Submission of Evidence to the International Development Committee Inquiry into the Impact of Racism in the Aid Sector 
The Equity Index and The Advocacy Team have collaborated to jointly submit evidence to the International Development Committee (IDC’s) inquiry into the impact of racism in the development sector. 
The Equity Index
The Equity Index is a UK social enterprise advocating for greater equity across the international development sector by measuring how equitable UK international development organisations are internally, and in their work with the global South. A feminist and anti-racist organisation, The Equity Index measures and tracks the multiple dimensions of equity, including racial and gender equity, equity in knowledge production, in funding, in collaborations and more. Hence, The Equity Index will generate new evidence about how a combination of transparency, targeted advocacy, and the measuring and publishing of data can lead to serious engagement with equitable practice and commitment to sustained change. In July 2020 the Equity Index began work on a  pilot index, funded by The Joffe Charitable Trust, examining equity in UK international development consultancies.  
The Advocacy Team 
The Advocacy Team is a consultancy practice providing policy, advocacy and campaigning services to international organisations. Established 2018 The Advocacy Team has advocated for an anti-racist and inclusive development sector from the outset. Notably, the Advocacy Team runs and largely finances 'Opening Doors - a free and bespoke training programme that supports people who come from ethnic minority and other backgrounds that are under-represented in the international development sector to transition into paid career opportunities though training courses, career support services and networking opportunities. Opening Doors trainees have gone on to secure employment with some of the biggest organisations in international development.  Through workshops and training the Advocacy Team has supported a number of organisations including BOND and the Malala Fund to think through how they can practically apply an anti-racist approach to advocacy. 
Summary of our key recommendations to address racism in the aid sector 
UK Government 
●	Address the UK’s historical role in contributing to the ‘under-development’ of countries around the world and the UK’s leading role in trans-Atlantic slave-trade, colonialism and other forms of exploitation (a concept explored by Walter Rodney in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa and many other work(s).  
●	Positively respond to the call from the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM) 10 Point Reparations Plan. It remains a deep source of hurt that UK slave owners were compensated at the end of slavery, but enslaved people and their decendents are still ignored. 
●	Reframe the focus and objective of UK aid and development away from a neo-colonial approach that uses the aid budget to further the UK’s strategic interests, to an approach rooted in the notion of mutual interests, rights, equity and justice, which acknowledges that a progressive approach to aid and development is just one way  in which the UK can repair some of the damage it has contributed to in the global South.
Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)
●	Make equity central to the FCDO’s mission and objectives, and systematically review all policies, funding decisions and programmes for their impact on equity (building on but stretching beyond the inclusion of equity at the programme level in the former DFID’s value for money framework). 
●	Begin an honest conversation internally to reflect on why five years after the UK and other governments committed to targeting more funding directly to organisations in the global South through the Grand Bargain, the UK has not come close to the target of spending 25% of humanitarian funding directly with and through Southern organisations. 
●	Prioritise equity in FCDO procurement. As with the ‘value for money’ and safeguarding agendas, donor governments have considerable ability to influence the practice of their contractors through their procurement rules and priorities. To date, the FCDO has not required its contractors to have an equitable or anti-racist approach. Adopting such an approach could be transformative. 
●	Measure UK and other ODA spending on tackling racism. In recent years, the UK has been a powerful voice in calling for a stronger gender focus in aid spending. Unlike gender, there is no comparable way to measure, track, assess or compare donor spending on anti-racist initiatives. 
●	End the FCDO’s ‘reserved status’ for development-focused staff to enable the organisation to hire new staff with nationalities outside of the UK. Development decisions must be informed by people with both policy expertise and lived experience of the countries where the FCDO operates. People from the Global South should be actively encouraged and supported to contribute to the FCDO’s work. 
International Development Committee 
●	Ensure issues of racism and equity remain on the IDC’s agenda throughout this Parliament. 
●	Significantly increase the number of Black people invited to give evidence to the IDC. Our examination of experts who have given evidence to the IDC since 2019 has found that just in six different inquiries (excluding this ongoing inquiry) only 11 were People of Colour (PoC) and just 4 out of 58 experts were black, including the FCDO minister James Cleverly. 
●	Recommend that all development agencies that are legally required to collect equity related data (for example data on gender and ethnic pay gaps) make these available publicly. 

