World Vision UK Submission to International Development Committee Inquiry

Extreme poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals

1. We welcome the opportunity to provide evidence to the International Development Committee’s inquiry into extreme poverty and the sustainable development goals. World Vision is the world's largest international children's charity. We are a Christian multi-mandated organisation implementing relief, development, and advocacy activities for children, their families, and communities to overcome poverty and injustice. We work with communities in 100 countries to help improve the lives of millions of people worldwide.

2. Through World Vision’s work with children and their communities we have seen how the needs of the most vulnerable around the world are not contained within the silos of development projects but are interconnected. If the international community is going to achieve SDG 1.1, then policymakers and donors such as the FCDO must be committed to tackling all the SDGs together. Health, nutrition, education, safe environments for children and women, peace and stability, humanitarian work, and other areas of development are needed to create a sustainable and prosperous future. Similarly, the only way the UK Government can truly tackle extreme poverty is by addressing UK development, diplomatic, and defence policies in an integrated approach. The FCDO cannot view the solution to poverty as a purely economic endeavour but must consider the interconnectedness of extreme poverty with its overlapping issues whilst recognising the need for a cross-department UK Government strategy which includes development alongside diplomacy and defence policy.

How well is UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) targeted towards tackling extreme poverty and how effectively do the FCDO policies and programmes contribute to the achievement of Target 1.1 of SDG 1?

3. The UK Government must prioritise the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable in its aid and development strategy. If the UK Government wishes to live up to its title of “Global Britain”, short-term British interests (including trade interests) must come second to the central aim of effective, long-term development programmes targeted at sustainably alleviating poverty and achieving the other SDGs. This has always been at the core of Official Development Assistance and must remain so.
    
4. To tackle extreme poverty, the UK must focus its policies and programmes to reach the immediate needs of those living in extreme poverty and have a simultaneous long-term approach that addresses the gendered, transgenerational factors preventing the eradication of poverty. Currently the FCDO’s approach is too siloed to make meaningful progress on eradicating extreme poverty.

Child lens

5. While the UK has made strong progress on embedding its vision for gender equality into ODA programming, a child lens is missing from the FCDO’s policies. For example, the FCDO is currently not able to track spending on children generally or on ending violence against children, for example, being able to disaggregate data within VAWG programming to see how much is targeted at girls under 18. This is a huge gap in regard to the FCDO’s ability to target ODA towards those who need it most, particularly children and young people born into extreme poverty. For ODA to be effectively targeted, the FCDO should introduce a child lens into its ODA spend to effectively target ODA towards those who need it most.[1] Introducing a Ministerial Champion for Children whose role would be to advocate for the rights of children in all areas of the FCDOs work.

Fragility

6. Furthermore, siloing between conflict and humanitarian contexts on one side and development contexts on the other is preventing a nuanced understanding of the interconnectedness of extreme poverty and fragility, and the complexity of the development-humanitarian nexus in many contexts. Through World Vision’s Fragile Contexts Programming Approach, we have suggested that by adopting a blended programming, aid actors can break down the silos between humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding approaches to offer a holistic approach that takes in the full spectrum of needs that are connected to extreme poverty. The ultimate outcome of this approach is to ensure that children, families, and communities feel they have the tools and are empowered to make decisions that will enable them to survive, adapt and thrive in any fragile contexts at any given time.

7. A fundamental part of the Fragile Contexts Programming Approach is building intentional partnerships at international, national, and local levels with civil society, donors, peer agencies, the private sector, faith-based organisations, governments, and institutions, among others, bilaterally and through existing coordination mechanisms. World Vision believes that to address fragility, partnerships are required to co-create solutions, advocate for change, and open new investment. Given the number of stakeholders working across the nexus of peacebuilding, humanitarian, and development, it is vital that efforts are aligned. Therefore, the FCDO must prioritize fragile contexts within the overall department structure and within policy.

