Financing the Future: Scenarios for a Post-Aid Pacific

June 29, 2025

What futures can we imagine beyond aid – where economies, ecologies, and communities are interwoven and self-determined?

Photo: UNDP

Signals and Drivers of Change

  1. Declining traditional aid flows, as donor fatigue, domestic politics, and geopolitical shifts erode ODA volumes.

  2. The rise of non-traditional actors, from philanthropic giants to private impact investors and emerging sovereign donors.

  3. An increasing focus on localisation, resilience, and de-risking mechanisms — shifting development away from grants and toward systems design.

  4. The expansion of blended finance, remittances, and domestic revenue strategies, each demanding new governance capacities.

This analysis employs horizon scanning and scenario planning to explore plausible futures based on current signals. These shifts indicate not just a changing resource base, but a changing philosophy: from charity to investment, from dependency to sovereignty, and from stability to adaptive resilience.

A group of women in traditional dresses dance joyfully, adorned with floral headpieces.

Competition for funding is intensifying and Pacific Island communities are facing mounting socio-economic challenges.

Photo: UNDP

Current, shifting, landscape

The following landscape scan outlines the key trends in development financing, drawing from recent data and Pacific regional dynamics: 

Until 2023, global foreign aid Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) was slowly but steadily increasing. From 2018 to 2023, total ODA increased by six percent year-over-year, reaching US$275 billion but now that is changing. In 2023 ODA amounted to US$223.3 billion; in 2024 ODA the figure was US$212.1 billion, a 7.1 percent decrease making it a first drop after five years of consecutive growth

In 2024, the 17 biggest donor countries gave US$198.7 billion in aid, which was US$14.4 billion less than in 2023. This drop is expected to continue, and aid is projected to fall to US$167.5 billion in 2025 and US$151.6 billion in 2026 – a nearly 29 percent drop when compared to 2023. This decline will decrease the possibility to close the US$4.3 trillion annual gap needed for global development.

The main reason for this drop is large funding cuts by donors like the United States (US) and Germany. The US plans to give much less and even take back some already approved funds whereas Germany, Europe’s top aid donor, is also cutting its development budget. A few countries like Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Italy plan small increases in aid, but these won’t be able to fill the gap of the bigger cuts made.

In the Pacific region, major ODA providers are believed to be maintaining their support at higher than pre-pandemic levels, but that aside the overall picture painted is that ODA remain in gradual decline. The allocations of development budgets from the regions major donors also appear to be increasingly shaped by geopolitical concerns, raising questions about the trade-offs and sustainability of the current course.

Currently, Australia – the largest Pacific ODA donor – is at a record of AUD$5.1 billion, with 42 percent going to the Pacific. However, recent increases are just below the inflation rate, so the real value of the aid is not increasing. New Zealand directs 60 percent of the nation’s development funding to the Pacific but in its 2025 budget announcement, climate finance was reduced by NZD$100 million, with overall aid levels are still expected to keep falling until 2027. Japan on the other hand has been upgrading its ODA scheme to better respond to the challenges developing countries are facing, such as climate change, poverty, and human rights issues, while the role of private sector funds has also grown. 

In addition, there has been a notable increase in funding provisions from emerging development partners. USD$10 million will enter the Pacific region through Solomon Islands from the Saudi Fund for Development (SFD). Other partners like Republic of Korea and China have expanded their influence in the region by increasing bilateral development assistance, much of which is directed towards civil society initiatives. Bilateral offers as such are often tied to specific influences or agendas, with this introducing both opportunity and volatility, particularly for small Pacific states. Other emerging partners like the Islamic Development Bank and Qatar are indirectly influencing development through partners such as the Asian Development Bank and the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and Small Island Developing States. 

While commitments to infrastructure are rising, existing projects and aid organisations are under growing pressure to deliver more with fewer resources. At the same time, competition for funding is intensifying and Pacific Island communities are facing mounting socio-economic challenges. 

Uncertainty Factors

  1. Regulatory changes, economic downturns affecting billionaire wealth, or philanthropic fatigue could dramatically alter the current trajectory. The proposed US foundation tax increases represent a key inflection point.
  2. Younger inheritors may prioritise different causes (climate, social justice, systems change) over traditional development approaches, or conversely, may lack the institutional knowledge and networks to maintain current giving levels to Pacific development.
  3. A significant cryptocurrency market crash could instantly evaporate billions in pledged philanthropic capital, while conversely, crypto booms could create sudden windfalls for digital-native philanthropists. The regulatory treatment of crypto donations across jurisdictions adds another layer of uncertainty to funding predictability.
ACWA RMI

Approximately one in every three people born in the Federated States of Micronesia are living aboard.

Photo: UNDP

Signals of Emerging Futures

Philanthropy as a Risk-taker

Philanthropy is playing an increasingly important role in the development financing landscape. In 2022, the top 20 US foundations poured nearly US$8.3 billion into global development, with the top five foundations alone contributing approximately US$6.6 billion – more than 60 percent of the total private development funding flow tracked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Now, there is widespread agreement within and beyond the philanthropic community that foundations must step-up to support the development sector. In the context of declining foreign aid, some foundations are also seeing this an opportunity for risk-taking. 

