Tearfund written submission to the International Development Committee:

The impact of Coronavirus on developing countries

17 April 2020

Summary

1.            Christian relief and development agency, Tearfund welcomes this opportunity to submit written evidence to the International Development Committee. Tearfund works through local churches and other locally based organisations in over 50 countries.

2.            We are concerned that an international response implemented mainly through multilateral organisations including the United Nations (UN), without adequate emphasis on supporting the work of local responders who are often best placed to ensure early, effective and sustainable action, could limit the impact of the response.The bureaucratic barriers that limit and slow down the localisation of aid will have far reaching negative consequences.

3.            The UK’s response to the spread of Coronavirus (COVID- 19) in developing countries must recognise and support the role of crisis affected communities and local humanitarian responders, including local faith actors in shaping context appropriate responses. This should include consulting with local civil society, and ensuring improved access to flexible funding for local and national actors.

4.            Although the UK government announced on 12th April, that £200 million funding will be allocated to the COVID- 19 response internationally, only £20 million of this is allocated to NGO applications. This seems far from sufficient to facilitate a strong, locally relevant humanitarian response across the 15 countries DfiD has identified as vulnerable.The £20 million is similar to amounts the UK Government ‘might disburse for a major crisis in one country, rather than the amount needed to tackle a global pandemic in the 15 countries DFID has identified as at risk.’ [1]

5.            Learning from Ebola shows that Local Faith Communities (LFCs) and Faith Based Organisations (FBOs) play an invaluable role in humanitarian preparedness and response.[2] Their access to communities, as well as the trust placed in them by communities and their understanding of local culture and practices, makes them uniquely placed in ensuring the dissemination of health and behaviour change messages. It is imperative that faith actors are provided the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the amendment and outworking of national and local level response plans in each country including UN OCHA Humanitarian Response Plans.

6.            The COVID-19 outbreak, and the consequent mitigation measures, are impacting the opportunities for fundraising (due to festivals, events and church services currently being cancelled), and the type of giving (due to financial uncertainty people are making one off donations, rather than regular commitments). We are concerned that this could negatively impact the relief and development work we are involved in.

The UK’s response, bilaterally and with the international community, to the spread of coronavirus to developing countries

7.            The UK’s response to the spread of COVID- 19 in developing countries must recognise and support the role of crisis affected communities and local humanitarian responders, including local faith actors in shaping context appropriate responses. Unless communities at the local level are adequately consulted and engaged, the spread of the virus will not be effectively stemmed.

8.            The UN’s Global Humanitarian Response Plan for COVID-19 stresses ‘the importance of involving and supporting local organizations given the key role they are playing in this crisis, which is increasingly being characterised by limited mobility and access for international actors ’[3].

9.            Global and country-level DFID-funded programmes should be urged to clarify how they are consulting local civil society at all stages of the response.

10.            Additionally, DfiD should ensure UN agencies swiftly implement the Flexible Funding for Humanitarian Response and COVID19 commitments[4].

11.            We have been informed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) that UN Humanitarian Country Teams will be updating their Humanitarian Response Plans in light of COVID-19 in the coming weeks.  OCHA was criticised for omissions in its initial COVID 19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan (GHRP)[5]  including the poor understanding of risks facing older people[6] which could exacerbate existing ‘gaps in social protection and health policy and WHO advice in regards to older people’[7]

12.            OCHA are reportedly looking to revise the GHRP with increased input from the local level and disseminate the new version on or around 1 May. Thereafter, the GHRP will continue to be updated on a monthly basis,regularly capturing ongoing country-level adjustments to the needs analysis and response. It is imperative that local civil society including local faith actors are provided the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the amendment and outworking of UN OCHA Humanitarian Response Plans in each country.

13.            The UK being one of the top contributors to humanitarian pooled funds including the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and UN Country Based Pooled Fund (CBPF) must ensure that these facilitate and strengthen the work of local responders, including local NGOs and non NGO partners like faith leaders.

14.            Local and national organisations that we partner with in several countries have reported that the application and selection processes for CBPFs in particular are onerous and not transparent enough. DFID should urge OCHA to outline how they plan to improve access to CBPFs to local and national actors. It is concerning that this is not specifically addressed in the recently published flexibility guidance on CBPFs[8] by OCHA.