8. Additionally, some cities are emerging as a new category of fragility; specifically, in the development and security landscape. With more than half of the world’s population living in cities. Urban centres are reshaping the dynamics of poverty, vulnerability to disasters, conflicts, and violence[2] – especially when situated in fragile states, which is the case for many Latin American countries. Despite being at the forefront of inter-related crises in cities, children and youth, especially the most marginalised, face discrimination and exclusion from decision-making processes in urban planning, climate change mitigation, and local governance. The FCDO must recognise the specific needs of those living within highly populated areas within their policy and programming. They must also act to include children and youth living in urban areas within their decision-making processes as they often lack direct representation of their needs.

How might the FCDO’s strategy, policies and programmes need to change as the number of people in extreme poverty grows due to the global pandemic or the effects of climate change?

9. The numbers of those in extreme poverty rose in 2020 for the first time. In 2020, the World Bank estimated as many 115 million extra people would be pushed into extreme poverty by 2021.[3] There is an increasing risk of a vicious cycle, where extreme poverty leads to other SDGs not being met, subsequently resulting in even greater levels of extreme poverty long-term. COVID-19 has led to a significant increase in extreme poverty and a roll-back on other SDGs that are both linked to and resulting from increases in extreme poverty. Children bear the greatest cost of this, with increasing child protection risks because of the secondary impacts of COVID-19, including the economic downturn and the global increase in extreme poverty.

10. The FCDO must keep children at the heart of their strategy, policy, and programmes if they are to “build back better” and be a “force for good”. In their response to the global pandemic and the effects of climate change, the FCDO must invest in strengthening the systems and services to make sure children grow up healthy, educated and protected. This will also be aided by the appointment of a Ministerial Champion for Children.

COVID-19’s Impact on Children

11. As families’ incomes plummet, millions more children are at risk of extreme poverty, secondary health impacts, and child protection risks. The UN projects that up to 66 million more children could fall into extreme poverty because of the COVID-19 pandemic, adding to the estimated 385 million children who were already living in extreme poverty in 2019. Up to 8 million children will be pushed into child labour and begging. Spikes in sexual violence and exploitation, child marriage and child labour are already occurring and will continue as family incomes and livelihoods become strained. At the same time, children are less able to seek help. Child protection and social support services are not seen as ‘essential workers’ and services are reduced or unavailable. UNFPA predicts 13 million extra child marriages in the next 10 years, due to the economic downturn leading to more girls/families choosing for girls to marry, and the decrease in existing programming to end child marriage, exacerbated by the cuts to UK Aid. Fewer children are accessing education and therefore risk losing the progress on their education. The United Nations now estimates that nearly 11 million primary and secondary school learners worldwide – 5.2 million of whom are girls – are at risk of not returning to education following school closures due to COVID-19.

12. As such, the FCDO’s response should respond on multiple layers, taking a holistic view of the risks children face due to the COVID-19 pandemic and responding accordingly. For example, World Vision research has found that by prioritising the elimination of child labour, this will catalyse momentum on a range of SDGs, including those on economic development, education, gender equality and extreme poverty. [4] Effective policies and programmes focus on the primary issue, whilst simultaneously acknowledging and responding to the problem’s multiple facets. The FCDO’s strategy, policies, and programmes therefore need to be targeted and holistic, and more comprehensive in scale and scope than they have been to date.

Economic recovery from COVID-19 and microfinance

13. To respond to widespread economic disruption and increase in extreme poverty following the COVID-19 pandemic, World Vision’s microfinance arm VisionFund has developed a set of tools and methods termed “recovery lending”. VisionFund pioneered recovery lending in the Philippines after the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan, and later provided recovery lending in Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia through a DFID grant, responding to the damage caused by El Nino induced droughts and floods. The recovery lending approach fills a gap in community resilience and relief efforts by financially empowering individuals and community groups to restore livelihoods, markets, and value chains by providing meaningful amounts of finance needed to restore an economic activity; or diversify to a new one if needed. The recovery lending approach complements traditional humanitarian assistance by providing large investment amounts to support livelihood restoration, supporting both the client's family and the wider community. It has shown how a MicroFinance Insitution’s intimate knowledge of the economic life of the communities it serves and its presence in these communities makes such a finessed approach possible. Injection of capital through recovery lending also stimulates local economies.