Responses to Specific Questions 
Q1. What are the historical processes that have led to countries and organisations from the global North from dominating the international aid sector? 
We would highlight three powerful historical processes that have contributed to the dominance of organisations from the global North in the aid sector - (1) colonialism, (2)  neo-colonial strategies that have been designed to enable Northern governments to maintain power and influence in the global South and (3) the growth of powerful and well resourced Northern aid organisations. 
Colonialism and Development 
In the book How to be an Anti-racist, Professor Ibram X. Kendi places the origins of racism in 15th century Europe, beginning with Portugal. In Kendi’s understanding, systems of racial hierarchy which placed white Europeans at the top and black Africans at the bottom were established for the purpose of justifying the huge wealth that would be accumulated to Europeans and their governments through exploitation and eventually the trade in human bondage. 
Capitalism, exploitation and the promise of ‘development’ have worked in tandem in both historical and contemporary relationships between European countries and many countries in the global South. Through the work of missionaries, the earliest ‘aid workers’ sought to physically, culturally and spiritually ‘develop’ communities across the global South.  Early missionaries played a double role; complicit in the exploitation of local populations, yet their work and legitimacy came from working directly with these communities. Some Christian missionaries were also slave-owners, professing the gospel with one breath while participating in the economic exploitation and subjugation of the people they worked so hard to persuade that ‘Jesus loved’.  We see parallels in the tripartite relationships between the early missionaries, colonial administrations and communities, and between the modern aid workers, donor governments and the very same communities today. In our personal experiences, we have seen and heard instances of parties and other engagements held in African countries where national and local staff were deliberately and routinely excluded, as well as evidence of deeply racist attitudes about national governments, staff and communities. The written and unwritten rules that govern these relationships such as the concentration of power in the form of financial resources with the donor governments and INGOs, the privileging of English over national languages, and huge disparities in pay rates and consequently life-style between aid workers and national staff all contribute to maintaining a status quo where power and control sits with global North organisations and donor governments and where there are few opportunities for challenge or accountability. 
 Northern governments maintain control in the post-colonial era
In the post-war independence period, Northern governments have used a range of tactics to maintain influence, power and control over their former colonial territories, with aid and  development a key feature of this neo-colonial approach which according to the historian Walter Rodney, pursues power without any ensuing accountability or responsibility. Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab has said the UK’s priorities for development will be set where its “development, security, and economic interests align. 
This long history where the UK has used international aid as a tool for pursuing its strategic economic interests through promises and broken promises is perhaps best exemplified in the modern ‘scramble for Africa’. As was the case 300 years ago, Northern governments (and emerging Asian powers) still seek access to Africa’s rich natural resources including her gold, copper, bauxite, silver, cobalt and uranium, and they promise the financing needed for infrastructure and other developments in Africa in exchange for access to these natural resources. Since 2019, there has been a China-Africa investment Summit, a France-Africa investment summit and a Germany-Africa investment Summit. Afraid of being left behind, in January 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson invited political leaders from African countries to London for a UK-Africa investment summit, where the UK stated their aim to become the leading G7 investor in Africa. The conference claims to have facilitated over £6.5 billion in commercial deals and the UK Government announced over £1.5 billion of UK aid-funded initiatives that were expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs and mobilise over £2.4 billion of additional private investment for the continent. Twelve months later, development was largely missing from the virtual follow-up conference which was led by the Department for International Trade. And by April 2021, the UK went back on its promise of additional spending for development in Africa, and instead cut bilateral aid spending in African countries by 66%. 
The growth of powerful and well resourced Northern aid agencies 
UK aid charities are both rich and powerful. In 2015, UK NGOs delivered the equivalent of half of the UK’s aid budget, and collectively their contributions were larger than the aid budgets of several wealthy countries. The largest UK development INGOs represent a major presence in many countries, receive substantial sums from donors to carry out humanitarian assistance and development work, and they are influential actors in policy processes and in the global governance of aid. Donations from the British public is the most important source of funds for UK development NGOs, contributing nearly £10 billion between 2009 and 2015, 40% of the sector’s total income over this period. The powerful combination of well resourced INGOs and donor governments and an increasingly powerful UK INGO sector is a key factor in explaining the dominance of Northern organisations in international aid.
Until very recently, UK NGOs have largely disengaged from conversations about racism and anti-racism and the UK INGO sector is arguably behind other UK industries in terms of developing best practice in anti-racist policies and initiatives.  The testimonies of current and former staff who identify as People of Colour PoC, as well as external reviews, have shown that institutional racism is clearly a problem in some INGOs and other international development organisations.
There can be real tension and unease between UK INGOs and minority communities in the UK, where the latter supports the overall mission and focus of development organisations but have been personally hurt by the representation of countries in the global South. The author Chima famously wrote:
 "If I had not grown up in Nigeria, if all I knew about Africa were from popular images, I, too, would think Africa was a place of beautiful landscape, beautiful animals and incomprehensible people fighting senseless wars, dying of poverty and Aids, unable to speak for themselves and waiting to be saved by a kind white foreigner.”
UK development actors, including INGOs,share a real responsibility for perpetuating these racist narratives of Africa and of African people. 
Q2. What are the practical implications of the concentration of funding and resources in donors and international aid organisations from the global north?
The concentration of resources among donors has created a deeply uncomfortable dynamic in development where the Northern aid donors retain power and decision making and governments from the global South are vulnerable to rapid changes in the political dynamics, interests and priorities of donor countries. This is especially important in the context of multi-year and co-financed funding commitments, where as we have seen in the case of the UK, the donor can withdraw financial support with no prior warning, leaving Southern governments and their partners to deal with the consequential damage and disruption. This concentration of power also creates an uncomfortable power dynamic at key international forums, including fundraising and replenishment conferences where the stage is set for the benevolent Northern donor to give a generous financial commitment to a given programme or sector and for the leaders from the global South to plead for resources for the needs of their country. To be clear, this is not a criticism of the need for these resources to be contributed; but a call for an acknowledgement of the racial and historical dynamics at play in these settings and for more imagination and creativity in reforming how these international forums operate. 
One practical implication of the concentration of funding and resources in donors and international aid organisations from the global North is that project designs and solutions may not be accurate or effective within the location of focus. Concentrated funding from the global North can mean local expertise is devalued, which “brings back echoes of the white civiliser, offering superior skills, convinced this is the natural and inevitable order of things.”  It perpetuates an underlying idea that the global North exclusively holds the knowledge and development infrastructure solutions that can be applied to other countries. However, taking community input creates better project designs and implementation, because they understand the problems they are facing best. Degan Ali recalls the criticism her organisation, Adeso, received as they were the first to pioneer cash transfer in Somalia. Despite international organisations not understanding why cash would be a solution, she said they understood the local economy and its drought setting; “it was the Somalis who understood how household systems worked and why food aid was not suitable.” It has now become the standard solution for NGOs operating in the country. 

