CIVICUS discusses international development funding with Harpinder Collacott, executive director of the Global Public Investment Network (GPIN).

In a world of multiplying global crises, GPIN unites civil society organisations, academic institutions and individual advocates to push for systemic change in international finance. The coalition use its collective expertise to promote a model where all countries contribute to, decide on and benefit from shared investments, challenging traditional donor-recipient dynamics that have left pandemic preparedness underfunded, climate finance fragmented and inequality widening. Through research and coordinated advocacy in global forums, GPIN is building momentum towards a target of having transformative funding mechanisms by 2030.

How does your approach differ from traditional aid?

Global Public Investment (GPI) isn’t about redesigning aid or listing the flaws of the current aid system. It’s fundamentally a new concept aimed at building a completely different system of international financing to tackle global, cross-border challenges, issues no single country can address alone. Rather than looking back to the models of the 1950s or 60s, we’re designing a forward-looking approach that reflects today’s realities and will meet the challenges of tomorrow.

For example, challenges like biodiversity loss, climate change, disaster prevention, energy transition and pandemics are problems that require global collaboration and global funding. We need a system that provides collective benefits, not just gains for one country. Such a system must be based on shared responsibility, equity and mutual interest. Everyone contributes, everyone benefits and everyone has a say on how the funding is spent.

We call this the ABCD model: all benefit, all contribute, all decide. This means every country, regardless of income, puts something in and gets something out. This is how we move away from the outdated donor-recipient mindset towards a model that truly reflects global solidarity. Within this broader framework, aid can still play a part, but GPI is about redefining how we organise global public finance, putting public funding at the centre of how we address shared challenges.

How do you ensure global south countries have real influence?

One of the key problems with the current system is that decision-making power often lies with those that contribute the most. However, when you build a universal model where everyone contributes through mechanisms based on fair global taxation, then everyone also gets a seat at the table.

This isn’t about rich countries helping poor countries. It’s about all countries working together to solve shared problems. Every country, rich or poor, should benefit and have a voice. Equity is our core organising principle, alongside mutual interest and solidarity. This model is about collectively caring about the future of the human race and our planet.

How can civil society and businesses advance this model?

Our focus is public investment – taxpayer funds spent by governments for collective benefits. Civil society plays a vital role in holding governments accountable, ensuring public money is spent wisely and in proportion to need, and that it reaches the right people and places.

We particularly need low and middle-income countries to lead on this, to co-create and champion the model. They have to be the voice calling for collective public action and also be willing to put money into a system that will benefit all.

Civil society can also help by pushing this idea forward. Civil society groups can help generate public debate, advocate with key governments and build consensus around the need for a new financing approach.

Businesses have a different role. GPI is about public finance, not private investment. So, while we’re not asking businesses to contribute financially, they can help by making the case for public funding and why it matters. Public money is not replaceable with private finance. Private sector needs to make this argument. Public and private finance are critical, but public funding must remain central to any global financial architecture. Without it critical investments will not be funded.

How might these principles help finance climate action?

A key advantage of GPI is the potential to mobilise additional public funding. Right now, much of what’s called climate finance is being redirected from aid or other official flows. It simply diverts funding from development toward climate and even then, it is insufficient. There’s little genuinely new funding, and the gap between available resources and need is massive and will continue to outstrip resources.

GPI could bring in new funds from all countries, expanding the pool and making funding more predictable and equitable. Most importantly, it would be targeted at global challenges, not individual donor preferences, and go where it’s most needed.

However, there’s still considerable work to do to design this, and we’re looking for partners to help us reimagine climate finance through GPI.

What needs to happen next?

GPI is still a new concept and hasn’t yet been implemented. We’ve begun exploring it in areas such as global health and crisis response, and the next phase involves piloting and testing how it can work in practice.

A couple of years ago we convened a technical advisory group that helped shape the idea and develop the core principles. Now we’re focused on moving from concept to action, working out how to apply it to real global challenges. The three areas we’re currently exploring are climate resilience and response, the energy transition and global health. We’re keen to hear which other challenges people think GPI could help tackle.

Right now, our priority is getting governments to engage with the idea of GPI and start advocating for it. On 29 May, we are launching a campaign to support this concept and bring 10 to 20 countries, particularly middle and lower-middle-income ones, on board. The campaign will run for the next three years and aims to secure as much support as possible by 2030.