strategic mirage’ of Africa’s green minerals wealth.

The ONE Campaign’s data.one.org provides cutting edge data and analysis on the economic, political, and social changes impacting Africa. Check it out HERE.

What’s in your cup?

Coffee is the third most consumed beverage globally, after water and tea.

Yet the millions of people that grow coffee see relatively little of the profits. It’s a story as old as time: The producers of raw materials least enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Africa is the birthplace of coffee (arabica coffee originated in Ethiopia and robusta coffee in central Africa). Today, however, Africa accounts for just 11% of the world’s coffee production. But that could change: Africa is a leading producer of robusta coffee, which will become increasingly important in a climate-changed world.

So grab a cuppa and learn more about the caffeinated bean that has fueled a $500 billion industry and helped conquer countless to-do lists.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1. Over 2 billion cups of coffee are consumed each day. Much of that enjoyment takes place in the global north, despite nearly all coffee being grown in the global south. Canada, Europe, and the US produce negligible amounts of coffee compared to other regions yet account for nearly half of global coffee consumption (the US state of Hawaii and the Canary Islands—an autonomous community of Spain—grow small amounts). Ethiopia and Uganda—Africa’s leading coffee producers—grow the fifth and sixth most coffee in the world, behind Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia, and Indonesia.

Click to view an interactive version of the chart.

Why it matters: Many of the 125 million people whose livelihoods depend on coffee are smallholder farmers whose incomes don’t cover basic needs despite coffee’s popularity. They are at the whims of price volatility, market speculation, and a handful of multinational corporations that dominate coffee roasting and retail. That leaves farmers with little negotiating power.

2. The price of coffee on global markets doubled over the past two years. Demand has been outpacing supply. Crop losses due to droughts, frosts, and unreliable rainfall hit major coffee producers like Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Rapid growth in demand from emerging markets—most notably China—has put pressure on already stretched supplies. And trade speculators (as they do) drove up prices beyond the fundamentals of supply and demand.

Click to view an interactive version of the chart.

Why it matters: Unfortunately, the recent price spike hasn’t made Africa’s coffee farmers rich. Coffee farmers earn just 3% to 10% of the retail price of a cup of coffee. Retailers, on the other hand, get 75%. That means farmers receive $0.12–$0.40 of the value of a cup of coffee that sells for $4, while retailers receive $3. To be fair, transporting, roasting, and retailing coffee all involve costs. So spare a thought for Starbucks, whose 2024 profits were a paltry $3.8 billion.

3. Climate change might kill your caffeine buzz. Coffee plants—like many of us—are sensitive creatures, with specific temperature, rainfall, and humidity needs. Climate change puts them at greater risk from pests and disease. That includes coffee’s current #1 nemesis, coffee leaf rust—a fungal disease that particularly attacks arabica coffee plants and has developed resistance to available remedies.

Why it matters: East Africa is expected to experience the most significant climate change-related reductions in coffee production, with declines of up to 90% by 2080. That will force production to relocate. It will also increase the importance of robusta coffee in the global supply chain. Robusta is hardier than arabica and tolerates higher temperatures. It now accounts for roughly 40% of global coffee production, up from 25% in the 1990s. Just six coun­tries—Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, India, Indone­sia, Uganda, and Vietnam—pro­duce 95% of the world’s robusta coffee. Uganda, the world’s 2nd largest producer, saw its robusta exports surge by 46% between May 2024 and May 2025.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• Adrian Lovett sounds the alarm about steep UK aid cuts.

• A study commissioned by ONE, Oxfam Novib, and Cordaid finds that €1 of Dutch development aid generates more than €2 in exports and supports nearly 11,000 jobs.

• We pay tribute to David Nabarro—a leading light in the response to hunger and pandemics and a friend of ONE—who passed away unexpectedly last week.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Uganda’s robusta coffee farmers have big ambitions.

• The Pan-African parliament calls for urgent AI safeguards.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

At the AI table, or on the menu

Every few years, a wonder-gadget arrives promising to “rescue” the Global South—remember the $100 laptop, the gravity-driven water pump, or the soccer ball that generated electricity? Each invention was pitched as a shortcut around structural problems; each fell short of promises.

The AI for Good Global Summit—taking place next week in Geneva—is billed as “the United Nations’ leading platform on Artificial Intelligence to solve global challenges.” The event feels déjà-vu. As Silicon Valley sprints to “move fast and break things” with AI, policymakers scramble to answer a trillion dollar question: Will AI work as a true utility—powering health clinics, schools, and local businesses across Africa—or will it mainly accelerate back-office efficiencies for firms headquartered elsewhere, deepening the digital fault-line?

