Is UK Aid good at lifting people above $1.90 a day?

 

Submission to the International Development Committee Inquiry into Extreme Poverty        

Women for Women International February 2022

 

Contact Details: Stephanie Siddall, Head of Global Policy and Advocacy – ssiddall@womenforwomen.org

 

Summary:

In this response, Women for Women International shares evidence and expertise on how UK Aid should be better used to support marginalised women and girls living in extreme poverty in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS). The UK Government has an opportunity to turn their rhetoric into reality by sustainably committing to meaningful consultation and evidence-based, holistic programming. This submission uses Women for Women International’s programme data and partnership experience to highlight the threats to the UK Government's approach to ending extreme poverty and propose tangible recommendations for action.

 

  1. To tackle extreme poverty and effectively contribute to achieving Goal 1, the FCDO must invest in and respond to disaggregated data and engage in meaningful consultation.

 

  1. There has been positive progress made by the UK Government when it comes to addressing the needs of women and girls living in extreme poverty, but further and bolder commitments must be made (including through funding) to achieve gender equality and reduce extreme poverty.

 

  1. The UK Government’s impact and effectiveness on addressing extreme poverty, especially for women and girls, is at risk.

About Women for Women International
Since 1993, Women for Women International has invested in the power of more than 500,000 marginalised women across countries affected by war and conflict – including Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, Rwanda, the DRC, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Nigeria. Through our tested and transformative Stronger Women, Stronger Nations programme, we equip individual women living with the daily realities of poverty and violence with skills, knowledge and resources to build livelihoods and savings, awareness of their rights, family well-being, and support networks.

We also contribute to a more supportive and enabling environment for women’s rights at multiple levels, for example by working with male leaders and community members, promoting women’s leadership and community advocacy through our Change Agents Programme, and amplifying the voices of marginalised women in national and global decision-making spaces, particularly across the priority areas identified in our Agenda for Action.

While Women for Women International appreciates the importance of focusing on SDG Goal 1, Target 1.1, we believe that addressing the parameters of extreme poverty cannot happen in isolation from gender equality – income is not the only measurement of poverty. Taking a holistic approach to extreme poverty and gender must ensure that food security, economic growth, education and inequality are addressed in equal measure. Gender equality is not a women’s issue - it is fundamental for the eradication of extreme poverty and the achievement of a safer, fairer and more sustainable world. This International Development Committee (IDC) inquiry into the impact of UK Aid must recognise the importance of centring and prioritising marginalised women and girls, particularly those living in conflict and crisis, as their self-articulated rights and needs serve an important foundation for addressing extreme poverty.

  1. To tackle extreme poverty and effectively contribute to achieving Goal 1, the FCDO must invest in and respond to disaggregated data and meaningful consultation.

 

1.1     For the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to tackle extreme poverty and address the needs of women and girls in extreme poverty – they must base policies, programmes, funding mechanisms and strategies on disaggregated data and unofficial sources of data.

 

1.2     The reason the FCDO need to go beyond official data sources and be informed by a wide range of evidence is because these data sources do not capture the heterogeneity and complexity of women and girls’ needs, particularly of those affected by conflict and crisis. For UK Aid to successfully fulfil the principle of leaving no one behind, it must expand the data it uses to inform its policies, strategies, programmes and funding mechanisms. This will ensure that the needs of the most marginalised groups who are often invisible in official statistics are accounted for and central to the eradication of extreme poverty.

 

Disaggregated and alternative data sources

1.3     The inclusion of alternative data sources, including data that is more relevant to marginalised groups, should be used by the FCDO to provide a more nuanced understanding of whether we are delivering on the eradication of extreme poverty. Progress for those left furthest behind is unlikely to be captured in official, national level data, particularly whilst existing data collection efforts struggle to capture accurate or sufficiently aggregable data. The emphasis on vulnerable, marginalised groups and inequality within the Goals therefore provides an opportunity to rethink the data that is collected and to look for information that is more relevant to those left furthest behind.[1]

 

1.4     Women for Women International’s data enables us to demonstrate how impactful investing in marginalised populations can be. Working within the framework of the SDGs, our Stronger Women, Stronger Nations programme data powerfully demonstrates how this works in practice. Tracking progress towards gender equality, particularly in conflict settings, requires measuring changes across a range of indicators - including food security, income, employment, perceptions, attitudes, and social norms.  Sharing our data centres the experiences and resilience of the most marginalised women and girls living in conflict-affected countries, and highlights the impact of investing in them. More on our approach to the SDG’s and extreme poverty can be read in our 2020 data highlights.