A third implication is therefore the low levels of disbursements made by donors and international aid organisations from the global North, to organisations from (created, owned and led by) the global South. There is also a lack of transparency in what these figures generally are. The Grand Bargain aims to improve this through different publishing mechanisms such as IATI. It has so far found that an estimated 2.1 per cent of total humanitarian assistance goes directly to “local and national actors.” There is no data on total development assistance and there is also no breakdown of the total amount global South organisations receive through supply chains from the global North. Disbursements have been published for some projects by IATI-compliant UK development consultancies. This is however, not the case for all active projects and for all compliant consultancies registered, let alone those that are not IATI-compliant. For greater transparency on where funding is going, consultancies and other implementing partners require more of a nudge to publish this data. The Equity Index is working towards pushing for more transparency within this area. Even within the former DFID, the annual procurement and commercial reports include the percentage of DFID revenue that was paid to “in-country supply partners.”  However, this data does not disaggregate between global South-owned organisations or UK organisations that have a registered branch as a separate company in the global South. UK Aid Direct, which is DFID’s primary centrally managed funding mechanism (formerly the Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF)) has some data on funding. However, it is clear from looking through the active project list, that the majority of funding is not going to global-South owned organisations, despite most of the projects being located there.  True ‘localisation’ involves moving towards more direct funding, ensuring communities have space to collaborate on and lead the design and implementation of aid projects and interventions. Greater transparency around funding reporting is therefore required, so that we know funding is not just concentrated between aid actors and international organisations from the global North. It is important for that funding to be distributed to the communities the projects will be affecting the most. This comes back to changing the culture and philosophy driving aid, which is why this inquiry is one we deem critical for the sector as a whole to move forward. 