The stakes are high. If African voices aren’t at the design table, the systems that decide credit scores, diagnose diseases, or educate future generations could simply automate yesterday’s biases at scale. Below, we unpack who is setting the rules of the new utility, who stands to gain, and what will happen if Africa isn’t a co-architect in the age of AI.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1. AI investment risks perpetuating global economic inequality. Over 80% of private AI investment in 2024 was in G7 countries. Another 6% was in China. Just 0.05% was in Africa’s 54 countries, combined. Of the more than 2,000 newly-funded AI companies last year, just nine were in Africa: South Africa (4), Egypt (2), Cameroon (1), Nigeria (1), and Tunisia (1). Oh, and the US and China hold 60% of all AI patents.

Source: The Atlantic Council

Why it matters: Rich countries stand to be the big winners of the AI race. And the prize is massive: The global AI market is expected to surge to $4.8 trillion by 2033, a 25-fold increase in just a decade. That will further entrench economic inequalities as the rich get richer and the rest get left farther behind. That doesn’t bode well for Africa, where poverty levels continue to rise while falling elsewhere. And in a dark irony, much of the underlying work behind AI systems is done by underpaid laborers in developing countries exposed to toxic content.

2. Africa is not AI-ready. AI requires massive amounts of electricity. Many African countries struggle to meet their current electricity needs. 605 million Africans (44%) do not have access to electricity. For those that do, access is often unreliable and inadequate: In a year, the average Nigerian uses less energy than an air conditioner in the US.

Source: ONE Data

Why it matters: Africa’s energy demand is expected to nearly double by 2040, as populations grow and living standards improve. By then, 90% of the people lacking electricity will live in Africa. It is unclear how—or if—African countries can quickly scale up the energy infrastructure needed to power AI centres and compete with countries that already have the necessary infrastructure in place.

3. Africa’s absence from AI’s design locks in biases. AI systems are built on existing data and information, some of which includes stereotypes and racist language and images. AI reproduces and perpetuates those biases. In 100 images of “an Indian man” using a popular generative AI text-to-image system, nearly all featured an old man with a beard and turban. Similarly, a search for “a Nigerian person” produced highly homogenous results, despite Nigeria having hundreds of distinct ethnic groups and cultures.

100 images of “a Nigerian person” using the AI system Midjourney

Source: Rest of World

Why it matters: Generative AI systems are designed to mimic what has come before. They do that by synthesising mountains of data. The biases in that data—or present in the humans helping design AI systems—invariably get baked in. It’s a tough problem to fix. It becomes exponentially tougher if the people and companies designing AI systems don’t represent the full breadth of the human experience, or aren’t transparent about the data they use and how they train their systems. Companies can’t claim to be developing “AI for all of humanity” if countries and entire groups of people are excluded.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• David McNair argues for reimagining the purpose of development and development finance to move from scarcity to security.

• David published a piece in the Independent newspaper calling for a new approach to thinking about aid – not as charity but as mutual investment.

• ONE’s data team is working with Google to make it easier to access and analyse the world’s public data. Here’s why that’s important.

• Reuters featured ONE’s data visualisation on aid cuts.

• Micaela Iveson with six “vax facts” in 60 seconds.

IN THE QUEUE:

• The development sector isn’t broken, it was built brittle.

• The US aid cuts could kill an estimated 14 million people by 2030.

• In Sudan, doctors say US aid cuts have been fatal.

• Climate change could ignite the next financial crisis.

• Chinese EVs are dominating Kenya’s EV market.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

Travel discrimination

Let’s talk about travel discrimination. I hold a US passport, one of the world’s most powerful in terms of global access. I can travel to 182 destinations without obtaining a visa in advance (and over 100 without getting a visa at all).

Had I been born in Nigeria, like some of my colleagues, my passport would only open the doors to 45 destinations. That means that Africa’s most populous country has one of the world’s weakest passports.

A passport’s power has implications for our ability to travel to and experience other parts of the world. For far too many, that ability is hindered by expensive, onerous, and yes, sometimes discriminatory, visa processes.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. Countries with lower GDPs per capita have higher Schengen visa rejection rates. Rejection rates for visas to Schengen countries—29 European countries that have officially abolished border controls at their common borders—are strongly correlated with income. The poorer the country, the higher the chance of rejection. African countries are hit particularly hard, with rejection rates for Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal above 45%.