 

1.5     Holistic, evidence-based programming like ours that directly addresses the intersection of socio-economic indicators moves away from siloed approaches to extreme poverty and represents the importance of measuring the SDGs collectively, rather than in isolation from each other.

 

Beyond data – meaningful engagement and consultation must accompany a strong evidence base

1.6     To build on the evidence base that data can provide it’s essential to meaningfully engage with marginalised communities and civil society organisations to better understand their experiences, expertise and knowledge of the everyday realities of extreme poverty.  Meaningfully consulting and engaging in this way will develop FCDO expertise on the rights and needs of marginalised groups, and priority should be given to meaningfully consulting with women and girls. Women for Women International has led sector wide approaches to consultation through the Beyond Consultations tool in collaboration with the Gender Action for Peace and Security network. It is only through meaningful engagement with civil society that the FCDO will achieve inclusive and participatory policy and practice, and maintain high levels of transparency and accountability, in order to ultimately meet the needs of women and girls living in extreme poverty.

 

Recommendations

 

 

 

  1. Positive progress for the UK Government: girls’ education policies and initiatives to end violence against women

 

2.1     The UK Government has, to a certain extent, shown commitment to women and girls’ rights globally, especially in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Women for Women International recognises UK programme strategies and funding that have a positive gender-sensitive impact for alleviating extreme poverty. Achieving gender equality requires long-term investments in changing the structural barriers and harmful social norms that women and girls face. This is recognised in the FCDO’s Strategic Vision for Gender Equality and its National Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security (2018-2022). The 2018-2030 Strategic Vision for Gender Equality is a testament to the UK Government’s commitment to ensuring girls and boys, women and men enjoy equal rights and opportunities.[2] The UK Government has historically had a reputation for putting women and girls’ rights at the centre of its international policy and has played a vital role in influencing others. The Strategic Vision’s sustained focus on marginalised women and girls, especially in fragile and conflict-affected states, is evidence of commitment to accelerating the delivery of all the Sustainable Development Goals and development and humanitarian outcomes. 

 

2.2     The UK Government has represented its commitment to gender equality on the international stage by investing to achieve results at scale in ending child marriage, female genital cutting, ending violence against women and girls, and targeted work on unlocking girls’ potential through breaking down barriers in country programmes.[3] Recent commitments from the UK Government to gender equality are visible in the leadership of 2021 global partnerships at the G7 and the Global Partnership for Education’s (GPE) 2021-25 replenishment summit as well as renewed commitment to the What Works to Prevent Violence programme.[4]

 

Girls’ Education: G7 and GPE

2.3     Women for Women International recognises the significance of the 2021 G7 and the focus on education for the most marginalised women and girls in FCAS.[5] Improving educational opportunities for girls forms a fundamental component of reducing extreme poverty. As the World Bank reports, one additional school year can increase a woman’s earnings by 10% to 20%.[6] A UNESCO study found that 420 million people would be lifted out of poverty with a secondary education, therefore reducing the number of people living in poverty worldwide by more than half.[7]

 

2.4     However, extreme poverty and gender inequality cannot and should not be addressed through education alone. The UK Government must make further, bolder commitments to funding work to achieve gender equality and reduce extreme poverty. The importance of discussing gender equality and extreme poverty in global spaces is recognised, but this must translate into tangible results – and this requires funding to match the rhetoric, not just for girls’ education but for ending violence, fulfilling reproductive health, implementing the Women, Peace and Security agenda and more.[8]

What Works to Prevent Violence

2.5     What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls (What Works) was a UK Department for International Development (DFID) programme that invested £25 million over six years (2014-2019) on designing and rigorously evaluating interventions to support primary prevention of violence against women and girls (VAWG) across Africa and Asia.[9] The programme was evidence based and supported a scaled-up global response to violence against women.

2.6     We welcome renewed funding for the successor programme “What Works – Impact at Scale”. This seven-year £15.9 million project will scale up effective interventions, test new innovations, and use the evidence to influence a more effective global response to VAWG prevention.[10] This signals an FCDO commitment to breaking the links between extreme poverty and violence against women and applying learnings from successful programming.[11] The What Works consortium is a good example of how investing in evidence-based programming can contribute to the alleviation of extreme poverty.