14. We advocate that the FCDO prioritise the recovery of livelihoods through the provision of recovery lending to microfinance clients and savings group members within their strategy to tackle extreme poverty. Additionally, we advocate for the support of the design and delivery of affordable microinsurance products that protect the income and health of the most vulnerable. External evaluation through TANGO and Asian Development Bank, supports the success of recovery lending, showing shown how this approach accelerates the extent and speed of recovery and restoration of livelihoods. 

Climate change

15. Climate change also poses a considerable challenge to achieving SDG 1.1. The combination of environmental degradation and the impact of climate related shocks, such as floods and droughts, are making it increasingly hard for some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities to ensure food security and sufficient nutrition, especially for young children. Damaged and destroyed landscapes and ecosystems are less able to support agriculture and pastoralism, especially when this is largely rain-fed rather than supported by irrigation and other technology. 

16. The FCDO’s strategy should increase its focus on ecosystem restoration, and the regeneration of trees, forests, and landscapes, to support the livelihoods of the most vulnerable. There are a wide variety of ‘Nature Based Solutions’[5] that can assist vulnerable communities to adapt to climate change, restore degraded environments,[6] increase biodiversity and contribute to poverty alleviation. However, there are also many approaches that can do more harm than good if implemented in the wrong way, so it is important these follow best practice guidelines such as those developed by the Nature Based Solutions Initiative at Oxford University.

17. World Vision has pioneered the ‘Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration’ approach to reforestation and is currently supporting vulnerable communities in restoring forests and trees in 27 countries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. [7] This is a low-cost solution that has the impact of restoring forests and degraded land, leading to positive outcomes in terms of food security, reduced disaster risks, and the potential for communities to access carbon credits.[8] World Vision believes that approaches such as FMNR can play a significant role in achieving the aims of the Declaration on Forests and Land Use, as signed at COP256, as well as improving food security and child nutrition.[9]

18. Climate change is a threat multiplier, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable girls and boys. Climate action must therefore be child-centred and inclusive. The FCDO should embed children’s rights to environmental education and access to information in decisions under the Action for Climate Empowerment of the UNFCCC dialogue and associated decisions in accordance with the UNCRC.  They must also ensure the participation of the urban poor and vulnerable in climate action at all levels and investing in training and capacity building to enable the meaningful participation of those who are most vulnerable.[10]

How effectively do the FCDO’s strategy, policies and programmes address the needs of women and girls in extreme poverty?

19. Evidence suggests that unless we end violence against women and girls (VAWG) globally, we won’t achieve at least 14 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.[11] It is essential that governments operationalise existing polices and put in place legal frameworks to enable full equality for women. It is essential that the FCDO prioritises ending violence against women and girls across all SDG goals. Considering the cuts to UK foreign aid, it is fundamental to emphasise that funding is key to achieving this.[12] The FCDO must increase investment and financing for gender equality, violence prevention, social norms change and women’s and girls’ empowerment across all sectors including agriculture, education and culture, care services, social protection, health, infrastructure, justice, and water and sanitation. They must also invest in, and support the work of, organisations and movements, particularly those working on violence prevention, through core, long-term and flexible funding.