15.            Although the UK government announced on 12th April[9], that £200 million funding will be allocated to the COVID- 19 response internationally, only  £20 million of this is allocated to NGO applications. This seems far from sufficient to facilitate a strong, locally relevant humanitarian response across the 15 countries DfiD has identified as vulnerable.The £20 million is similar to amounts the UK Government ‘might disburse for a major crisis in one country, rather than the amount needed to tackle a global pandemic in the 15 countries DFID has identified as at risk[10].’ 

16.            We and many other NGOs are also concerned that the remainder of the UK funding, much of which will be allocated via UN agencies may not support a rapid, localised response. Whilst working via multilateral agencies like UN agencies (who have been allocated £130 million funding by the UK government) may allow for greater coordination, historically, UN cluster coordination structures have been criticised for having little local civil society representation. Furthermore, information and funding from UN agencies have been difficult for local and national NGOs to access.

17.            Improved access and involvement of local and national NGOs to mechanisms such as UN CBPFs is vital to ‘allow a response that is better equipped to address underlying causes of conflict and inequality, and mitigate the impacts that a humanitarian-only response would have on long term development – built off of those best placed to respond.’[11]

18.            We alongside other Charter4Change signatories and endorsers would like to stress that, “Outside of direct donor-to-grantee funding dynamics, CBPFs are one of only a handful of instruments available that offers local actors’ access to high volumes of direct funding...CBPFs also operate in high-risk environments with severe access restrictions due to insecurity. Given the specific vulnerability of communities in the 18 high-risk countries that CBPFs currently exist in, to the impact of the Covid-19, alongside their limited ability to access necessary assistance, it is clear CBPF’s will be an essential funding mechanism for response work”[12].

19.            In line with Grand Bargain commitments, it is important that funding is accessible to local and national partners, who play a vital role in this response. The funding streams also need to be flexible to allow for changes needed to adapt to developments in the situation. Greater flexibility will also allow both international and local actors to adapt to a more locally led approach.[13]

20.            We are concerned that a response implemented mainly through multilateral institutions and national governments, that often do not adequately support or coordinate with the work of local responders who are often best placed to ensure early, effective and sustainable action, could limit the impact of the response. The bureaucratic barriers that limit and slow down the localisation of aid will have far reaching negative consequences. UN agencies and national governments should be urged to consult, and work with local civil society in their response to COVID- 19.

21.            Furthermore, as a leader on disability-inclusion globally, the UK Government has a crucial role in ensuring that people with disabilities are not left behind in the response to this crisis. It is essential that responses to COVID- 19 recognise the specific situation for people with disabilities and older people and ensures that those most at risk from COVID- 19 are at the center of this response by:

21.1.            Working directly with people with disabilities, and their representative organisations, when developing and implementing responses to the crisis

21.2.            Ensuring that any resources, including health promotion messaging, are produced in a broad range of accessible formats

21.3.            Monitoring disability inclusion and collecting disaggregated data – this will be crucial to improve the current response and to inform future work.

22.            People with disabilities, particularly women and girls, face increased risks and barriers to accessing healthcare than their non-disabled peers and this is worsened in times of humanitarian crisis, where the risk of gender-based violence is also increased. A global increase in gender based violence has already been reported.[14]

Lessons identified and learned/applied from previous experience with infectious diseases (for example, Ebola); the implications for DFID’s policy on a global health strategy

23.            The IDC’s 2016 Inquiry Report Ebola: Responses to a public health emergency, which Tearfund submitted evidence to, said: ‘Engaging communities early is vital to responding to a public health emergency. It is unhelpful just to see cultural practices as a barrier to tackling an outbreak, as this can foster distrust between medical professionals and communities. Local and faith leaders can provide a valuable avenue for spreading important public health information and good practices. In future outbreak responses, DFID must engage communities early and build community engagement into the fundamentals of its response. [...] To further facilitate this, DFID should also work more closely with local civil society and voluntary organisations, many of whom have long-established relationships with local communities over many years.’[15]

24.            Local Faith Communities (LFCs) and Faith Based Organisations (FBOs) play an invaluable role in humanitarian preparedness and response, as demonstrated through lessons learnt during the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa and more recently in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  Faith leaders and FBOs hold a high degree of trust and influence[16] in their communities. They often support the most vulnerable to access government services[17],  help the local government understand the needs of the community and are often present in hard to access and insecure regions where no other networks are present.