 

Recommendations:

 

 

 

  1. The UK Government’s impact and effectiveness on addressing extreme poverty, especially for women and girls, is at risk:

 

3.1     The UK Government’s impact and effectiveness on addressing extreme poverty faces multiple internal and external threats.

 

3.2     The decision to reduce UK Aid from 0.7 to 0.5% and merge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and DFID has threatened the UK Government’s ability to address and reduce extreme poverty. The timing of this decision could not have been worse. Over the past two years, the cracks in our systems have been brutally exposed. COVID-19 is amplifying inequalities and power disparities. Poverty, insecurity and gender-based violence are spiralling – with women and girls experiencing the most significant impacts.[12] The collision of COVID-19, the merger and aid cuts, pose a significant threat to risking the rights and needs of marginalised women and girls as well as the respect and durability of FCDO programmes and policies.

 

FCDO 18 months later: Sustained risks to extreme poverty reduction

3.3     Nearly 18 months after the merger of the FCO and DFID, we are still waiting for the FCDO to set an ambitious strategy for poverty reduction and sustainable development. Development must not be reduced as a means to achieving changes in diplomacy, trade and defence. The outcomes of last year’s Integrated Review also threaten to worsen extreme poverty for women and girls by failing to provide clarity on how development priorities will be given equal attention alongside the UK’s diplomatic, defence, and trade interests. There remain concerns that development and aid will be reduced to tools for achieving these other objectives.[13]

 

3.4     The risks to extreme poverty and gender equality that this poses can be partly mitigated if the UK Government centres women’s rights and gender equality in its upcoming policies and strategies. The UK Government should also seek to meaningfully engage with women’s rights organisations to ensure they are informed by the best available knowledge, evidence and expertise. This vital consultation will sustain DFID’s mission within the FCDO to promote sustainable development and eliminate world poverty and to maintain DFID's high standards and indispensable expertise.

 

Funding

3.5     A crucial test of the UK Government’s strategic commitment to women and girls’ rights and gender equality will come not just from vision statements and policies but from funding decisions. In light of falls in ODA, how the Government chooses to allocate development assistance and respond to extreme poverty is more important than ever.

 

3.6     However, cuts to UK Aid made in 2020 and 2021 - and the way they were implemented - have had wide-ranging and long-standing impacts on the world’s poorest people – in particular, women and girls. 2020 saw cuts to programme areas that are critical to women and girls as the Government reduced spending in line with falling gross national income (GNI) to which spending on aid is pegged. It is estimated that this included a 37% reduction to family planning programming, a 48% reduction on reproductive healthcare, a 10% reduction on funding on and for women’s rights organisations, a 30% reduction on education, a 39% reduction for water and sanitation and an 18% reduction for humanitarian action.[14]

 

3.7     In 2021 the UK Government moved to further reduce its aid budget from 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.5%, equating to around a £4 billion cut from aid levels in 2020. When the cuts took place there was no consultation to determine the impact they would have and while the UK Government advised that a central equalities impact assessment was conducted, to date, there has been no public information provided. Despite a lack of transparency, analysis of estimated funding between 2019 and 2022 compared to 2015 to 2018, indicated that gender equality focused programming has been severely affected, and women and girls will suffer most from reductions in funding to critical sectors. It has been estimated that 20 million women and girls won’t be reached by programming, they are made up of:

 

          700,000 fewer girls supported by girls education programmes,

          2 million fewer women supported by humanitarian assistance,

          8 million fewer women and girls supported by nutrition interventions,

          9 million fewer women supported to access clean water and sanitation[15]

 

3.8     These cuts have put women and girl’s lives at risk and threaten to undo progress towards gender equality at a time when the pandemic has rolled back women’s rights by a generation.[16]

 

3.9     The UK Government’s decision to cut aid with gender equality outcomes was in stark opposition to the ambitious commitments laid out in its Strategic Vision for Equality (2018-2030) and its National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (2018-2022). The aid cuts have threatened to undermine the UK’s contributions towards the Sustainable Development Goals while exacerbating global inequalities.[17] The estimated 40% cut to the girls education budget, despite this being a stated priority of the Prime Minister, revealed a worrying contradiction between rhetoric and reality and the sector continues to be extremely worried about the implications for areas which have not been championed politically. The speed of the UK Government’s decision – without the legal backing of Parliament - coupled with a lack of transparency and consultation with civil society, especially implementing partners, caused tremendous uncertainty in the communities that UK Aid serves. The cuts also reflected a lack of value for money, as programmes that have spent years and millions of pounds in development have been forced to close. The decision to cut ODA spending severely hampers the UK Government’s global commitment to achieving gender equality and supporting the world’s poorest people.

