Written submission to the International Development Committee on the impact of the UK Aid cuts

29 May 2021

Summary

  1. The UK Government’s recent decision to drastically cut the aid budget has been widely condemned for lacking public consultation and transparency, contravening Parliamentary protocol and failing to fully consider the impact it would have on the world’s poorest people, especially in the midst of a global pandemic.

 

  1. This submission examines the likely impact of the UK Aid cuts on women and girls. Using information provided by select UK-based INGOs and partners, the submission briefly considers the following:

Also included in the Annex is a quantitative assessment of the gendered impact of FCDO aid cuts.

  1. The submission concludes with the likely long-term impacts the cuts will have on the UK’s international gender equality work, including its global reputation, and the consequences for women and girls’ led organisations and movements.

Introduction 

  1. This submission is written by CARE International UK in collaboration with IRC UK, Women for Women International, IPPF, Plan International UK, Womankind Worldwide, Gender and Development Network, UK SRHR Network, Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS), WIEGO and the analysis was conducted by Save the Children UK. It is endorsed by ActionAid UK, Frontline AIDS, BOND and Islamic Relief. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this inquiry, particularly focusing on how the UK Aid cuts appear to disproportionately fall on women and girls.

UK Aid cuts, and the way they are being implemented, will have wide-ranging and long-standing impacts on the world’s poorest people – in particular, women and girls.

  1. The Foreign Secretary has advised the International Development Committee that a central equalities impact assessment was conducted, but to date, there has been no public information provided on this. The Government have indicated that no disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics (which would include those who are pregnant) was found, however in this submission we present evidence and case studies which illustrate the disproportionate impact on women and girls. The International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 also requires the Government before providing development or humanitarian assistance to  ‘have regard to the desirability of providing development (humanitarian) assistance that is likely to contribute to reducing poverty in a way which is likely to contribute to reducing inequality between persons of different gender.’[1] It is not clear how the decisions around the cuts have been assessed or ensured that they also comply with the requirements of this act. 

 

  1. 1st round of aid cuts - 2020 saw cuts to programme areas that are critical to women and girls as the Government reduced spending in line with falling gross national income (GNI) to which spending on aid is pegged.
  1. An analysis of two areas: Education and Humanitarian spending, finds that funding which targeted gender equality was cut at a higher rate than that which did not.[2] Between 2019 and 2020, 39% of humanitarian spending targeting gender equality was cut.[3]
  2. 2nd round of aid cuts - In 2021 the government is moving to further reduce its aid budget from 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.5%, equating to around a £4 billion cut from aid levels in 2020. No consultation was undertaken to determine these cuts. Analysis of estimated funding between 2019 and 2022 compared to 2015 to 2018, indicates that gender equality focused programming is being severely affected, and women and girls will suffer most from reductions in funding to critical sectors. This will result in an estimated 20 million women and girls who won’t be reached by programming, made up of: 

 

  1. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has seen an 85% reduction in support from the UK, cutting a flagship supplies programme from £154m to £23m – and core funding from £20m to £8m. This funding would have helped prevent a quarter of a million child and maternal deaths, 14.6 million unintended pregnancies and 4.3 million unsafe abortions.[5] These cuts will put women and girl’s lives at risk and threaten to undo progress towards gender equality at a time when the pandemic has rolled back women’s rights by a generation.[6]

Reality does not match rhetoric and is damaging the UK’s global leadership and by extension what that leadership could achieve.

  1. The UK Government’s decision to cut aid with gender equality outcomes is in stark opposition to the ambitious commitments laid out in its Strategic Vision for Equality (2018-2030), its National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (2018-2022), and threatens to undermine the UK’s contributions towards the Sustainable Development Goals while exacerbating global inequalities. The estimated 40% cut to the Girl’s Education budget,[7] despite this being a stated priority of the Prime Minister, reveals a worrying contradiction between rhetoric and reality and the sector is extremely worried about the implications for areas which have not been championed politically. 
  2. The speed of the Government’s decision – without the legal backing of Parliament - coupled with a lack of transparency and consultation with civil society groups, especially implementing partners, has caused tremendous uncertainty in the communities that UK Aid serves. The cuts also reflect a lack of value for money – as programmes that have spent years and millions of pounds in development have been forced to close.
  3. In a year where the UK is hosting both the G7, COP26 and the Global Partnership for Education replenishment summit, the decision to cut ODA spending in this way severely hampers its global reputation and leadership on achieving gender equality and supporting the world’s poorest people.