25.            The knowledge that faith leaders have of the local cultural, economic and social norms of their community is indispensable, and they are often the first responders in the aftermath of disasters.

26.            During health emergencies, there is a heavy emphasis on ensuring public health messages, especially focused on WASH are disseminated to communities through public media channels. There is inadequate attention on disseminating accurate, accessible, contextualised and faith sensitive messages through faith leaders.

27.            The importance of working in partnership with faith actors is recognised by DFID in its Faith Partnership Principles[18] and briefly reflected in the World Health Organization’s COVID Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan operational guidelines. It is imperative that these guidelines are outworked and that faith actors are given the opportunity to meaningfully engage with the amendment and outworking of UN OCHA Humanitarian Response Plans and other response strategies in each country. We know that 84% of the world’s population identify with a religious group[19]. Africans are more likely to contact religious leaders about an important problem, or to share their views, over other leadership figures including traditional leaders, MPs, councillors or other officials[20]. Faith actors can support national and international actors to strengthen the global public health and humanitarian response.

28.            Research by Tearfund, Islamic Relief, Christian Aid and CAFOD on the Ebola response, Keeping the Faith (2015) shows faith actors – priests, nuns, pastors,   lay-preachers, imams and muezzins in churches & mosques and in communities have an essential role in promoting safe spacing, restrictions and behaviour change essential to ‘slow the spread, reduce infection, illness and death’. The key lessons from the inter-agency research report, Keeping the Faith, are:

28.1.            Ebola could not be addressed by the secular humanitarian system alone and neither could it be brought under control as a consequence of the actions of faith communities alone: it was both of these, plus traditional leaders, working together, that offered potential to improve the situation.

28.2.            The essential role played by faith leaders in social mobilisation and behaviour change. The confidence that initially existed in a purely medical approach to the Ebola virus disease outbreak was misplaced; health facilities, treatment units and case management were important. But they missed an essential element: to mobilise communities to change behaviour. In many cases neither health staff nor the government could do this. Instead, the local community itself was best placed to effect change, and faith leaders, as trusted and respected members of communities, played an important role as agents of social change.

28.3.            The effectiveness of an Inter-faith approach: In Sierra Leone, Christian and Muslim faith leaders established an important ground rule: to focus on issues that united them against the virus. This led to conversation on how to address the Ebola outbreak and to find similarities in their religious texts in how to promote behaviour change. The coherence in messaging of the two major religions and the unity of message delivery was a key platform for change.

28.4.            The value of engaging with faith leaders in two-way communication with communities The international humanitarian system has historically been weak in engaging local communities in the provision of assistance. The engagement of faith leaders in the Ebola response as community representatives in two-way discussions permitted the contextualisation of behaviour change messages. The response offers a rare example of power being shifted from the international to the local level and serves as an important example for humanitarian response elsewhere.

29.            Faith communities that Tearfund is supporting are already responding rapidly to the spread of COVID- 19. For instance, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), in light of the arrival of COVID-19, faith leaders are broadcasting messages on radio stations and using bulk text messages to communicate with their congregations whilst observing social distancing measures to prevent large gatherings. Faith leaders in the country have been playing a vital role in conveying public health messages to communities in the recent Ebola response and are continuing to play an invaluable role in responding to COVID-19[21].

The impact of the outbreak, and consequential mitigation measures, on fund-raising by UK-based development charities/NGOs

30.            Approximately one third of Tearfund's income comes from government grants and contracts, while the other two thirds is voluntary income from private individuals, churches, trusts and foundations. Having a range of sources of income provides some stability, as it means we are not overly-dependent on one particular income stream.

31.            Some types of income have been impacted more immediately than others. In particular, due to closure of public venues and social distancing measures, we are no longer able to fundraise from the public in churches or at events. We would normally use these opportunities to sign up new monthly givers, so the closure of these opportunities will have a multi-year impact on our voluntary income. We not only lose out this year, but also miss out on future years' income from committed monthly givers.

32.            We are able to move some fundraising activities online and people are responding quite well. Due to economic and personal financial uncertainty, the public are more comfortable giving one off donations at present. This is understandable, but increases our fundraising costs as we anticipate having to spend more money next year to generate more one off gifts. Additionally, one off donations do not provide the same security of income as regular giving, making it harder to predict income and plan programmatic work.

7