Egypt unveils national financing strategy to meet SDGs
Developed in partnership with the United Nations and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the E-INFS aims to promote sustainable financing across key sectors to achieve Egypt's Vision 2030.
'Collaborative efforts are crucial to create economic opportunities that enhance the well-being of peoples,' Madbouly stated.
The launch event included government ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister for Human Development and the Minister of Health and Population, alongside the UN Resident Coordinator in Egypt, the UNDP Resident Representative, ambassadors, representatives of international organisations and UN agencies, members of parliament, and divs from the private sector and civil society.
Minister of Planning and Economic Development and International Cooperation, Rania Al-Mashat, provided a detailed explanation of the strategy at one of the event's discussions. A further session addressed the implementation of the financing framework, with contributions from ministers and officials involved in financing in Egypt.
Madbouly, in his address, highlighted the impact of global economic, health, humanitarian, and geopolitical crises on development and financing systems, leading to slower global growth, higher development financing costs, reduced resources, increased investment risks, and rising public debt.
'Financing development represents one of these common denominators,' Madbouly said, referencing reports that predict a $6.4 trillion development financing gap by 2030 without urgent global action. He also noted the increasing focus on development financing since the 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development.
He recognised the UN's 80 years of support for sustainable development in Egypt, aimed at reducing poverty, bolstering social protection, improving education and healthcare, promoting gender equality, empowering youth and women economically, mitigating climate change, and supporting agriculture and industry.
Madbouly noted that Egypt was among the first to endorse the UN's SDGs in 2015 and has conducted three voluntary reviews of its progress. He also underscored Egypt's efforts to align development financing with the SDGs and localise the goals at the governorate level.
The Prime Minister stated that the National Programme for Economic and Structural Reforms, launched in 2016, aims to enhance economic competitiveness, improve the business environment, strengthen macroeconomic resilience, support green transition, and foster sustainable development.
While acknowledging the significant portion of the government budget allocated to development projects, Madbouly said that domestic financing remains limited compared to the scale of the 2030 targets. He called for accurate measurement of the costs involved and of both public and private financial flows.
'We are meeting to launch the National Integrated Financing Strategy in Egypt, which represents the comprehensive umbrella and governing framework for domestic and foreign development financing in Egypt,' Madbouly stated.
The strategy targets development and financing gaps in seven key sectors: health, education, social protection, water, sanitation, transport, climate change, and women's empowerment. It also sets out a roadmap for sustainable and innovative financing by expanding public-private partnerships, strengthening green banking, and supporting financing for priority sectors.
Looking ahead to the Fourth UN International Conference on Financing for Development in Spain, Madbouly said Egypt anticipates a review of the global financial system and the role of national integrated strategies in promoting inclusive and sustainable development.
'Egypt is committed to providing all support to the private sector and increasing its contribution to the state's total investments through a set of tools and policies that incentivise the private sector,' Madbouly concluded.
He thanked the participating national entities, particularly the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development and International Cooperation, for their coordination efforts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Ten things the UK could do if it truly cared about Palestinians
Supporters of Israel frequently decry the alleged double standards applied to it, noting that Israel has been the subject of far more critical UN resolutions than any other nation. They argue that it suffers disproportionate international opprobrium for its treatment of Palestinians, particularly since it launched its devastating assault on Gaza following the brutal attacks by Hamas on 7 October 2023. Advocates for Israel ask why there is not the same level of public attention and outrage about other ongoing wars and humanitarian crises, such as in Sudan or Myanmar. They also try to shut down proper debate about Israel's actions by dismissing all criticism as motivated by antisemitism - a loaded accusation that fails to differentiate between genuinely abhorrent hate speech and intimidation directed against Jews in general and more targeted expressions of concern about specific Israeli actions in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. It is a useful ploy because it deflects attention and automatically guilt-trips westerners due to the history of the Holocaust and Israel's undeniably vulnerable early years, surrounded by hostile Arab states. I would argue that whatever the historical twists and turns of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the boot is firmly on the other foot when it comes to double standards today. Israel is no longer a weak, fragile state struggling to survive but overwhelmingly the most dominant and militarily capable power in the region. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters It is no longer Israelis who are at risk of being driven 'into the sea' but Palestinians. It is no longer Israelis who are at risk of suffering a second genocide, but Israelis who are now committing actions tantamount to a genocide of their own. Israel was entirely justified in taking action after the truly atrocious events of 7 October to try to prevent another such attack and secure the release of the Israeli captives taken by Hamas. I make no argument in support of Hamas, which triggered the latest round of fighting, is prolonging the crisis by refusing to release the captives and has itself weaponised humanitarian aid. It is a terrorist group to be shunned entirely. But Israel's response in Gaza has now gone way beyond what might be deemed legitimate or proportionate. It has involved numerous violations of international humanitarian law - such as firing on civilians, medical teams and journalists - and does not appear to be part of any plausible end strategy to ensure longer-term peace and security in the region. Massive moral failure Israel is being allowed to get away with behaviour that western democracies would condemn in the most forceful terms if undertaken by any other country. Precisely because Israel is a democracy and one that we treat as an ally, it is incumbent on us to hold it to the highest standards. In other raging conflicts, such as Sudan, where evidence of war crimes exists on both sides, at least the West does not actively tip the scale in favour of one party over another. In Israel's case, the West still defends many of its actions, supplies its army with weapons and intelligence, and equivocates about the degree to which it has violated international law as Palestinians die in their tens of thousands. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Collectively, the West's response to the tragedy in Gaza is a massive moral failure. Beyond some ritual handwringing, rhetorical expressions of concern, and a few feeble sanctions on a handful of Israeli figures, there has been no substantive action to rein in Israel's excesses in Gaza or to offer genuine protection for Palestinian civilians caught up in the conflict. Israel is a clear-cut case of western leaders failing to live up to their stated commitment to human rights and the concept of 'never again'. At the time of writing, both Palestinians and the families of Israeli hostages were waiting to see whether new US-led ceasefire efforts would succeed. But if this process collapses, as has happened repeatedly in the past, here's a list of concrete measures the UK government could take - alone or with like-minded partners - if it truly cared about the Palestinian people. 1) No-fly zone: Propose the establishment of a no-fly zone over Gaza, as former Prime Minister John Major did in the early 1990s over Iraq to protect the Kurds in the north and Shia Muslims in the south from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. UK planes helped to protect Israel from Iranian attacks. Why don't we protect Palestinians from Israeli bombs? Announcing the launch of the mission in April 1991, Major acknowledged that he did not have all the answers as to how long it would last or precisely how it would operate, but he noted: 'We do not have a long time to leave the Kurds where they are at the moment, and for them to safely survive… Action is needed; it is needed now, and that is what is going to happen.' Last year, UK planes helped to protect Israel from Iranian attacks. Why don't we protect Palestinians from Israeli bombs? 2) Secure aid: Offer to escort humanitarian aid convoys into Gaza, as was done in the 1990s to reach victims of war in the former Yugoslavia. This would address both Israel's concerns that aid must not be diverted by Hamas and Palestinians' concerns about being able to access supplies safely. Again, I quote Major, who announced this plan at a conference in London in 1992: 'We must ensure that humanitarian supplies are distributed to the victims of this conflict… It cannot be done by force but it must be done in safety.' He added: 'We have no hostile intent to any party in Bosnia, but I have to say to the conference that we will not be deflected from our determination to deliver aid wherever it is needed.' Arms and sanctions 3) Cut arms exports: Stop supplying weapons and other material support to the Israeli army - at the very least, until Israel has agreed to open up far more corridors for humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza. A recent High Court ruling that Britain's sale of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel is lawful has provided legal cover for UK arms supplies to Israel to continue. But just because something is lawful does not make it right. The UK could, at the very least, choose to apply more rigorous conditions to its continued supply of arms and intelligence analysis to Israel. As Iain Overton, the executive director of Action on Armed Violence, wrote in the aftermath of the case, a particularly troubling aspect was the government's argument that 'to withdraw from the programme would imperil NATO and the western alliance. In doing so, they made clear that the commercial and strategic value of the arms trade outweighs the lives of Palestinian civilians'. This is an obscenely immoral calculation. Ignore Starmer's theatrics. Gaza's trail of blood leads straight to his door Read More » 4) Ramp up sanctions: Broaden the scope of UK sanctions against individuals in Israel - which currently apply to just two far-right ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians, as well as some extremist Israeli settler groups in the occupied West Bank - to cover all members of the current Israeli cabinet, on the grounds that they share collective political responsibility for war crimes committed in Gaza. We have sanctioned Russian President Vladimir Putin and his cronies for their attempts to seize parts of Ukraine by force. Why not sanction Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cronies, who have made no secret of their aspirations to seize full control of Gaza? We have the authority to do it. In 2020, the UK introduced a new global human rights sanctions regime, allowing it to impose targeted asset freezes and travel bans on individuals involved in major human rights abuses. Announcing the launch, Dominic Raab, then the foreign secretary, said that it would initially cover the 'very worst' human rights violations, including assassinations, torture and slavery, but that it could be expanded to cover other abuses. A government spokesperson explained at the time that future targets 'may include those who commit unlawful killings perpetrated against journalists and media workers'. According to a report by the Watson School of International and Public Affairs' Costs of War project, more journalists have been killed in Gaza - 232 - than in both world wars, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia and the US war in Afghanistan combined, making it the deadliest conflict for media workers ever recorded. Under the UK's own criteria, this alone would merit sanctions. Raising awareness 5) Try to reach Gaza: UK ministers could join other western leaders in trying to enter Gaza to show support for innocent Palestinian victims of the war and highlight the dire situation there, just as they have repeatedly done to show solidarity with Ukraine, flying to Kyiv and being photographed with President Volodymyr Zelensky. 