 

Women for Women International’s experience of the aid cuts

3.10  At Women for Women International, we unfortunately had direct experience of cuts to UK ODA that comprised our approach to reducing extreme poverty in Afghanistan and Nigeria. Communication throughout the cuts was appalling.

 

3.11  For a significant UK Aid Direct Round 4 grant in Afghanistan which we were due to start implementing, we received a letter of notification of cancellation on 28th April 2021. The FCDO must have known for some time that the cuts were so severe that even current grants would need to be cut, and therefore it must have been obvious to them for some time that new rounds of funding would not go ahead. However, they kept us waiting for an announcement until 28th April, making organisational planning for 2021 incredibly difficult.

 

3.12  This was bad enough, but the termination of our Round 3 grant in Nigeria was devastating. Last April 2021, we were towards the end of the second year of an FCDO funded 3-year programme in Bauchi State in Nigeria when we were informed that the entire third year of the project was to be terminated, despite this being promised to the communities we were working in. This shows the monumental deficiency of understanding between decision-makers in the FCDO and reality of organisations who are delivering projects.

 

3.13  As part of our partnership and engagement with the project communities, Women for Women International Nigeria staff engage local authorities, community leaders, and community members at the start of the grant soliciting their inputs, support, and active engagement for the three-year project. This engagement is ongoing, critical, and woven throughout the design of our project due to the sensitive nature of our programme which seeks to change cultural norms and behaviours around women’s rights, including tackling violence against women and girls.

 

3.14  With these cuts, the FCDO failed to fulfil their duty of care to communities or organisation staff. The FCDO hold all the power in grant making relationships and used that power irresponsibly and without consultation. Even if cuts had to be made, there should have been 1) earlier notice, 2) a period of notice of termination, not with immediate effect and 3) a period of consultation on how and when to close grants early in a responsible, damage-limiting manner, showing respect to the women we are serving and the staff implementing the FCDO project.

 

3.15  There is no evidence to suggest that poverty was a key consideration in deciding where the cuts should fall. This is particularly clear from the impact that the UK Aid cuts have had on individuals and communities living in lower income countries. Our target groups are the most marginalised women in fragile and conflict-affected states, living in extreme poverty, for whom our programme is often considered a lifeline with enormous positive impact. Only 6% of women from the first year of our FCDO programme in Nigeria reported earning at least $1.90 a day at the point of enrolment. This increased to 26% by graduation.

 

3.16  Terminating the programme in Nigeria denied women the promised chance of taking control of their lives. Our Nigeria Country Director published the following statement:

 

“I was shocked, saddened and deeply disappointed to learn last Friday that the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has decided to terminate a three-year grant agreement that we are halfway through implementing, with immediate effect. In 20 years of working for NGOs in Nigeria, I have never encountered a situation like this, where a funder commits to multi-year funding and then reneges on their promise part-way through. Decision-makers at FCDO might forget that there are real people behind the figures, but I will never reduce women to numbers in a spreadsheet. There are currently 1,200 women enrolled on our 12-month programme in Bauchi, over halfway through their training, and an additional 1,200 expecting to enrol in October for the third year of the grant. Each of these women is an individual with hopes and dreams. She has started to build a business, she is in the middle of learning new skills, she has shared with her children the promise of a better future. Women in Bauchi state have experienced crisis and conflict on top of poverty. The UK Government allowed us to offer them hope for a brighter future, and now we are being told to snatch that offer of hope away. When the FCDO cut their, the message women participants received was: “you are disposable, you do not matter.”