2024 Schengen visa rejection rates by per capita GDP

Why it matters: Behind these numbers are real people—blocked from opportunities, conferences, jobs, and partnerships—penalised for where they come from. Where you are born shouldn’t determine where you can visit.

2. Africa accounts for the most rejected Schengen visas. Over 700,000 African applications for a Schengen visa were denied in 2024, the most of any region. Africa had 41.3% of all rejected Schengen visas. Africa’s rejection rate (27.4%) was more than double Asia’s (11.1%) despite the latter accounting for over twice as many applications (5.9 million vs. 2.6 million).

Why it matters: Africa’s 1.5 billion people are essentially being told to stay home, or spend a lot of time, money, and emotional energy trying to visit Europe. Visa applications can take months to secure, with people often not knowing until the day of their planned travel whether they’ll get a visa. That translates into uncertainty, stress, last minute canceled flights, and missed travel-–and the many personal and professional opportunities it affords.

3. Rejected visas carry a high price tag. New analysis from Lago Collective finds that the fees charged for rejected Schengen visas cost applicants $163 million in 2024, an increase of 11% from the prior year. Africans lost nearly $70 million.

Why it matters: The world’s poorest people are paying rich countries to *not* receive visas. Applying for a Schengen visa costs an applicant from the Central African Republic 20% of the country’s per capita income. An American spends just 0.12% of the US’s average income for the same application. And it’s a much riskier proposition for the CAR applicant, who has a 1 in 3 chance of being denied. Only 1 in 25 US applicants is denied a Schengen visa.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE Canada on why Canada should trade more with Africa.

• ONE’s teams around the world were out in force on Africa Day.

• David McNair on the role China is playing in Africa’s debt.

IN THE QUEUE:

• Africans are losing millions in denied visas applications to Europe.

• Big aid is over.

• How to hide a superyacht in plain sight.

The ONE Campaign’s data.one.org provides cutting edge data and analysis on the economic, political, and social changes impacting Africa. Check it out HERE.

A bitter truth

The chocolate industry is in crisis. Disease and extreme weather (both exacerbated by a changing climate) are impacting crop yields. That hurts cacao farmers (who earn less) and chocolate consumers (who pay more). But someone is profiting — see below for more on that.

The global price for cacao beans jumped 6-fold between 2022 and December 2024. That’s largely due to several consecutive poor harvests. Chocolatiers are passing more of that cost onto consumers. That helps explain recent falling demand in Asia, Europe, and North America, with further demand declines expected this year as prices continue to rise.

That’s bad news for everyone (unless you’re the rare person who dislikes chocolate).

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

Subscribe now

3 things to know

1. Cacao farmers and producer countries get an unsavoury deal. Farmers—millions of whom earn less than $1 per day—get just 6% of the final value of a chocolate bar. Côte d’Ivoire receives just 4% of the global chocolate industry’s value, despite producing roughly half of the world’s cacao.

So where’s the money going? If you guessed multinational corporations, claim your prize. The Hershey Company made $2.2 billion in profits in 2024, an increase of 20.5%. Not to be outdone, Mondelez International, which owns the Cadbury and Toblerone brands, made $4.6 billion. Its 4th quarter profits jumped by a cool 84%. Someone is getting richer, and it’s not farmers or producing countries.

2. Climate change is threatening the livelihoods of cacao farmers. Cacao trees prefer temperatures below 32°C (89.6°F). Yet two-thirds of the cacao-growing region in West Africa experienced an additional six weeks above that range over the past decade. And rainfall has been wildly inconsistent, with deluges followed by drought.

What it means: High temperatures diminish the cacao tree’s ability to photosynthesise, which lowers production, as do floods and droughts. That’s made cacao farming an unpleasantly wild ride, and exacerbated lower harvests and higher prices.

3. Proper fertilization can more than double cocoa yields. Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, and Cameroon together grow nearly three-quarters of the world’s cocoa beans. That means improvements in West African farming—including practices to promote soil fertility—have a direct impact on the stability of global cacao availability.

Why it matters: By intensifying production on existing farmland, farmers have less need to clear forested land. Researchers estimate that 2 million hectares of West African forest could have been spared if farmers had had access to sufficient fertilizer to intensify cocoa cultivation instead of expanding farms. Yet with farmers’ incomes collapsing in recent years, they are struggling to afford the fertiliser needed to even maintain their trees. And with the gutting of USAID, which helped support fertilisation efforts on cacao farms across West Africa, farmers are losing an important ally.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE and partners hosted an event showcasing the impact of EU investments in global health in the European Parliament, supported by President Metsola and MEP Charles Goerens. The exhibition highlighted the impact of Gavi and the Global Fund and drew attention from policymakers and the media.

