Written evidence from Save the Children UK to the International Development Committee’s inquiry on extreme poverty

Save the Children was founded 100 years ago in London. It is now a global movement operating in 120 countries, fighting to ensure that all children survive, learn, and are protected. 

Summary of evidence

Extreme poverty is rising globally. This is driven by the intersecting impacts of Covid-19, climate change and increasing conflict. Children are acutely affected by this trend. The ability of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to tackle extreme poverty in line with SDG 1.1 has been hampered by the aid cuts, and we observe a lack of overall strategic direction on extreme poverty since the creation of the FCDO. To rectify this, we recommend the UK Government returns to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid and uses the opportunity of the forthcoming International Development Strategy to outline an approach to the UK’s global engagement which invests in and fully utilizes the UK’s global reach and influence to advance children’s health, education, nutrition, protection and gender equality as a means of tackling extreme poverty.

1. What's the reality of extreme poverty for children, particularly how has that changed in light of Covid, climate change and increasing conflict?

Children are disproportionately affected by poverty. They represent half of all people living in extreme poverty worldwide, despite making up less than one third of the global population.[1] Children experience poverty differently from adults because of their age and necessary dependency on others to meet their basic needs.[2] Save the Children hence encourages the IDC to place a particular emphasis on the impact of poverty and UK aid on children throughout this inquiry. This should include looking beyond monetary measurements of poverty to gain a holistic view of children’s lived experiences, including the role of systemic failures, gender inequality and other forms of discrimination.

Research by Save the Children and UNICEF reveals that the number of children living in multidimensional poverty has increased since the pandemic began, with around 100 million more children lacking access to basic services and rights by the end of 2021 compared to pre-Covid levels. This has devastating consequences for children’s rights and the effects are being felt disproportionately by children most impacted by inequality and discrimination, including those with disabilities, adolescent girls, refugees, migrants and internally displaced children:[3]

• A recent study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF found that a 1% rise in poverty leads to at least a 0.7% increase in child labour as households utilize every means available to survive.[4] For example, in Afghanistan, recent Save the Children research suggests up to one fifth of families have been forced to send their children out to work as incomes have plummeted in the past six months, with an estimated one million children now engaged in child labour.
• Before the pandemic, mortality rates for children growing up in the poorest households were two to three times higher than for children in the wealthiest homes. Emerging evidence suggests that disadvantaged communities are especially affected, which could further increase the existing gaps in health outcomes.[5]
• Children living in poverty experience higher rates of malnutrition, stunting their physical and cognitive development, and living in poverty can increase risk to children’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing.  Poverty is linked to rising protection risks like early marriage, life-threatening adolescent pregnancy and child labour.

The intersecting threats posed by Covid-19, climate change and increasing conflict are causing the most significant rollback in human development in decades, with major consequences for children and intergenerational cycles of poverty. The climate crisis is projected to push more than 100 million people in low- and middle-income countries below the poverty line by 2030,[6] and the impacts of climate change on child poverty globally are set to increase as a child born today is likely to experience on average twice as many wildfires, 2.8 times the exposure to crop failure, 2.6 times as many drought events, 2.8 times as many river floods, and 6.8 times more heatwaves in their lifetime than their grandparents.[7]

In 2020, 452 million children were affected by armed conflict – the highest level for more than a decade. The number of children living in the world’s deadliest war zones rose by 20%, and grave violations of children’s rights in conflict reached record highs. Of the 10 conflict zones identified by Save the Children as most dangerous for children in 2020, almost all appear in the top 20 of UNICEF’s Climate Risk Register[8]. 10 of the 13 worst food crises globally are in conflict-affected countries.

As a result of these factors, the projected impact of Covid-19, climate change and increasing conflict on multidimensional poverty will drive critical feedback loops across the SDGs, including on SDGs 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 16. Unless urgent action is taken to address the rollback on progress across the SDGs, trends on child poverty are likely to worsen in the coming years.

2. How good is the FCDO at tackling extreme poverty, and has this got better/worse since the DFID/FCO merger and the increase in poverty as a result of the pandemic? And how might the FCDO need to change its approach in view of the increasing number of people in poverty?

The merger of DFID and the FCO was a significant change in the architecture of the UK’s approach to international development and tacking extreme poverty. However, the impact of the merger cannot be fully assessed in isolation from the significant cut to UK aid from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%. This has dramatically reduced the resources available to the FCDO to tackle extreme poverty.

Since the merger, the FCDO has not produced a new International Development Strategy. Whilst the Integrated Review covered some relevant areas and set a wider framework for the UK’s global engagement, it is deeply concerning that the FCDO has existed for nearly a year and a half with no formal articulation of the new Department’s strategic approach to international development.