Q3. Why do we need to have a discussion about racism in the aid sector?
We need to have discussions about racism across every aspect of UK society, including the aid sector, if we are to address the racial inequities that exist across society. To date, some development staff who identify as PoC have noted a reluctance within the aid sector to have these discussions. Writing about her experience of working in international development in  2018, Lorriann Robinson wrote that reform in the international development sector should begin by removing the collective blindfold when it comes to race. She wrote: 
“There is a huge reluctance to acknowledge, discuss, or to challenge the racial paradigms in development and it seems that everyone pretends race doesn’t matter. Universities may be packed with vibrant debates about post-colonial theory, but in the world of work, business as usual means ‘try not to mention the race thing’, it just makes everyone uncomfortable.”
In the development sector, racial inequities include: 
●	The dominance of Northern governments in the most powerful intergovernmental forums including the G7, G20, UN Security Council. 
●	Written and unwritten rules that prioritise national staff from Northern countries for key roles in critical development finance institutions, including the World Bank and the IMF. 
●	The paucity of PoC, and particularly Black staff, operating at a senior level in international development organisations. 
●	The absence of programmes at a sectoral level to address the under-representation of PoC working in international development.
●	The concentration of funding and strategic decision making about development among Northern, at times ethnically homogenous, groups/organisations who go on to make decisions that will largely impact Black and Brown lives. 
●	Huge pay inequities between national and so called ‘expatriate’ staff, thus reinforcing colonial patterns and narratives and undervaluing national and local expertise. 
●	The privileging of knowledge generated by Northern institutions over Southern, indigenous and community-led knowledge and approaches. 
●	The absence of transparency or reporting about representation of ethnic minority staff in organisations or ethnicity pay gaps.  
Q4. What are the practical implications of racism in the aid sector? How can aid actors be actively anti-racist?
Hannah Ryder, founder and CEO of Development Reimagined, has outlined steps aid organisations can take to address racism in her paper ‘A Blueprint for Black Lives Matter in the Development Sector’. These include challenging paternalistic notions of what comprises ‘progress’ and the promotion of ‘local ownership’. Organisations must commit to anti-racism, to being diverse employers, deliver anti-racist development programmes and build diverse supply chains. Ryder argues it is important to prioritise the perspectives of governments and societies in the global South and educate staff on both individual and institutional racism, including training based on diverse evidence from across the world.

Lorriann Robinson, founder and director of The Advocacy Team, has outlined a list of small steps that development agencies can take to address racism in her blog ‘Five Small Steps’. These include targets to increase the number of staff who are People of Colour as well as those who are outsourced to deliver programmes (both minority employees and those based in the global South). In terms of recruitment, all-white panels should be limited to reduce bias potential. Clear commitments are needed from organisations to show that they are fully invested in challenging internal and external racist practices. A safe space must be created so that People of Colour can speak openly and honestly in a work environment. Organisations must implement innovative practices to address the lack of ethnic minorities working and represented in the development sector.
Q5. How does the language used by aid actors relate to discussions around racism and power dynamics?
White supremacy culture  is perpetuated in the aid sector through the use of  language. Stephanie Kimou, Founder of PopWorks Africa, defines this as a specific ideology that believes “white people and their ideas, thoughts, beliefs and actions are superior to those of people of colour.” Alex Martins has observed that  “drawing an exact line between equitable and inequitable language would be an impossible task, especially since equity holds different meanings for different people. But raising our awareness of how language perpetuates inequitable relationships, and selecting terms more consciously and deliberately, is important.”

Phrases such as “developing country,” “the field,” and “social capital”  are examples of language used by aid actors that are rooted in European colonialism. The term “the field” for instance, presents the West as a “powerful centre” while places outside of this centre are considered as “other.”  Lena Bheeroo, Anti-Racism and Inclusion Lead at Bond and a member of the Racial Equity Index collective , has highlighted how terms such as “beneficiaries” allow racism to manifest across the sector, instead of referring to them as “communities that we work with in true equitable partnership.” In an article for Bond, she also explains that language allows these communities to be placed as “other”, so they are seen as “places overseas with problems and needs” instead of places where “solutions are generated and capabilities are in place”. The current vocabulary used by aid organisations creates divisions that perpetuate power imbalances between the aid organisations and communities they work with. It leaves room for discriminatory behaviours like racism as a result. 