• ONE’s German team rolled out a “carpet of facts” in front of the Ministry of Defence with a clear message: Germany needs an independent development agency and strong development cooperation.

• If you’re attending the Skoll Foundation Forum, join David McNair to brainstorm big ideas to deliver impact in these turbulent times. David will also co-lead a session looking at the shifting geopolitics and the future of global development.

IN THE QUEUE:

• US volatility could steer private capital toward African markets.

• Overcoming sub-Saharan Africa’s health workforce paradox.

• Millions of lives are put at risk by US aid cuts.

• Nigeria and Kenya among nations running out of HIV drugs.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.

What’s in a number?

Last week, the number of people living in poverty increased by over 100 million.

One moment there were an estimated 713 million people officially living in poverty; the next moment, 838 million were.

Not because of any meaningful change in people’s lives. This effectively was an increase on paper, sparked by a routine exercise at the World Bank to revise the international poverty line to account for changes in price indices and improved national poverty data. The Bank originally set the line for extreme poverty at $1.00 in 1990, then updated it to $1.25 in 2005, $1.90 in 2011, $2.15 in 2022, and now $3.00 in 2025.

The move may rekindle the long-running debate about how extreme poverty gets defined. Is someone living on $3.01 per day better off than someone living on $3.00 per day? Not really. But it’s useful to have definitions and data to measure progress on global poverty goals, and any number is susceptible to critique. Rather than getting mired in methodological debates, let’s look at what the numbers mean for people’s lives.

— Joe Kraus, Senior Policy Director, ONE Data

3 things to know

1. 1 in 10 people globally is considered extremely poor. Imagine attending a football or rugby match in a stadium that seats 50,000. Afterwards, 5,000 people are randomly selected and forced to live on less than $3.00 per day. That’s not too dissimilar to the randomised lottery that decides which of us are born into opportunity and which are not.

Why it matters: The World Bank acknowledges that the world is “very unlikely” to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030, the deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals. The Bank blames COVID-19, economic uncertainties, climate shocks, and fragility. Missing from its explanation: the role of politics and power. Such as asymmetrical trade, poor public financial management and corruption, bad policies, biased credit ratings, and donor governments backsliding on their funding commitments.

2. Over 40% of the world’s people living in extreme poverty are in Africa. An estimated 559 million people in sub-Saharan Africa—nearly half of the region’s population—are living on less than $3.00 per day. That’s four times the global average.

Why it matters: The $3.00 per day line is created using what’s called purchasing power parity. This means it is relative to the cost of purchasing a basket of core goods, benchmarked against 23 low-income countries. Imagine living on the equivalent of $3.00 per day (or $8.30 depending on where you live – more on that below), and you get a sense of just how debilitating—and devastating—that amount is.

3. Nearly half of the world lives on less than $8.30 per day. That’s the highest of the World Bank’s three poverty thresholds, which it applies to upper-middle-income countries (the threshold for lower-middle-income countries is $4.20). A shockingly high 88% of the people in sub-Saharan Africa live below $8.30 a day, the highest of any region.

Extreme Poverty: % people living on less than $8.30 a day (2021 PPP)

Why it matters: Living on $8.30 a day is hard. Thriving on $8.30 is really hard, especially if that money is helping to feed, clothe, and educate children. Yet that’s the struggle facing 3.7 billion people each day. That number has remained virtually unchanged since 1990. Though because of population growth, the percentage of people living in this level of poverty has declined from 71% to 47%. Progress, but there’s still a long way to go.

FROM THE ONE TEAM:

• ONE’s analysis reveals that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is on course to be the biggest cutter of aid spending on record.

• Our Canada team’s analysis on trade opportunities with Africa was spotlighted ahead of the G7 Summit.

IN THE QUEUE:

• China announced it will remove tariffs for all 53 African countries with which it shares diplomatic relations (i.e. except Eswatini).

• Leaders head to Canada this weekend for the G7 Summit hosted by friend of ONE and Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney. Look out for action on the high cost of debt for developing economies.

• Africa must invest in itself.

ONE Data provides cutting edge data, tools, and analysis so that we can fight together for a more just world. See for yourself.