Why cuts to gender equality programming are particularly damaging at this time:

  1. Gender equality is necessary for all other development goals including ending poverty, reducing conflict and ensuring education and health for all. These cuts make it harder to make progress across all Sustainable Development Goals.  
  2. The COVID-19 pandemic has put gains made in gender equality over the past decades at risk.  Since the outbreak of COVID-19, a shadow pandemic of violence against women and girls has grown and intensified. Furthermore, unpaid care work and job losses have fallen predominately on women. 
  3. These cuts also come amongst a growing opposition and rollback on gender equality, especially sexual and reproductive health and rights, globally and threaten to undo progress. US-based anti-abortion conservative organizations are expanding their reach, funding campaigns in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

How the cuts are impacting gender equality and women’s and girl’s rights programming

  1. FCDO is slowly informing NGOs and other partners what the impact of the aid cuts will mean for their programmes. The sector has examples of programmes being reduced, cut or retracted from across all areas of the Government’s Strategic Vision on Gender Equality: Women’s Economic Empowerment, Women’s Political Leadership, Girl’s Education, Violence Against Women and Girls and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Below are examples of areas impacted so far.

Girls’ Education – Is the UK Government’s commitment a PR exercise to hide huge cuts and roll backs?

  1. Girls’ Education is a stated priority of the Prime Minister, and of the Foreign Secretary’s foreign aid budget priorities.[8] The G7 Girl’s Education pledge signed last week committed to support 40 million more girls into school, and 20 million more girls to read by the age of 10 by 2026.[9] Despite this:
  1. Girls’ education programmes are vital because investing in girls during adolescence has profound effects on their own future well-being, including delayed marriage; reduced risk of HIV/AIDS; increased family income; lower eventual fertility; improved survival rates, health indicators and educational outcomes for future children; increased women’s power in the household and political arenas; and lower rates of domestic violence. 
  2. Case study of a girls education programme that was cut - Investing in Adolescent Girls in Rwanda, CARE International UK and partners UK government cancelled funding to an education and life-skills programme supporting adolescents in Rwanda. This four year, £12m project, was due to reach more than 150k girls and 50k boys, including 8000 adolescents with disabilities. A follow-on programme from a pilot that had already proved effective, the programme combined vocational training, access to financing and mentorships with engaging parents, community leaders and government officials to better support adolescent girl's education and needs.

Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) - Why is the UK government choosing to cut funding for SRHR at a disproportionate rate?

  1. 2020 saw aid cuts, compared to 2019, for family planning (-37%), reproductive healthcare (-48%) and women’s rights organisations (-10%).[13] The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has seen an 85% reduction in support from the UK, cutting a flagship supplies programme from £154m to £23m – and core funding from £20m to £8m. This funding would have helped prevent a quarter of a million child and maternal deaths, 14.6 million unintended pregnancies and 4.3 million unsafe abortions.[14]
  2. Gift Malunga, UNFPA’s Zambia representative, said she was shocked by the news. “It’s really troubling,” she said. “We’re really concerned that the most vulnerable women and girls will suffer most. We’re still trying to assess the impact … but what is certain is it will have a negative effect on the quality of life for women and girls.”[15]
  3. UK Funding to UNAIDS was also cut by 83%, from £15 million ($20.9 million) to £2.5 million.[16] This will jeopardise the UK’s current support and championing of 2021-2026 Global AIDS strategy, which it endorsed in March 2021.
  4. A woman’s social and economic status, and her physical health, is inextricably linked to her ability to exercise her reproductive rights. When women and their partners have access to family planning information and services, maternal mortality rates drop, children are healthier and better educated, incomes rise and relationships are stronger.
  5. Case studies of SRHR programmes cut or reduced - UKAid Connect ACCESS programme: led by IPPF. Partners include Frontline AIDS, Internews, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), The Open University (OU), and the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC). The ACCESS programme was due to be a five-year programme in Lebanon, Mozambique, Nepal, Uganda. It is being forced to close after less than a year, with a loss of funding of £16.7 million over the next four years. The programme has spent two years and £3 million in development. The programme was due to help women and girls in marginalised and under-served populations in complex and challenging environments to claim and access family planning and sexual health information and services. It includes components that would pilot and build up evidence of what works and strengthen the inclusiveness of services offered in clinic-based and mobile services, making sure they serve a wider range of women and girls. They are also working on the toughest issues in the toughest places such as safe abortion care, HIV/STI integration with family planning, and care for survivors of Sexual and Gender Based Violence. The programme was intended to build world-leading evidence of how to reach the most marginalised groups with comprehensive SRHR, including to help them adapt and become more resilient in humanitarian crises. 
  6. Saving Lives in Sierra Leone: led by International Rescue Committee and partners  The programme is focused on improving access and use of reproductive, maternal, neonatal, child and adolescent health (RMNCAH) services in the country. The country’s maternal mortality rate, at 1,360 deaths per 100,000 live births, is the highest in the world. This programme has helped over three million people – a large proportion of whom are women and girls – in a country where one in 17 women die in pregnancy or childbirth. The IRC has been asked to reduce the programme budget by 60% over the next 12 months. This will particularly impact the objectives to reduce maternal and child mortality. The scale of the cuts means that we will have to reduce our community health outreach work, which is important for helping people in hard-to-reach areas to access healthcare – critical work in the context of a global pandemic and with the threat of an Ebola resurgence.
  7. Women’s Integrated Sexual Health (WISH) programme – Consortiums led by MSI and IPPF[17] Ending all funding to the WISH programme, the UK government’s flagship programme to scale up its support to integrated SRHR services in 27 countries across Africa and Asia.[18] It combines creating an enabling environment at policy level, strengthening community support, and increasing access to high-quality integrated sexual health services, including HIV testing and contraception. 