Themise Khan also identifies a general saviour complex.  Khan argues that this is not limited to just white individuals; instead, the commonality has been that these individuals are from Northern  states. It creates a separation, one that allows Western aid actors to hold more power in decision-making and designing ‘community-driven’ projects that in reality are far from it. It influences discussions around research on aid, justifying the lack of marginalised voices and perspectives that could diversify the current Western-focused theories and research frameworks that dominate development academia.  It can also manifest internally within organisations, and make it challenging for staff because the language keeps racism under discretion. It is difficult to identify, especially given the reputation of “do-gooders” and “helpers” attached to the sector. For instance, aid worker Paul Currion wrote, “The language used by the aid industry left me unable to recognise a conversation about racism even when it was staring me right in the face.” Language by aid actors are important to discussions around racism and power dynamics because it has allowed discrimination to be swept under the rug, protected by the underlying altruistic assumptions that aid is associated with. 

Q6, What steps should the UK Government take to address racism in the aid sector?
Please see the above summary of our key recommendations on pages 1-3. 

Q7. How could a systematic approach to tackling racism help to strengthen relations between aid delivery organisations and the communities where programmes are delivered?
The Equity Index calls on all UK development organisations, including the FCDO, to adopt a comprehensive approach to addressing inequities considering both the inequities that exist in the UK-based entity, for example pay inequities, and in the partnerships that exist between each organisation and its partners in the global South. Through a pilot consultation we have developed a set of indicators for this purpose. This approach encourages organisations to reflect on its practices, to assess whether or not these practices are leading to greater equity, and to address policies, practices and partnerships that create or perpetuate inequities. We believe a systemic approach to tackling racism must also consider the intersections of racism with other inequities, including for example gender and disability. However, we also  recognise the limitations of an index; that while it might highlight and expose inequities this is not a tool that is adequate for addressing the cultural practices that can be deeply ingrained in aid organisations. As we saw with the safeguarding crisis and ‘Aid Too’ movements, there is often a powerful temptation for aid organisations  to look for technocratic solutions to what are often problems related to culture.  Thus, a systemic approach to addressing racism must combine the sorts of audit and review encouraged by The Equity Index and similar equity-related indices with approaches that encourage a deep reflection and connection with the feeling of inequity and the cultural dynamics that perpetuate these feelings. 
Aid delivery organisations should be educated and sensitive to the racial dynamics in each country and contexts where they work, recognising that racism and related oppressions such as colourism and xenophobia wil manifest differently in each context. Wherever possible, aid organisations working on racism should take its lead from the national organisations that have a longer history of fighting for equality in each country. 
UK Aid and partner organisations should also become vocal allies in challenging racism, both in the donor counties where they are headquartered and in the countries where they operate. 
Q8. What actions do international aid organisations still need to take to promote diversity and inclusion?
The Advocacy Team runs Opening Doors, a  free and bespoke training programme that supports people who come from ethnic minority and other backgrounds that are under-represented in the international development sector to transition into paid career opportunities though training courses, career support services and networking opportunities. Through this programme we have seen that there is huge interest from People of Colour to work in the international development sector, and applicants and trainees to the programme often dedicate many years of their lives trying to secure opportunities in development. However they also perceive that there are barriers to getting into the development sector,  most notably related to networks, a perception of development as an ‘old boys/girls club’ and crucially difficulty finding paid entry level positions. To our knowledge the Opening Doors is the first programme of its kind. We are grateful to Devex, the British Red Cross, Women for Women International, and the many people, particularly from diaspora communities, who have contributed to our fundraising efforts or provided valuable ‘in-kind’ contributions to the programme. Overall it has been difficult to get development organisations to fully engage with the programme - all laud its mission and objectives and while individuals have been generous with their time, the level of institutional engagement has been disappointing. There is space for a well resourced programme like Opening Doors operating at a sectoral level and with every aspect of the development sector fully engaged in supporting its delivery. Comparable programmes exist and are funded in almost every other industry and aid organisations have been siloed in responding to the need to tackle the lack of diversity in its ranks. 
Q9. What actions should donors such as the FCDO take to promote diversity and inclusion in the organisations they fund?
Please see our summary of recommendations to the FCDO, pages 1-3. 

Q10. What actions have international aid organisations taken to promote diversity and inclusion and what impact have these had?
In June 2021, The Equity Index will publicly launch the results of its pilot project with the UK development consultancy sector. This includes a mapping of publicly-available data related to different dimensions of equity, as well as findings on specific approaches to diversity and inclusion adopted by some organisations in the sector."
For further information, or to discuss this submission in more detail, please contact:
Name: Lorriann Robinson
Title: Founder & Director, The Advocacy Team 
Email: Lorriann@theadvocacyteam.co.uk