Teddy Berihun

Digital transformation, digital health, information systems, Physics, Tweets are my own opinions #YNWA

[Robel @RobelYeshitla]

President Trump’s renewed call for U.S. mediation on the Nile and GERD dispute is structurally skewed toward Egypt from the outset, no attempt is made to mask that. This is not a question of diplomatic intent but of geopolitical alignment. The United States is institutionally anchored to Egypt through Middle East security architecture, Red Sea strategy, Suez Canal interests, Arab League politics and long-standing military partnership.

Any mediation framework emerging from Washington therefore operates within a downstream power geometry that favors Cairo and subordinates Ethiopia’s autonomy.

More importantly, the GERD dispute is not a technical water-management problem. It is a hegemonic power-transition conflict. Egypt is attempting to preserve a century-old monopoly over the Nile system and maintain regional hierarchy in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia has already dismantled that order by constructing and operating Africa’s largest hydroelectric dam.

African governance mechanisms already exist through the Cooperative Framework Agreement and the Nile Basin Initiative. Egypt rejected both because they abolish veto power and replace imperial privilege with sovereign equality. External mediation does not resolve this contradiction. It merely attempts to salvage elements of the old order.

No Nile water mediation process, however framed, can produce a durable outcome that secures Ethiopia’s national security or long-term strategic interests because the conflict is structural. Agreements may manage escalation but they cannot change Egyptian doctrine towards Ethiopia and Arab blocs strategic outlook of broader horn.

The broader Arab bloc reinforces this posture because Egypt functions as the political and military anchor of Arab influence in the Red Sea corridor. Ethiopia’s emergence as an independent hydropower, logistics, aviation and manufacturing hub threatens that order. The Horn is not viewed as a peer region but as subordinate strategic depth, the existing order including the U.S. posture is to manage and continue that structural imbalance.

From a power-transition perspective, Egypt is a declining hegemon attempting to freeze an obsolete hierarchy. Ethiopia is an ascending civilizational state reorganizing its geopolitical position.

The bottom line is that there is no win win solution for Ethiopia under a mediation framework that is structurally designed to reinforce colonial hierarchies and subordinate Ethiopian national security and sovereign interests. Any process that operates within this architecture is not neutral and cannot produce an outcome that serves Ethiopia’s long term strategic position. Giving in under such mediation will not alter the foundational asymmetry that continues to unsettle Egypt and the broader Arab bloc, which is the reality of Ethiopia as a regional and continental power with independent leverage.

The discomfort of Egypt and its partners does not arise from technical water concerns. It arises from the emergence of an autonomous African power that controls the Nile headwaters, anchors basin scale energy infrastructure, and exercises growing influence across East Africa and the Red Sea corridor. That power configuration is structurally incompatible with an order built on downstream dominance and Horn of Africa subordination.

The power dynamics at play are best understood as an antithesis to Ethiopia’s historical identity as the only uncolonized and continuously independent Black nation state. United States mediation, as presently framed, seeks to reinsert Ethiopia into a subordinate water regime through institutional mechanisms that replicate colonial control under contemporary diplomatic language. This is an outcome Ethiopians rejected in the past, reject today and will reject in the future.

[The Asrat Blog @RenaissanceDam]

Part One

Title: THE DROUGHT TRAP: How Egypt Tried to Turn Weather into a Water Quota In The 2020 Washington Draft. Without Ever Saying “Historic Rights”

Trump(Jan 16, 2026): “Predictable water releases during droughts and prolonged dry years for Egypt and the Sudan.”

Today I’m doing one thing only: unpacking “drought” and “prolonged dry years” in the 2020 Washington draft. I’ll return later to the rest of the text, which is even worse for Ethiopia.
Why this matters: in negotiations, “drought” is not just weather. It becomes a technical trigger. A trigger becomes a forced release. And forced releases become a quota, without ever writing the words “historic rights.”
Here’s the deeper trap: if drought is defined against downstream baselines, then Ethiopian development itself gets framed as “drought.” Ethiopia irrigates to feed its people, or builds upstream power and regulates flows, and the reduced inflow is labeled “drought.” The trigger clauses activate not because nature failed, but because Ethiopia developed.
That’s the strategy: freeze Ethiopian development without openly stating a quota.

Now the receipts. The draft was “Initialed by the Arab Republic of Egypt on February 28, 2020 (Washington, D.C.).” Ethiopia did not sign it. Egypt initialed it. So I will use only Egypt’s own clauses and numbers, line by line.
Read this slowly: the draft turns “drought” into a switch. When that switch flips, GERD stops being Ethiopia’s tool and becomes downstream drought insurance.