In May 2025, the Gates Foundation announced it will double its philanthropy over the next 20 years, spending 99 percent (US$200 billion) of its endowment by the time it permanently closes its doors in 2045 – making it the largest philanthropic contribution in modern history. The MacArthur Foundation has said it would increase giving from five percent of its endowment to at least six percent — likely around US$75 million a year of additional spending — and the Skoll Foundation is set for an additional US$25 million in giving. Meanwhile, ‘Asian philanthropy’ is burgeoning as a philanthropic market catalysed by economic boom in the region. Billionaires in Asia are expected to collectively hold around US$4.7 trillion by 2026, and as younger generations start to play more active roles in philanthropic giving in the region, challenges such as climate change are becoming increasingly important. While many philanthropists may have previously been risk-adverse when it comes to grantmaking, this is starting to shift – particularly in Asia, whereby new wealth creation and generational transfers are making space for fresh approaches in impact investing. Many wealthy philanthropists across the globe are also signing the ‘Giving Pledge’ whereby the majority of their wealth is given to charity.

The philanthropic sector, despite its increasingly vital contributions, cannot make up for the shortfall in declining ODA. There are also uncertainties around the future of tax status for US foundations with a current US bill proposing that taxes on foundations with assets above US$5 billion increase from 1.39 percent to 10 percent, with new tiers for those with assets between US$50 million and US$5 billion.  

 

The Expansion of Blended Finance

Meanwhile, development actors are joining forces to multiply grant impact through blended finance. Gavi, the vaccine alliance, is blending grant resourcing of up to US$1 billion in Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank loans, expanding country access to health financing including in the area of vaccine introduction and procurement. In the Pacific, the United Kingdom is supporting a US$100 million blended finance climate fund to catalyse private sector investment in renewable energy, and Japan has increased its direct financing of blended deals, from US$400 million to US$700 million in 2025. In 2024, blended finance deals in East Asia and the Pacific hit US$4 billion, with financial institutions, including multilateral development banks, accounting for a third of all deals. The model of using traditional development actors to encourage private finance was strongly promoted by leaders in the lead up to the Fourth International Conference on Development Financing taking place in July 2025. 

 

The Power of Remittances for the Pacific

Remittances are also becoming an increasingly large portion of foreign funds flows. In 2023, remittances to the Pacific amounted to US$1.3 billion, and the Asia-Pacific region accounted for 38 percent of the global remittance inflows, remaining the largest recipient of international remittances. In terms of remittances as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), two of the top five countries worldwide in 2023 were in the South Pacific. Remittances are also a key source of GDP in the North Pacific, with two in five Marshall Islanders living in the United States and about one in every three people born in the Federated States of Micronesia (and first generation descendants) living aboard. A 3.5 percent remittance tax recently proposed by the US for all non-US citizens sending money outside of the US would have significant implications for the Republic of the Marshal Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia as well as Palau, with the Compact of Free Association allowing these three Pacific Islands Countries visa-free travel to live, work or study in the US. 

 

Domestic Revenue: a sovereignty lever?

Countries are also turning towards domestic revenue to stimulate economic and sustainable development. Of course, this strategy is not new. The Parties to the Nauru Agreement fishing day scheme is a significant example of how the Pacific is achieving financial independence and sustainability through return on foreign assets. In 2024, PNA’s total assets amounted to US$83 million, with US$78 million in cash revenues, US$64 million of which belongs directly to member countries. Some Pacific Island Countries are exploring deep sea mining for rare minerals, which could have major economic returns but would need to be managed carefully to ensure environmental safeguarding. Other countries are nurturing tax systems so that tax revenue is collected efficiently and transparently. 

Domestic revenue has been raised by development leaders ahead of the upcoming International Conference on Development Financing, and a draft resolution on strengthening health financing at the World Health Assembly urged countries to raise their domestic spending on health – such as through taxing sugar and tobacco, which are major risk factors for non-communicable diseases.

 

Regional Financing Innovations

The Pacific is also tapping into regionalism and localism through owned initiatives where countries or communities retain sovereign control and decision-making. These initiatives mainly reflect the Pacific’s values and solutions in areas that are important to them. For example, the Pacific Resilience Facility, which is a regional owned and led solution for building resilience against climate change. 

All these are clear signs that Pacific Island Countries are asserting sovereignty over their development paths and want to reflect their lived realities, cultures, and priorities. 

Fishing

Countries are also turning towards domestic revenue to stimulate economic and sustainable development.

Photo: UNDP

Scenarios and Strategic Options

The following scenarios are a provocation on emerging futures based on current signals: 

Scenario One: Pacific Designed, Pacific Owned

Pacific Island Countries leverage superannuation funds, regional facilities, and diaspora bonds to build sovereign development ecosystems, de-risking private sector investment while reducing reliance on ODA.