6) Join protests: Instead of spending time trying to shut down debate about Israel's actions, ministers could join those trying to raise awareness of the plight of Palestinians. Instead of trying to curtail demonstrations, they could march alongside peaceful protesters. They could call out double standards in right-wing media about the conflict, for example, where extensive coverage is given to individual Israeli deaths, while Palestinian deaths are often reduced to anonymous statistics. They could condemn cases of Islamophobia, not just cases of antisemitism. 7) Disseminate footage: Just as Israel compelled western leaders and policymakers to watch videos of the 7 October atrocities, the UK could compile videos of the current situation in Gaza, including the most heart-rending cases of children starving to death or dying of injuries or untreated conditions - and insist that Israeli embassy staff in London watch them, that journalists based in London watch them, and that the UK's national television channels broadcast them. Israelis were understandably appalled by images of ordinary Palestinians and pro-Palestinian activists celebrating the 7 October attacks. Perhaps they should be made to watch footage of Maccabi football fans celebrating the deaths of Palestinian children, Israeli soldiers filming themselves mocking the death and destruction in Gaza, and right-wing settlers rampaging through Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank. The UK could also ask the UN Security Council to watch such videos. If Israel complains that the videos are one-sided or distorted, the UK could spearhead an effort to require Israel to allow international journalists or inspectors into Gaza, along the lines of what was previously done to allow arms inspectors into Iraq and Iran. 8) Support war crimes cases: The UK could actively support the war crimes cases against both Hamas and Israel rather than simply dropping its objection, as the new Labour government did last year. It could help compile evidence of atrocities committed by both sides for the International Criminal Court (ICC), as it did when supporting war crimes cases against members of the Bosnian Serb regime in the 1990s. I was personally involved in that effort, sifting through hundreds of testimonies gathered from Bosnian refugees. This past January, at a UN Security Council meeting to discuss the situation in Sudan, the UK representative argued that the ICC 'has a key role to play in ensuring perpetrators are held accountable for crimes committed in Darfur' and that the court should be allowed to 'carry out its important work in Darfur and elsewhere without interference'. The UK should apply the same standard to Gaza and call out the US for its efforts to hinder the ICC's work there. The path forward 9) Actively mediate: The UK could take a more proactive role in trying to facilitate an end to the Gaza war and to achieve a longer-term regional peace, rather than standing by as the US conducts back-channel discussions with the Israelis, Gulf states and Egypt. The UK has plenty of experience in hosting international conferences, including ones aimed at ending the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. If a ceasefire is achieved, perhaps the UK could coordinate international discussion on the reconstruction of Gaza, options for Palestinian statehood and international security guarantees along the lines of what it has been willing to offer Ukraine. 10) Enforce global commitments: The UK could try to revive the lapsed notion of 'responsibility to protect', adopted at a UN World Summit in 2005. In a recent address to the UN General Assembly, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres lamented the fact that 'two decades on, the responsibility to protect remains both an urgent necessity, a moral imperative and an unfulfilled promise', calling for a renewed global commitment to the concept. The UK could make the case for this to apply to the Palestinian people. Tens of thousands are dying because not enough aid is being allowed in and they are not allowed out The US would undoubtedly seek to veto any Security Council action. But the UK did not raise any objections to US and Israeli action against Iran without explicit UN authorisation, nor did it let Russian vetoes prevent it from acting in support of Ukraine. In 1999, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair justified his support for military action in Kosovo in an address to the nation, saying that 'these are our fellow human beings… old women humiliated, young men massacred, just for being Albanian, just for being there when the Serb killing machine arrived'. He acknowledged that all humanitarian interventions were fraught with risk but concluded that, in the end, it is 'simply the right thing to do'. As in Kosovo, people in Gaza are dying in droves simply for being Palestinian. Men, women and children who had nothing to do with the attacks of 7 October are dying because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tens of thousands are dying because not enough aid is being allowed in and they are not allowed out. Taking more robust action to protect the Palestinian people is simply the right thing to do. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
US consultancy firm involved in GHF aid scheme modelled plans to 'relocate' Palestinians