Inclusion of girls

20. Although women and girls share many of the same needs, it is crucial that they are not compounded into one group. The needs of women and girls in extreme poverty are not necessarily the same. Currently, the focus on girls is largely limited to education and ending child marriage. In other aspects of programming, girls are being left behind because their specific experiences are not being considered. Girls also face double obstacles because of their gender and their age. Whilst the political empowerment of women and their participation are included in both the Strategic Vision and the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, there is nothing on participation of girls. The FCDO must include consultation and participation of girls in their strategy to ensure this child-specific viewpoint within all their gender specific programmes. The FCDO have already demonstrated their commitment to working with women’s rights organisations, however the FCDO should also prioritise working with youth networks or girl-focused organisations. If we are to achieve SDG 1, we must look at how girls on the one hand, and women on the other hand interact differently with the issue of extreme poverty, to identify what their unique needs are.
     

Financing

21. The gains made in FCDO funded programmes, for example IGATE in Zimbabwe, highlights the need to remove the barriers women and girls face accessing education and the importance of tackling barriers to their safety. Only then can we enable women and girls, and the next generation, to overcome extreme poverty and reduce the violation of their rights. However, the ODA statistics over the last few years have shown that there is a move away from channelling funding through NGOs and redirected through other methods.[13] For example, more money is going to the UK Development Finance institution (CDC), to debt relief, and to multilaterals. Experience of IGATE has demonstrated that a huge part of World Vision’s success was because of the long-term relationship World Vision Zimbabwe already had with communities due to its local nature. Therefore, should the UK Government wish to address the needs of women and girls in extreme poverty in a meaningful way, it must redirect more money through NGOs with long-term community links.

22. In November 2021, the Foreign Secretary committed to restore funding to women and girls to the level before the cuts to ODA, but with no timeline or details.[14] She also announced £18 million of new funding to end child marriage through the Joint Programme run through UNICEF and UNFPA. However, World Vision heard that a business plan for a separate FCDO programme was overturned. This programme is necessary to tackle child marriage in fragile and emergency contexts which are not covered by the Joint Programme and allow funding to get directly to communities – rather than through the UN. There is a disconnect here if the FCDO wants to meet commitments to have every girl in school and learning.

23. Evidence from World Vision’s work across the different contexts shows that acknowledging the lived experiences and challenges of women and girls, including those with disability, as well as designing programmes with them can result to more lasting impact not only for women and girls but also for their wider community.[15] However, more work needs to be done to better address intersecting vulnerabilities due to gender, age, disability and other social factors that hinder girls and women from enjoying their rights and to overcome poverty and these must remain a priority in policies and must be resourced in the programmes supported by FCDO.

How effectively does the FCDO review the outcomes of the projects and programmes it funds that tackle extreme poverty? What evidence is there that UK aid is being used to build pathways from extreme poverty to sustainable livelihoods?

24. Tackling extreme poverty requires a coordinated approach across departments and governments. Some UK Aid funded programmes are piloting pathways out of extreme poverty, but these must be scaled up if they are to be successful. Pilot approaches from the Partnership Against Child Exploitation (PACE) programme aim to enhance digital skills in children and young people who are at risk of exploitation due to extreme poverty and vulnerability in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia. These pilots aim to open opportunities for safe employment, as well as working with investor groups to apply top-down pressure on businesses to ensure proper due diligence that goes deeper than the first few layers of supply. These initiatives could be supported by UK Government policy, for example, requiring UK companies that operate overseas or that have delivery chains overseas, under UK law, to take steps to focus equally on the triple bottom line of people, planet, profit. Additionally, requirements under UK legislation to reduce their impact on the environment and practices within their supply chain that may be harmful to people (for example, child labour and exploitation) would also support these efforts. However, the PACE programme has been severely affected by the cuts to UK aid. As a result, it has been forced to shut down operations in the Central African Republic, despite higher levels of extreme poverty, fragility and vulnerability. The sudden cuts to the CAR programme risks a backslide on development gains Therefore, if the UK Government does not seek to undermine its own efforts to achieve SDG 1, it must not only review programmes with pathways out of extreme poverty, but develop an integrated development and foreign policy approach which scales up what works.

What evidence is there to suggest the FCDO is learning and applying lessons from its policies and programmes, so they more effectively tackle extreme poverty and does the FCDO have a good evidence base for what does and does not work?