FIRST RECEIPT: Egypt defines “Flow” in a way that can punish Ethiopia for development
This draft defines Flow like this:
Article 2(d): “Flow” means the total volume of water entering the GERD reservoir in any given Hydrological Year.

Read that again.
It does NOT say “Flow of the Blue Nile at the border.”
It says what enters GERD.
This is Egypt’s first move: control the definition, control the outcome.
So if Ethiopia builds upstream projects in the future that reduce what enters GERD (irrigation, storage, regulation), that reduction shows up in the treaty’s math as low Flow at GERD.
And low Flow is the trigger that activates the drought handcuffs you’ll see below.

Think about what that means:
Any future dams use that reduces inflow into GERD (even for Ethiopia’s own farms and people) pushes the dam closer to the <37 BCM trigger and Egypt’s drought matrix.
The draft doesn’t need to write “Ethiopia may not develop.” It writes: “If your inflow drops, you must release according to our table.”
This is how Egypt tried to freeze Ethiopian development without ever saying “you cannot develop.” or " You can not build dam." This is how “development” becomes “drought” on paper. This is how a treaty becomes a cage disguised as cooperation.

In My Assessment Ethiopia Future Development Risk (under this draft): 70–85% (high). Under this design, every time Ethiopia tries to use more of its own water upstream, the treaty can punish it by shouting “drought” at GERD and forcing extra releases. Development becomes a crime. Drought becomes the punishment.

SECOND RECEIPT: The drought trigger is a hard number, not “cooperation.”
Annex A (Filling Period, Section A, Drought) is blunt:
“If the Flow at the GERD is <37 BCM… the release from the GERD will be according to the Drought Conditions Release Matrix (Exhibit A).”
This applies both during filling and long term operation.

Translation for you:
Not “consult,” not “coordinate.” The draft says the release WILL follow a table. A table controls the dam.
This isn’t “consultation.”
This isn’t “dialogue.”
This is a switch: Flow < 37 BCM to Egypt’s matrix controls Ethiopia’s release.
Egypt doesn’t need to declare drought. Egypt doesn’t need to ask permission. The number does it automatically. And the matrix is where the ugliness lives.

THIRD RECEIPT: The drought matrix can force Ethiopia to release MORE than the river brings in
Open Exhibit A, Drought Conditions Release Matrix.
It literally gives releases (in BCM) based on the Flow and the GERD level.
Here is a clean example straight from the table:
• If the GERD level is 49.3 BCM (625 m)
• and the Flow of River is 20 BCM
• the required release is 34.04 BCM

Stop and feel the meaning:
Inflow = 20 BCM.
Release = 34.04 BCM.
That means Ethiopia must drain about 14 BCM from storage in one year just to satisfy the matrix.
That is 170% of inflow (34.04 ÷ 20).
That means Egypt gets more water during Ethiopia’s drought than nature itself provided.
That is not “shared pain.” That is Egypt using Ethiopian storage as Egypt’s insurance policy.
That is Ethiopia’s dam forced to bleed for Egypt benefit.
This isn’t “cooperation.” This is a drought tax on Ethiopia paid out of Ethiopia’s storage.

And that is the heart of the trap:
A dam built to lift Ethiopia out of poverty gets converted, on paper, into a tank that protects Egypt from drought.
Egypt’s security. Ethiopia’s sacrifice.

Ethiopia Harm Meter (from this clause): Drought matrix trap severity: 95% harm.
Every kilowatt GERD fails to generate in drought is a school without light, a clinic without power, a factory that never opens. This draft makes sure that when the river suffers, Ethiopian development suffers first so Egypt can feel it last.

FOURTH RECEIPT: “Prolonged drought” and “dry years” create a multi-year WATER DEBT Ethiopia must pay regardless of future suffering
Now the draft goes from “drought year” to “drought era.”
In the filling period, Annex A says:
• If the average release over the previous 4 years is <37 BCM, the GERD “will release a total of 62.5% of the storage above 603 meters” over the following 4 Mitigation Release Years.
• If the average release over the previous 4 years is <40 BCM, the GERD “will release a total of 50% of storage above 603 meters” over the following 4 Mitigation Release Years.
Then comes the line that should make every Ethiopian feel a chill:
The release… “is not dependent upon the hydrological conditions… in future Hydrological Years.”