As a result, the FCDO is making strategic shifts with little accountability about the impact of these on the Department’s efficacy in tackling poverty, in line with its statutory obligations. This is exacerbated by the frequent reshuffling of ministerial portfolios and the lack of a designated Minister for Development responsible for delivering the Foreign Secretary’s development priorities. More widely, there is an increasing shift towards a focus on prosperity, exemplified by the increase in aid to British International Investment (BII) – formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) – and the strategic pivot towards the Indo-Pacific region. These changes come whilst UK aid is being reduced so there is likely to be less financing available for the world’s poorest countries, which are largely in sub-Saharan Africa. This could mean a relative shift in ODA spending away from regions where extreme poverty is more prevalent in exchange for deepening engagement with those deemed ‘strategically important’.

Lack of policy coherence and inadequate efforts to “course correct” have also been evident since the merger and the aid cuts. For instance, spending on gender equality and women and girls’ empowerment were negatively impacted by the 2021 aid cuts. The UK Government has since announced new, more narrowly focused funding to address gender-based violence and claims that funding for gender equality has returned to pre-aid cut levels. However, much needed long-term investment is required to break poverty cycles for women and girls.[9]

More widely, the FCDO’s approach to policy tends to focus solely on groups based on a single vulnerability, such as people living with disability or women and girls. It would be more effective at tackling poverty if the FCDO focused more on how vulnerabilities intersect. The UK will not be able to achieve its goal of ending extreme poverty if it does not put its work within the framework of a comprehensive “Leave No One Behind” approach.[10]

3. How good is the FCDO at applying learning from its programmes, evidence, civil society and lived experience to its overall approach to tackling poverty?

The FCDO’s success at applying learning and evidence varies across the Department. At a ‘working level’ there are clear examples of where FCDO officials take on board learning when designing and implementing specific programmes. For instance, the Expanding Social Protection for Inclusive Development Programme (formerly the Nigeria Child Development Grant Programme) is a sustained example of the FCDO applying learning and adopting an integrated approach to tackling poverty by ensuring that social protection schemes are designed to be more inclusive, with a special focus on the needs of children.

We also strongly welcome the engagement of FCDO policy officials with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and officials are often proactive in seeking and responding to CSO expertise and programmatic evidence. However, we have observed that overall the FCDO’s high level ministerial engagement and openness to engaging with the evidence provided with civil society has declined over the last 5 years. This trend pre-dates the merger but has increased since it has taken place.

At points during the pandemic, the FCDO took a welcome approach to engaging with civil society. In the Spring of 2020, the FCDO convened a civil society working group chaired largely by Baroness Sugg to address the challenge Covid was presenting to the world’s poorest people. We welcomed this proactive engagement by the FCDO and their willingness to take on board evidence from CSOs. However, the process became highly problematic as the FCDO used the process as a proxy for consultation with civil society on the merger and aid cuts, and did not formally consult with civil society on those issues as a result. This did not serve to strengthen the relationship between the FCDO and CSOs.

We are pleased by the positive approach some members of the FCDO ministerial team have taken to engaging with, and listening to, children who have lived experience of armed conflict and its impacts. We strongly welcome this kind of engagement and would encourage the FCDO to continue to actively deepen and broaden their commitment to listening to, and acting on, the voices and views of a wide range of diverse children with lived experiences of extreme poverty.

However, the fact that the FCDO has not yet published an IDS, coupled with the frequent changes to ministerial portfolios, means it is challenging to identify a clear link between learning and evidence and the high-level strategic decisions being taken to tackle extreme poverty. Strategic decisions such as the Indo-Pacific tilt and the ‘course correct’ on ODA spending on women and girls appear to have been taken based on political incentive rather than evidence of the impact of such decisions on extreme poverty. This inconsistency of political will and oversight in the FCDO undermines long term sustainable development which is key to tackling extreme poverty.

It is worth noting that the FCDO and wider government consistently failed to engage with the evidence provided to them by civil society, parliamentarians, and other experts about the devastating impact of aid cuts on extreme poverty. Despite an overwhelming body of evidence that reducing aid funding would harm the UK’s contribution to achieving the SDGs, including SDG 1.1, the Government took the political decision to cut aid. 

4. How have the cuts impacted the FCDO's ability to reduce poverty, and was there any evidence that poverty was a consideration in deciding where the cuts would fall?

The UK is the only member of the G7 that has decided to cut aid spending as a proportion of GNI. This loss is critical. The changes to current and future allocations will have profound consequences for the FCDO’s ability to reduce extreme poverty.