Women, Peace and Security and Humanitarian action

  1. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by conflict, instability and disasters. During and after a crisis, gender-based violence increases, pregnant women and young mothers have specific health care needs which often go unmet. Women often become solely responsible for their families without the means to support them. Catastrophes may make it impossible for children, and especially girls, to go to school.
  1. Funding has been cut to two of the most acute crisis contexts: 

Yemen - 59% overall cut.[23]   An estimated 73% of the over 4 million people displaced in Yemen are women and children.[24] Levels of domestic violence and sexual harassment of women in Yemen were historically high and had already increased by 63% during the last five years due to the conflict, whilst other forms of violence against women and girls has also risen including early and forced marriage.[25] UNFPA warned in March that lack of funding could lead to 100,000 women dying from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. The UK subsequently reduced its contribution to UNFPA by 85% and overall funding to Yemen by 59%.[26]

Syria – a third overall cut.[27]  Before the war, one in three Syria women faced domestic violence; this number has risen sharply with violence and displacement.[28] 75% of young girls living in camp settings inside Syria do not go to school for fear of sexual violence.[29]

No impact assessment of the 2021 reductions has been made available, but case studies of cut or reduced programmes illustrate the impact women and girls will face.

  1. Case studies of humanitarian programmes which have been cut or reduced – Syria Resilience Programme led by CARE International UK with partners This programme will have been cut by 70% since 2019. Beneficiary numbers will reduce from 550,000 to fewer than 100,000 leaving hundreds of thousands of people, particularly women and children without the support they need. Food security inside Syria has reached unprecedented levels and these cuts will critically impact those most vulnerable. From January 2022 all funding will end for protection services, GBV services and the closure of community centres. Six protection centres will shut down, and critical protection services to 45,000 Syrians will stop.
  2. Improving protection and access to legal and specialised services for refugees from Syria and vulnerable populations in Lebanon - IRC led Consortium. This programme provided specialist protection support and connected with a broader range of services, including services that vulnerable women and girls in particular rely on including legal aid, specialised services, Gender Based Violence (GBV), and Child Protection (CP).

Phase II of this project (April 2021 – March 2023), was planning to reach 107,000 people in Lebanon by identifying those at highest risk. Funding to continue this project will not be approved.

Preliminary 2020 data shows that more than 88% of refugees are now living below the extreme poverty line. As families struggle to put food on the table, procure medication, and pay their rent, protection needs – including legal protection and specialised services for persons with disabilities – are increasingly deprioritised.

Women’s social and economic empowerment – case studies of programmes which have been cut

  1. Empowering Marginalised Nigerian Women Through Livelihood Opportunities and Improved Participation - Women for Women International.  This programme planned to bring together 3,600 women displaced by violence and conflict with women from host communities in Bauchi State, Nigeria, to learn about their rights, health, and wellbeing and develop vocational and business skills to improve their livelihoods and increase leadership roles through Women for Women International’s 12-month Stronger Women, Stronger Nations training programme.

Despite strong programme results in the first 19 months of a planned 36, it has been cut with immediate effect.  This will mean the second cohort of women will not have chance to complete the programme they are over halfway through, and the third cohort of 1,200 women will not get the chance to start the programme.

One participant who was able to complete her training during the first year of this project said, "All the promises made by our trainers before I was enrolled into the programme were fulfilled. We were given back our confidence through the training on rights. We were taught business and vocational skills to start and manage a profitable business. At the start of the programme, I had no means of earning an income. We learned how to form support networks and now we all have individual bank accounts - something I would never have thought of while living my old life." Women for Women International have been asked to submit a complex close-down budget within 2 weeks, for a project that has 17 months left to run.

  1. Building Self-Reliance and Stronger Livelihoods Among Marginalised Women in Afghanistan- Women for Women International. Due to start in April 2021 and due diligence processes completed. Programme has been cut completely. This programme sought to strengthen economic self-reliance, well-being and participation in decision-making in more supportive households and communities for marginalised Afghan women in Nangarhar and Parwan provinces. It would have supported 6,000 women, and tackled gender norms via alliances with male leaders and community members, reaching a further 42,000 members of women’s households and 2,400 men.