25. DFID’s £25 million five year What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Programme was a flagship DFID programme and a strong model for developing the evidence base of what does and does not work. [16] The findings of this research across the twelve countries and recommendations have provided concrete recommendations for FCDO, other donors and implementing partners to address violence against women and girls.  What Works to Prevent Violence – Impact at Scale (What Works II) will build on this evidence base and apply lessons learned to scale up prevention programming and influence a more effective global response. Based on the findings from What Works I, it will also improve understanding of the relationship between VAWG and violence against children.

26. For the UK Government to build its knowledge base of what works to end extreme poverty, it should develop a child rights strategy to focus on the needs of children and champion their rights across the department, in order to build the FCDO’s evidence base and understand of trans-generational impacts of policy.

What effect have the cuts in UK ODA had on the FCDO’s ability to address extreme poverty? What evidence is there to suggest poverty was a key consideration in deciding where the cuts should fall?

27. The UK Government aid cuts have severely hindered the government’s ability to reach its own targets in reducing extreme poverty. The exact numbers of those affected by the cuts to aid, either directly or indirectly, are difficult to establish. However, based on World Vision data, we can see the cuts to UK Aid are having a disproportionate impact on the world’s most vulnerable children, therefore risking a backslide on addressing SDG 1. There was very little evidence of the decision-making process which the FCDO went through to decide where the cuts to UK Aid should fall, but it is unlikely that extreme poverty was a factor. Rhetoric from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State revealed that the UK wanted to focus on countries which had a strategic focus for the UK, for trade, diplomatic or security interests. Indeed, “aid in the national interest” seemed to be the dominant theme in the UK’s decision making, as became clear through programme examples.

28. On top of the cut to 0.5% of GDP, the share of that amount that goes to ODA through NGOs is being increasingly squeezed. For example, £580 million debt relief for Sudan was passed as ODA in 2022.[17] This strategic categorization of what counts as ODA means that funds are not being spent where it is most needed, for example in tackling extreme poverty. ODA should always be targeted to where the need is greatest to ensure it is spent the most effectively to achieve the most sustainable change. It is undeniable that the UK aid cuts, coupled with the redirection of aid to countries of interest to the UK’s foreign policy and/or trade aims, has disproportionately affected the world’s most vulnerable children.

29. Clearly these cuts are short-sighted, risking setbacks on years of development gains. For example, prior to the NATO withdrawal and subsequent change in governance of Afghanistan, aid to the country was cut by almost 80%. After the de-facto authorities took control of Afghanistan the UK did double its aid to Afghanistan, but this figure still fell short of the pre-aid cut levels. With 70% of Afghanistan’s education budget funded by foreign investment, clearly cutting the aid budget is only going to hinder the country’s progress.

30. The World Vision led PACE consortium programme has seen a 50% cut to the remaining budget – a cut which was announced one month into programming, causing administration complications and difficulties. This complex grant (funded by UK Aid Connect) involves six consortium partners, each working on different drivers of Worst Forms of Child Labour in fragile states. It aims to find and implement effective methods to reduce the worst forms of child labour in fragile states: Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic. Due to these cuts the project is being closed in the Central African Republic, where World Vision has worked for two and a half years, 18 months before its initial end date, despite the high levels of fragility, poverty, and vulnerability which most communities live in. The prevalence of child labour in the Central African Republic is higher than in the Democratic Republic of Congo,6 however as the Central African Republic is not a priority country for the FCDO it has been disproportionately impacted by the cuts. In all three countries the COVID-19 pandemic caused serious damage to the economy of low-income families. As a result, more families have no options to survive other than rely on children to help provide for basic needs, often in Worst Forms of Child Labour. The recent budget cut will reduce the ability of the PACE project to serve vulnerable children and their families through project interventions, and risks a serious backslide on the development gains made over the project’s lifetime, hindering the Government’s own ability to achieve SDG 1.