Allow me to translate that into plain language:
Once you trigger it, you owe it, even if the future is still dry.
Even if Ethiopian children need that water.
Even if Ethiopian hospitals lose power.
Even if Ethiopian factories shut down.
Egypt gets paid. Ethiopia pays. The future doesn’t matter.
This is not drought “management.”
This is Egypt turning drought into a debt contract, and Ethiopia into the debtor.
This is how Egypt tried to make Ethiopia’s stored water Egypt’s legal entitlement.
This is drought turned into debt.

The 603 m line: why it matters (and why Egypt chose it)
Exhibit A includes a reference point showing 24.7 BCM at 603 m and 49.3 BCM at 625 m, meaning the storage “above 603 m” at 625 m is about 24.6 BCM.
That’s roughly half of GERD’s total storage.
So if Ethiopia fills to around 625 m (the draft’s own completion benchmark), “storage above 603 m” is about 24.6 BCM.

Now apply the draft’s own percentages:
• 62.5% of that ≈ 15.4 BCM
• 50% of that ≈ 12.3 BCM
And the draft requires a minimum annual release (no “pause” button). It forces that debt to be paid across the mitigation years.multi-year
Egypt didn’t pick 603 m randomly. Egypt picked it to maximize what Egypt can force out.
603 m isn’t simply a technical level in this draft. It becomes a legal harvesting point, a place where Ethiopia’s stored water gets treated like a pile of money Egypt can claim when Egypt says “drought.”

Ethiopia Harm Meter (from the multi year debt clauses): Filling period prolonged drought/dry years debt: 90% harm.
Because it turns Ethiopia’s stored water into something Ethiopia can be forced to “pay out” later, regardless of future conditions, regardless of Ethiopian need, regardless of Ethiopian sovereignty.
Ethiopia’s children will grow up in a hotter, more unpredictable climate. They will need more electricity, more food, and more resilience than we did. This draft does the opposite: it trades away their flexibility in crisis so that another country can lock in comfort.

Part 1 showed you the mechanism. Now I’m going to show you the blade Egypt tried to hold over Ethiopia’s throat.

FIFTH RECEIPT: In long term operation, Egypt demands 100% of storage above 603 m
Annex A, Long Term Operation, says:
• If the average release over the preceding 4 years is <39 BCM, the GERD “will release a total of 100% of the storage above 603 meters” over the following 4 Mitigation Release Years.
• And if the average release over the preceding 5 years is <40 BCM, the GERD “will release a total of 100% of storage above 603 meters” over the following 5 Mitigation Release Years.

Then again, it repeats the debt logic:
The release… “is not dependent upon the hydrological conditions… in future Hydrological Years.”
Let that sink in.
100%.
Not 50%. Not 62.5%. One hundred percent.
Egypt wrote a clause that would force Ethiopia to drain all storage above 603 m, spread over 4 to 5 years, regardless of what happens to Ethiopia during those years.
This is not subtle.
This is not “coordination.”
This is Egypt writing a rule that strips Ethiopia’s dam of its essential buffer, on paper, by force, on a schedule, for Egypt’s benefit.
If we use the draft’s own reference numbers (about 24.6 BCM above 603 m when GERD is around 625 m), then “100%” means all of it becomes exposed to mandatory release across 4 to 5 years.
That’s half of GERD’s total capacity, forced out, to protect Egypt.
This is the draft openly telling Ethiopia: “Store it… and when drought hits, you will empty it for us.”

Ethiopia Harm Meter: Long term 100% clause: 98% harm.
Because it converts Ethiopia’s stored water into Egypt’s insurance policy, not an Ethiopian asset.
Because it treats Ethiopian sovereignty like Egyptian property.

SIXTH RECEIPT: Egypt wrote the draft so obligations can stack. Yes, stack.
Exhibit B removes all doubt:
“Releases from the Drought Conditions Release Matrix… shall be in addition to these other releases.”

So picture what that means:
• You can be in a mult year “prolonged drought / dry years” mitigation obligation AND
• still be forced into the annual drought matrix on top of it.

“In addition.”
That is not poetry. That is a trapdoor.
Egypt built a system where Ethiopia can be hit twice, in the same year, for the same drought.
That is how Egypt tried to turn Ethiopia’s dam into a treadmill: you run, but the belt drags you backward, and Egypt controls the speed.

Ethiopia Harm Meter: Stacking (“in addition”) risk: 90–95% harm.
Because it opens the door to compounding release pressure when Ethiopia needs flexibility the most, and Egypt knows it.