In addition to cutting the aid budget, the UK has also made the political decision to include Covid-19 vaccine donations, debt relief and recycled Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) within the 0.5% aid budget. None of these interventions – whilst welcome – cost the UK any ‘new’ money this financial year, but counting them within the 0.5% budget means there are fewer resources available for other critical interventions to fight poverty. We strongly urge the FCDO to ensure that the accounting of Covid-19 vaccine donations, debt relief and SDRs does not lead to further cuts to development programming or spending.

Evidence suggests that poverty was not a central factor in deciding where the cuts would fall. In 2020, ICAI’s review points to the development programming portfolio being targeted for cuts given the more flexible nature of its aid funding, even though it focused on poverty alleviation. Statements from the Government have acknowledged the ‘difficult decisions’ that have had to have been made, but have not answered questions on impact assessments of the cuts, only that they were done in line with the Foreign Secretary’s ‘strategic priorities’. Within our own FCDO projects specifically, we were not asked to provide evidence on the impact any budgetary reductions would have on poverty.

The move to reduce aid spending to 0.5% of GNI in 2021 has continued to see FCDO aid cuts to poverty focused sectors and to the world’s poorest countries. For example, the budget for humanitarian assistance this financial year is 41% lower than spent in 2019, impacting countries like Yemen, where UK aid is being cut by 55%. There have also been further cuts to sectors like education, social protection, nutrition, food assistance, water and sanitation, and despite increases in 2020, the health sector budget is currently 40% lower this financial year than in 2019. FCDO’s current bilateral aid budget directly attributable to low and lower-middle income countries is currently 47% lower than 2019. Additionally, the UK is set to reduce its funding to the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) by £1.7 billion. IDA specifically focuses on supporting the world’s poorest countries.

In Yemen, which has been called “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” since 2017, more than 20 million people need humanitarian assistance. Yet in June 2021, UK aid cuts led to the termination of an FCDO-funded cash consortium, of which Save the Children was a member, that was providing 213,000 people with the equivalent of 80% of their minimum food basket requirement. This programme contributed to the roll-back of famine three years ago and has assisted in stemming historic cholera outbreaks. Our modelling suggested that withdrawal of this programme will take recipients’ nutrition levels not just back to where they were when the programme started but even lower.

5. How can the UK be most effective in tackling extreme poverty going forward in its capacity as a convener, thought leader and investor?

Whilst the UK has historically been a leader in reducing extreme poverty, the UK’s decision to cut the aid budget has undermined this global leadership role. This was exemplified by a significant reduction in its commitment at Nutrition for Growth (N4G) to tackle global malnutrition. The N4G process was initiated by the UK in 2013 and was a strong example of thought leadership and acting as a positive convener on the issue. The commitment is welcome, but the reduction is almost certainly a result of the reduced aid budget. Therefore, we would again urge the UK to return to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid to be more effective in tackling extreme poverty as a convener, thought leader and investor.

To tackle the increase in extreme poverty we encourage the FCDO to use the opportunity of the forthcoming International Development Strategy to outline an approach to the UK’s global engagement which invests in children’s health, education, nutrition, protection and gender equality. This should be done alongside ‘beyond aid’ efforts to promote fair economic systems, tackle climate change and promote peace and stability to end extreme poverty by 2030 in line with SDG1.1. This must be tracked by a robust and transparent results framework, with indicators aligned to the SDGs and progress assessed through disaggregated data. 

As poverty is rising as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, compounded by conflict and climate change, there are a number of specific actions we also recommend the UK Government take:

• Ensure bilateral and multilateral trade policy plays a key role in helping low-income countries’ exports grow and enable economic diversification towards sustainable, inclusive, and green pathways, according to their national development strategies.  
• Contribute to ending the pandemic, which is driving the increase in extreme poverty, by taking bold leadership and working with others to deliver on the Prime Minister’s G7 commitment to vaccinate the world by the end of 2022. Practically, we recommend that the UK commits to increase the scale and speed of dose sharing as well as providing strong funding commitments for both the 2022 ACT-A and CEPI replenishments, and uses its diplomatic capacity to scale up supply globally.
• Tackle the climate crisis by using its ongoing convening and thought leadership position as ongoing president of COP26 to ensure that the commitments made at the summit are fully implemented and do more to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis on children.
• Rapidly scale up the proportion of ODA spent on education to 15% of the overall aid budget and ensure that UK aid programming is reaching the most marginalised children, as education is a critical means to break intergenerational cycles of poverty.
• Promote and invest in health-system strengthening and primary healthcare on the road to Universal Health Coverage as a core pillar of all global health investments, as poor health outcomes are a driver of extreme poverty.
• Commit to tackle extreme poverty by improving the nutrition of 50 million children under-five, women of childbearing age and adolescent girls by 2025, by investing £600m for 2021-25 towards programmes that directly target the reduction of malnutrition.