 

COVID-19: Secondary impacts that risk declining rates of extreme poverty

3.17  These risks posted by internal decisions made by the UK Government are further compounded by the short, medium and longer-term impacts of COVID-19. Our 2020 programme data represents the gradual increase in extreme poverty from 2017 to 2020. For example, the relative proportion of women facing food insecurity at enrolment on our programme has significantly increased in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from 18% in 2017 to 47% in 2019 and 91% in 2020.[18] This heightened food insecurity in the DRC emphasises the need for context-specific analysis of COVID-19's secondary impacts as more people are forced into extreme poverty. We saw similar trends correlating with the impacts of COVID-19 and associated lockdown measures in Iraq where women experienced a decrease in their savings. 31% of women in Iraq reported saving a portion of their earnings at enrolment, but this fell to 21% at graduation.[19]

 

3.18  Across 2020 and 2021, Women for Women International worked in collaboration with the Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS) Network and their partners on a participatory research project: “Now and the Future Gender Equality, Peace and Security in a COVID-19 World”.[20] This, along with our programme insights, highlighted the deeply gendered impact of COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated intersecting gender inequalities and social injustices to escalate rates of extreme poverty.

 

3.19  For example, participants pointed out that poverty and rurality exacerbate the risk of VAWG. Some participants noted that travel restrictions as part of COVID-19 measures have reduced the number of staff who are able and/or willing to work from healthcare facilities that specialise in responding to VAWG. In Nigeria, most participants highlighted that women’s economic development and livelihoods have reduced dramatically as a result of the economic impacts of COVID-19.[21] Job losses or reduced income opportunities have meant that poverty has increased. Women are particularly impacted by losses of informal employment, for example as food vendors or cleaners. COVID-19 has exacerbated the cycle of extreme poverty to increase VAWG and to reduce employment in the informal sector.

 

3.20  These impacts need to be understood and included in pandemic response.[22] Gender-conflict analysis and women and girls’ rights should be at the centre of short- and long-term global responses and recoveries to COVID-19, future pandemics and crises. Responses must assess the virus’ disproportionate impact on extreme poverty for the lives of people, communities and countries inclusive of their intersecting identities such as gender, age, race, sexual orientation and gender identity, religious and ethnic minorities, with due regard to issues of socio-economic position, relationship status and disability.

 

3.21  Women living at this very specific intersection of conflict, poverty and gender discrimination face unimaginable challenges - displacement, loss of family members and livelihoods, extreme poverty, violence and lack of access to vital services such as healthcare. No one organisation can address these alone. The pandemic has shone a bright light on the structural inequalities in our societies, especially gender inequality. These global challenges require partners to collaborate in a coordinated way – both at the global level across agencies, governments and sectors as well as at the community and national levels between coalitions and networks.[23]

 

Recommendations

 

 

 

 

 

Through this IDC inquiry into the impact of UK aid for extreme poverty, the UK Government has an opportunity to turn their rhetoric into reality by sustainably committing to meaningful consultation and evidence-based holistic programming. Without gender equality and women and girls’ rights at the centre of UK Government commitments on extreme poverty, the SDGs will not be achieved and many women and girls will be left behind.

7

 


[1] Women for Women International (2018) Leave No One Behind

[2] DFID (2018) Strategic Vision for Gender Equality: a call to action for her potential

[3]Ibid.

[4] Care International (2021) UK Government Decisions to cut UK Aid are disproportionately falling on women and girls

[5] UK Gov (2021) G7 Summit Communique

[6] Global Partnership for Education (2021) Education Data Highlights

[7] UNESCO (2017) Reducing Global Poverty through Universal Primary Secondary Education

[8] GADN (2021) W7 Summit

[9] What Works (2020) What Works to prevent VAWG  

[10] IRC (2021) What works to prevent violence against women and girls: Impact at scale

[11] What Works (2020) What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women And Girls: Research And Innovation Programme

[12] GAPS (2021) Gender Equality Peace and Security in a COVID-19 World and Beyond

[13] BOND (2021) What the integrated review means for international development

[14] Care International, Women for Women International and others (2021) UK Government Decisions to cut UK Aid are disproportionately falling on women and girls

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid.

[17] GADN (2021) UK Aid cuts are disproportionately falling on women and girls

[18] Women for Women International UK (2022) The Importance of counting our sisters in the global goals

[19] Women for Women International (2021) Global Goals Hub 2020

[20] GAPS (2021) Gender Equality Peace and Security in a COVID-19 World and Beyond

[21] GAPS (2021) Now and the Future: Pandemics and crisis – Gender Equality Peace and Security in a COVID-19 World and Beyond - Nigeria

[22] GAPS (2021) Gender Equality Peace and Security in a COVID-19 World and Beyond

[23] GAPS (2021) Gender Equality Peace and Security in a COVID-19 World and Beyond