SEVENTH RECEIPT: Egypt’s own draft admits the truth that these obligations reduce Ethiopia’s retention
Exhibit B, Section II, says plainly:
“A release obligation… reduces the amount of water retained by the GERD…”
And it even gives an example:
• Retention value: 10 BCM
• Mitigation obligation: 2 BCM
• Net retention: 8 BCM (10 – 2)
So Egypt’s own draft confesses the logic:
Your retention is not yours. It is subtractable. It belongs to the matrix. It belongs to Egypt’s security.
That is the draft confessing the design: The “mitigation” mechanism eats Ethiopia’s storage.
Egypt wrote that line. Egypt knew what it meant.

EIGHTH RECEIPT: Egypt built a brake into Ethiopia’s filling timeline
The Stage I table sets:
• Definition of drought (annual flow at GERD): 31 BCM
• Release rule: Lower of 31 BCM or Flow
• Postponement rule: “If Flow < 31 BCM, Stage I is postponed.”
That is a direct brake on Ethiopia’s timeline, exactly when Ethiopia needs momentum.
Egypt designed this so a dry year doesn’t just slow Ethiopia down. It stops Ethiopia completely.
While Egypt’s Aswan continues operating. While Egypt’s farms continue irrigating.
Ethiopia waits. Egypt flows.

Ethiopia Harm Score: 85% (severe).
Because the first years are when Ethiopia needs power and economic return most.

NINTH RECEIPT: Egypt built an enforcement machine to make the drought clauses legally binding and punishable
A bad clause is one thing.
A bad clause backed by monitoring, data pipelines, and binding arbitration is a cage with a lock.
This draft builds enforcement around the drought triggers:
• Monitoring & verification: the TCC shall “monitor and verify the implementation of the rules” governing filling/operation. (Article 5.4(f))
Egypt gets to watch Ethiopia’s every move, in real time.
• Daily data pipeline: the Parties exchange daily data including “water level and water release from GERD.” (Article 6.1(b))
Egypt gets the numbers. Every single day. To check if Ethiopia is “complying.”
• Binding arbitration: the arbitral award “shall be final and binding.” (Article 9.5)
If Ethiopia resists, Egypt drags Ethiopia to court. And the court’s decision is final.
• No reservations: you cannot sign “with exceptions.”
“reservations… shall not be made.” (Article 14)
Egypt made sure Ethiopia couldn’t sign and exclude the ugly parts.
• Hard to terminate:
“only terminated upon a subsequent agreement…” (Article 15)
Once Ethiopia signs, Egypt holds the exit door shut.
• Immediate bite:
“applied provisionally upon signature…” (Article 12)
Egypt wanted the chains on Ethiopia before the ink dried.

Once you sign, you cannot say “I accept cooperation but reject Annex A.” You cannot cross out the 100% clauses. You cannot walk away alone. The exit door opens only when everyone else agrees to open it. In practice, that means never.
So if Ethiopia signed, this wouldn’t be “words on paper.”
This would be a monitored, measured, enforceable regime with Egypt holding the enforcement tools.

Ethiopia Harm Meter: Enforcement cage severity: 90% harm.
Because it turns drought triggers into a legal weapon Egypt can use against Ethiopia, not a technical guideline.
If this draft had been signed, it would not just have chained Ethiopia. It would have told every African country: if you try to rise using your own rivers, someone else will write the rules, watch your reservoirs, and drag you to court when you protect your own people.

“WHAT IF” SCENARIOS, so you can WITNESS the darkness Egypt tried to create for Ethiopian children

What if #1: A true drought hits when GERD is full
Flow = 20 BCM, GERD level around 625 m.
Egypt’s matrix says release 34.04 BCM, meaning Ethiopia must pull about 14 BCM from stored water.
Imagine what that means in real life:
• Ethiopian turbines lose head
• Ethiopian power drops
• Ethiopian factories shut down
• Ethiopian children sit in darkness
• While Egypt’s lights stay on, powered by water drained from Ethiopian storage

The country pays drought twice: once from nature, once from Egypt’s paper.

What if #2: Ethiopia tries to retain water to protect its own people

This draft punishes “low releases” with multi year obligations.
If the moving average release drops below 39 or 40, the draft demands 100% of storage above 603 m over 4 to 5 years.
So the more Ethiopia tries to save its own people, the more Egypt’s treaty writes a bill.
Ethiopia’s self protection becomes Ethiopia’s legal violation.