A consulting firm involved in the scandal-plagued Gaza Humanitarian Foundation entered into a multimillion-dollar contract to develop the initiative and modelled a plan to "relocate" Palestinians from Gaza as part of its work, a Financial Times investigation has revealed. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) helped design and run the US and Israeli-backed scheme which aimed to supplant United Nations-led aid coordination mechanisms in Gaza. The chaotic roll out of the programme has seen 600 Palestinians killed and another 4,000 wounded by Israeli forces while attempting to access aid. The firm has disavowed its involvement in the project, claiming in a statement in June that it had initially provided "pro bono support" for the project, but two senior partners that led the work "failed to disclose" its full nature and had subsequently carried out "unauthorised work" on the project. It said that the partners have since been fired and an investigation has been launched into the firm's involvement in the scheme. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters But according to sources familiar with the project who spoke to the Financial Times, the BCG were more enmeshed with the scheme than the firm has publicly acknowledged, with the company contracted to perform $4m worth of work over a period of seven months. Over a dozen BCG staff worked directly on the project, dubbed "Aurora", between October and late May. Senior figures at the firm were reported to have discussed the initiative, but the BCG said they were misled about the scope and nature of the work by the partners helming the project. 'My journey to get aid in Gaza was like Squid Game' Read More » "The lead partner was categorically told no, and he violated this directive. We disavow this work," the BCG said. The work included financial modelling for the post-war reconstruction of Gaza, commissioned by Israeli backers, with one scenario envisioning the "voluntary relocation" of Palestinians from the enclave. This would have involved paying out "relocation packages" to 500,000 people worth $9,000 per person to induce people to leave the territory. The model assumed a quarter of Palestinians would opt to leave Gaza, with three-quarters of them unlikely to return. It estimated the cost of forced expulsion of Palestinians to be $23,000 cheaper, per Palestinian, than the costs of providing support to them in Gaza during reconstruction. According to BCG, this side of the operation was conducted without the knowledge of senior management and against their instructions. Involvement in security operations The revelations also raise questions about BCG's involvement in developing the security aspect of the initiative. According to sources familiar with the early stages of BCG's work on the initiative, the firm was initially contracted by Washington-based security contractor Orbis to develop a feasibility study for a new aid operation on behalf of the Tachlith Institute, an Israeli think tank. BCG was chosen for the project because of its connections with Phil Reilly, a 29-year veteran of the CIA who worked at Orbis. He was a senior adviser to BCG's defence practice where the two fired partners, Matt Schlueter and Ryan Ordway, worked. Middle East Eye previously reported that Reilly served as a senior adviser at BCG for eight years, and began discussing Gaza aid with Israeli civilians while still in his advisory role in early 2024. The BCG did not answer MEE's questions regarding its involvement in the security operations to support GHF, what role it had played with the foundation and who had asked the firm to get involved initially. Reilly dropped his advisory role with BCG and went on to found Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), a private military company which became the main security provider for the GHF. According to the report, half a dozen staff shifted to "more detailed business planning" for the SRS and GHF. This work was helmed by the US defence practice, while the initial pro-bono phase was billed to BCG's social impact practice helmed by Rich Hutchinson. Ex-CIA officer running Gaza aid security advised Boston Consulting Group Read More » By January, the BCG was contracted by McNally Capital, a Chicago-based private equity firm which owns Orbis, to plan GHF's ground operations from Tel Aviv. The SRS signed an initial contract with the group worth over $1m to cover eight weeks of work to develop SRS's operations in Gaza, with travel approvals given by officials in BGC's risk management operation. The group told the Financial Times that it was "pleased to have supported the establishment of SRS as an important step toward meeting the full scope of the humanitarian need in Gaza". Funding sources for both GHF and SRS remain unclear. Both are registered in US tax havens, with scant details available in public records. A source previously told the Financial Times that the GHF had been pledged $100m from a country they refused to name. Reuters reported on Friday that UBS and Goldman Sachs declined to open bank accounts for the GHF, with the foundation's lack of transparency over its funding cited as being one of the main stumbling blocks in the discussions with the banks. A GHF spokesperson said it has "spoken about initial funding from Europe, but we don't disclose donors for their privacy". GHF's scheme has seen 400 aid distribution points across the enclave replaced by four militarised distribution sites, where millions are forced to risk death in the hope of receiving aid. Israeli troops have admitted to deliberately shooting and killing unarmed Palestinians waiting for aid in the Gaza Strip, following direct orders from their superiors.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump says Iran has not agreed to inspections, give up enrichment
US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Iran had not agreed to inspections of its nuclear programme or to give up enriching uranium. He told reporters aboard Air Force One that he believed Tehran's nuclear program had been set back permanently although Iran could restart it at a different location. Trump said he would discuss Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the White House on Monday. "I would say it's set back permanently," Trump said as he travelled to New Jersey after an Independence Day celebration at the White House. "I would think they'd have to start at a different location. And if they did start, it would be a problem." Trump said he would not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear programme, adding that Iran did want to meet with him. The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff deepens over their return to the country's nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel. An overview of the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, south of the capital Tehran. AFP The US and Israel say Iran was enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority. Iran's parliament has passed a law suspending cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran. Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tons of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg (880 pounds) enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade. Reuters