Scenario Two: Power plays before people

Rising bilateral funding tied to geopolitical competition leads to fragmentation of development priorities, overreliance on large-scale infrastructure, and reduced civic voice.

Scenario Three: Networks over silos

Philanthropic, multilateral, and private actors co-finance adaptive investments. Remittances are channeled through digital platforms into climate resilience bonds. Governments create “development labs” for rapid-response innovation.

These possible futures raise critical questions about readiness, resilience, and the role of governance in enabling or constraining change.

 

Pathway Analysis

Scenario One: Pacific Designed, Pacific Owned

Key Trigger Events (2025-2027)

  • A major Pacific nation successfully launches a diaspora bond raising US$50 mmillion+ for climate infrastructure

  • Regional superannuation funds coordinate to create a Pacific Development Investment Pool

  • Technology breakthrough reduces remittance costs below 2 percent across the Pacific

  • One country achieves 30 percent+ domestic revenue increase through innovative taxation/resource management

Pathway Dynamics

  • Early movers (likely Fiji, Samoa, or Cook Islands) demonstrate proof-of-concept for sovereign financing

  • Contagion effect as other nations adapt successful models to local contexts

  • Institutional learning through Pacific Resilience Facility and similar regional mechanisms

  • Digital infrastructure enables seamless diaspora engagement and domestic resource mobilisation

Scenario Two: Power plays before people

Key Trigger Events (2025-2027)

  • Major geopolitical crisis accelerates strategic competition

  • US$5 billion+ Pacific infrastructure initiative is announced

  • Traditional and emerging donors align funding with security priorities

Pathway Dynamics

  • Fragmentation of Pacific responses as countries choose different alignments

  • Infrastructure bias toward projects with dual-use potential (ports, telecommunications, energy)

  • Civic space compression as strategic imperatives override community priorities

Scenario Three: Networks over silos

Key Trigger Events (2025-2027)

  • Gates Foundation's US$200 billion commitment catalses other major philanthropic pledges

  • Successful US$1 billion+ blended finance deal in Pacific renewable energy/climate adaptation

  • Digital remittance platform achieves 50 percent+ market share, enabling systematic channeling into development bonds

Pathway Dynamics

  • Ecosystem formation as philanthropic, multilateral, and private actors establish coordination mechanisms

  • Innovation acceleration through venture capital approaches to development challenges

  • Risk distribution across multiple funding sources reduces individual funder exposure

  • Adaptive capacity enables rapid response to changing conditions and opportunities

 

Wild Card Events That Could Shift Trajectories

Technological Disruption Wild Cards

The Quantum Leap: Breakthrough in quantum computing enables real-time climate modelling at island-scale resolution, fundamentally changing how Pacific Island Countries plan and price climate adaptation. Small islands become quantum computing hubs, leveraging geographic isolation as a security advantage.

The Sovereignty Algorithm: A Pacific Island Country successfully deploys blockchain-based direct democracy, allowing diaspora populations to participate in real-time governance decisions about development funding allocation. This triggers a cascade of constitutional innovations across the region.

The Protein Revolution: Lab-grown seafood achieves cost parity with wild-caught fish by 2027, decimating Pacific fishing revenues but creating new opportunities in marine biotechnology. Traditional fishing nations pivot to become ‘ocean farmers’ in ways never imagined.

Social/Cultural Wild Cards

The Great Return: Climate migration reverses as rising sea levels make some Pacific islands paradoxically more valuable as ‘floating city’ prototypes. Diaspora populations flood back, creating housing crises but massive human capital influx.

The Youth Rebellion: Pacific youth, frustrated with incremental change, launch coordinated development strikes - refusing traditional aid and demanding reparations-based climate finance. This generational split fractures existing political alignments.

The Spiritual Renaissance: A pan-Pacific Indigenous knowledge movement gains global traction, with traditional ecological practices becoming billion-dollar intellectual property, fundamentally shifting power dynamics in development financing.

Economic System Wild Cards

The Debt Jubilee: A coordinated global movement cancels all developing nation debt overnight, freeing up hundreds of millions in debt service for development - but triggering massive financial system instability.

The Resource Curse Reversal: Deep-sea mining automation becomes so advanced that resource extraction requires minimal human input, but profits flow to tech companies rather than Pacific Island Countries.

The Care Economy Explosion: Global recognition of unpaid care work leads to international ‘care credits’ that can be traded like carbon credits, making Pacific Island communities - with strong care traditions - surprisingly wealthy.

 

Questions for the Future

  • What futures can we imagine beyond aid – where economies, ecologies, and communities are interwoven and self-determined?

  • Are we building systems that can bend without breaking, or are we reinforcing dependencies that make us more vulnerable?

  • What are the risks of doing nothing? What are the rewards for leaning into experimentation?

  • How do we ensure development is not just about capital flows, but about equity, justice, and voice?

This work has been produced by the Policy, Innovation and Communications Unit with contributions by Esther Umu, Aquila Van Keuk, Zainab Kakal and Nick Turner. It serves as part of a regular series looking at key signals and trends from across the Pacific region.