What if #3: Future development reduces inflow into GERD

Remember: Flow = what enters GERD.
If Ethiopia uses more water upstream (irrigation for Ethiopian farmers, water for Ethiopian cities), Flow into GERD can fall below 37 BCM, triggering Egypt’s drought matrix.
Consequence: the project’s benefit is partially cancelled by forced releases, creating a chilling effect on Ethiopian development.
That is how Egypt’s treaty becomes a silent veto on Ethiopia’s future:
Ethiopia develops to Flow drops to Egypt’s drought clauses activate to Ethiopia is forced to release anyway.
Egypt grows. Ethiopia is frozen.

What if #4: The obligations overlap (because Egypt designed them to)
Egypt’s draft says drought matrix releases “shall be in addition.”
So Ethiopia can be locked into multi year mitigation and get hit with annual drought releases on top.
That’s not “sharing.” That’s Egypt compounding pressure on Ethiopia until Ethiopia breaks.

What if #5: Ethiopia needs to modify operations for a domestic emergency
Article 4.5 says:
Even “minor adjustments” require TCC approval by consensus.
Consequence: Ethiopia’s domestic emergency planning becomes exposed to Egypt’s veto.
Ethiopian mothers wait for power. Egyptian bureaucrats decide if Ethiopia can adjust.

What if #6: The “paper to court pipeline” Egypt built
What if Ethiopia deviates from Egypt’s matrix because reality doesn’t match the table?
TCC monitors/verifies (Egypt watches). Data is exchanged (Egypt has proof). Disputes go to arbitration with final binding awards (Egypt sues).
Consequence: constant risk of legal escalation becomes Egypt’s political weapon against Ethiopia.

FINAL VERDICT
Egypt’s draft does not need to say “historic rights.”
It doesn’t need to say “quota.”
Egypt did something more sophisticated and more dangerous:
• Egypt turned the word “drought” into a technical trigger that forces extra releases from Ethiopian storage…
• and Egypt made that trigger enforceable with monitoring, data exchange, and binding arbitration…
• and Egypt made the debt payable even when future years are still dry and Ethiopians are suffering.

Ethiopia Harm Index (if signed): 90–95% in drought and prolonged dry years scenarios.
Because Egypt’s own numbers convert Ethiopia’s stored water into Egypt’s entitlement.
This is why I call it what it is:
• A paper leash written by Egypt.
• A technical trap designed by Egypt.
• A slow, sophisticated attempt to turn Ethiopia’s dam into Egypt’s insurance policy.

Now read it yourself.
And ask one question that matters:
Who benefits when Ethiopia’s drought becomes Ethiopia’s legal debt to Egypt?
Egypt.
It’s written in the numbers Egypt chose. In Annex A Egypt drafted. In the 100% clause Egypt inserted.

Most people who argue about this have never read Egypt’s actual clauses.
They argue about “cooperation,” and “win win” and “regional stability.”
But they never open Egypt’s Exhibit A.
They never read Egypt’s line that says “not dependent upon future hydrological conditions.”
They never do Egypt’s math: 34.04 BCM release when inflow is 20 BCM.
They never ask: what happens to Ethiopian children when their dam is legally required to empty its storage to protect Egyptian farms in a multi-year drought?

So I did it for them. I read every clause Egypt wrote. I circled every trap Egypt designed. And now you have the receipts.

To be continued....

#Egypt #Sudan #SouthSudan #Ethiopia #Eritrea #Uganda #Kenya #Tanzania #Rwanda #Burundi #DRC #China #Russia #UAE #GERD #NileRiver #WaterRights #Sovereignty #BlueNile #NileDam #EthiopiaRising #AfricanWaters #NoToColonialism #ReadTheDraft

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

@elonmuskADO 99

[Mekdes @Mekdesmt]

I bet lots of people on this app don't know what this is

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

@abrisher What ??

[OpenFn @openfn]

Calling all techies in Ghana! 🇬🇭 Join OpenFn in Accra on Feb 1st for a coding &amp; impact day!
➡️ Learn about OpenFn's open-source tech &amp; get hands-on at our hackathon!
Feb 1st, 9:30am-5pm (drinks after!)
Register: https://t.co/p2bIqXwkdF #OpenFn #TechForGood #Accra #Hackathon

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

@henrythe9ths AI guide

[Henry Shi @henrythe9ths]

There's a shocking fact about AI that nobody tells you: You can catch up to the public AI research frontier in just 2 weeks. Yes, really.

I've built a $150M annual revenue startup over the last 8 years and If I were to start a company today, I’d drop everything and go all-in on AI.

But like many busy software builders, I felt lost—overwhelmed by the noisy, crowded and fast-moving modern AI landscape. And I wasn’t alone.

So I spent my entire holiday diving deep into AI research—reading 30+ papers, watching hours of lectures, analyzing trends, and catching up to the research frontier.

✨ Here’s what I learned:
- You don’t need months (or years) to catch up.
- You don’t need a PhD or decades of ML experience.
- You need fewer than 20 papers and 2 weeks to understand the major breakthroughs shaping AI today.

It's because the technology is extremely nascent and most techniques that came before are no longer relevant:
- ChatGPT is barely 2 years old and Transformers are only 7 years old.
- Most game-changing discoveries happened within the last 4 years, driven by a few breakthrough ideas, scaling laws, and efficient matrix multiplication.

The biggest secret?
Many groundbreaking AI papers with thousands of citations are surprisingly simple and applied, like adding "let's think step by step" to the prompt, or simply asking the LLM over and over again to improve its answer (Self-Refine).

I realized there are tons of founders and builders in the same boat—wanting to dive deeper into AI but unsure where to start.

I've created an essential AI Guide that helped me catch up, in just 2 weeks, to the frontier of public AI research to figure out where the next opportunities and gaps were:
- Curated list of only the most important papers
- Simple explanations of key concepts
- Clear pathway to understanding the frontier of modern AI

It’s perfect for:
- Founders expanding into AI
- Builders wanting to innovate at the frontier of AI
- Investors looking to separate the signal from the noise

👇 Want the full guide?
- Like and Share this post
- Comment "AI Guide"
- I'll send you the complete guide

(ps, I’m also teaming up with @VishalVasishth, co-founder of @obviousvc with @ev (focused on large-scale societal impact companies like Twitter, Medium, Beyond Meat), to host a small meetup to discuss what's working and needs to be solved in the AI stack in SF. Message me if you're interested)

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

Grok created image…

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

@elonmuskADO Yes

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

Excited to share an important article by my colleague Clint on the critical need for increased funding in global health security. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that cutting funding is not an option we can't afford cuts. https://t.co/Om5I41Eh7i](https://t.co/Om5I41Eh7i)

[Data.FI_Project @DataFIproject]

Day 2 of the Digital and Data Use Forum is underway in Abuja! Follow the discussion here: https://t.co/vZ4ib8ic0M

[Data.FI_Project @DataFIproject]

Join us Wed. at 9AM EST for the final presentation of our Winter Webinar Series to hear the story of how the #Zimbabwe orphans and vulnerable children management information system (OVC MIS) was developed for (and transitioned to) local ownership! https://t.co/C8NjCekaqX

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

@tyllerxhobbs @artblocks_io 927872654 🔗 @Mattersw3b,@thepatrickjrart,@APONFTGATE,@aknetwork,@Kellycryptos,@shekhar_koirala,@ItsJaboola,@rexchung,@itsMVRF,@unnamed_owl,@tracyleephotos,@diane_1990_,@yayu777shibito,@Drip6981,@Real_Perseus

[Teddy Berihun @teddyabel]

@PicturesFoIder 1

[Palladium @PalladiumImpact]

Today we're putting the spotlight on @DataFIProject, our USAID-funded project that helps countries strengthen health information systems to find efficiencies in the health sector, track and rapidly respond to the HIV epidemic and emerging health threats, and improve client care!

[Palladium @PalladiumImpact]

It used to be that when a development organisation invested $1 in a program, they expected $1 worth of impact. Now, the question is: how can we unlock $100 from that $1? Palladium co-CEO Ricardo Michel argues that the answer is inclusive and catalytic finance.

[Data.FI_Project @DataFIproject]

During the #GlobalDigitalHealthForum2023 last Dec., several https://t.co/kbXm6kqLNj experts shared their thoughts on digital technologies and their applications toward global health initiatives in short, pop-up interviews. Check them out here: https://t.co/uu6nLP4zV9.

[Fayda - Ethiopian National ID @IDethiopia]

ኢትዮጵያ ለፋይዳ ብሔራዊ ዲጂታል መታወቂያ ትግበራ የሚውል የ350 ሚሊዮን ዶላር ድጋፍ ከአለም ባንክ @WorldBank ማግኘት ችላለች።
ለበለጠ ድረገጻችንን https://t.co/15lhMp6tGf ን ይጎብኙ።

#DigitalID #Fayda #FoundationalID #WorldBank

[Ministry of Health | Rwanda @RwandaHealth]

We are pleased to welcome Dr Loko Abraham, the new CEO of the Rwanda Medical Supply - RMS.