The project was meant to be delivered in partnership with three local partners, Zardozi with expertise in business; AWRC to strengthen women-led community advocacy and AWN for expertise and pathways to provincial and national-level decision-makers. Other key stakeholders participating were government agencies in the area, such as Ministry of Women Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Rural Development and Rehabilitation.

  1. WOW Programme - WIEGO. WIEGO has been working for two years with partners in South Asia and Africa to improve the livelihoods of women home-based workers. The decision to cancel our project under the WOW Programme with three months’ notice will curtail activities in four countries of South Asia, as well as Ethiopia and Kenya, a year early. This will leave dozens of associations of home-based workers with insufficient means to provide training and other services planned for their members under the auspices of the Programme. The membership of the organisations thus affected is over 400,000 women who are extremely poor and have already been hit by the global Covid-19 pandemic and its associated economic consequences.

The specific activities that will now no longer happen are training sessions designed by HomeNet South Asia that educate home-based workers on labour rights, organizing, global garment supply chains, transparency in work, calculating a piece rate wage from a minimum wage, understanding policies designed to protect home-based workers (including on violence against women and social protection), and the importance of avoiding child labour. Also cancelled are exchange visits between South Asian and African home-based workers that are designed to demonstrate the importance of organizing and the direct benefit it has on livelihoods and wellbeing.

Conclusion - long term impact of these cuts on changes needed for gender equality, and women’s rights organisations and movements

  1. Achieving gender equality requires long-term investments in changing the structural barriers and harmful social norms that women and girls face. This is recognised in FCDO’s own Strategic Vision for Gender Equality and its National Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security. However, the apparent bias of the aid cuts towards programmes that support these changes, particularly on sexual and reproductive health and rights and violence against women and girls, will do long term harm to these efforts. The cuts also undermine efforts to address multiple forms of inequality that marginalised women and girls face. For example, they are falling on programmes which would have supported women and girls with disabilities, refugees, women and girls living with HIV and young and adolescent girls.
  2. Women’s rights organisations and movements and girl-led groups are proven to be effective at bringing about these changes, alongside providing vital services such as services for gender-based violence. This is recognized in the Generation Equality Forum Action Coalition, co-chaired by the UK government. Women’s rights organisations and movements also play a key role in holding their leaders accountable to commitments they make towards gender equality and women’s rights and hold the line against rollback of women’s rights.  Long term, flexible and predictable funding is essential to be able to plan and implement programmes which are most effective at bringing about sustainable change for gender equality. Women’s rights organisations particularly call for core funding which allow them to self-determine their visions informed by women and girls they work with and to be more agile to respond to crises and to take emerging advocacy opportunities. In 2020, funding for women’s rights organisations, movements and government institutions was cut by 10%.  The uncertainty, lack of consultation and transparency, and reductions in programming for gender equality will mean partner organisations are unable to plan for and deliver their work.
  3. Now more than ever global solidarity is needed to defeat COVID-19 and other global challenges such as climate change and growing inequalities. The UK Government has an opportunity to play a key role at the global stage and remain a true champion of Gender Equality and Women’s Rights. Without Gender Equality at the center of global development key commitments such as the SDGs and Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action will not be achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Annex - Quantitative assessment of the gendered impact of FCDO aid cuts

Analysis conducted by Save the Children UK

Section 1 - Analysis of sectors and sub sectors of significant relevance to Women and Girls

        2020 saw a reduction in UK aid due to drop in economic output and a reprioritisation of aid towards fighting the immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This meant funding to education, water & sanitation and humanitarian assistance, sectors of significant relevance to Women and Girls, were cut by 30%, 39% and 18% respectively (see figure 1).

        In 2021 the government is moving to further reduce its aid budget from 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.5%, which will equate to around a £4 billion cut from aid levels in 2020. Figure 1 shows that the 2021-22 budget for education, water and sanitation and humanitarian assistance is set to fall further as a result.

Figure 1 – changes in aid funding to education, water & sanitation, and humanitarian assistance, 2019 to 2021

£ million (current prices)

2019

2020

2021

% change 2019 to 2021

% change 2020 to 2021

Notes

DFID's former portfolio of education funding

Calendar year disbursements

705.8

492.2

 

-32%

-2%

 

Fiscal year budget

734.3

567.0

482.5

-34%

-15%

2021 figure based on Girls’ education theme budget allocation, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-04-21/hcws935

FCDO Water and sanitation funding

Calendar year disbursements

182.1

112.0

 

-64%

-41%

 

Fiscal year budget

180.6

145.5

65.6

-64%

-55%

2021 figure based on leaked cut of 64%, https://www.wateraid.org/uk/WaterAid-statement-on-cuts-to-UK-Aid-for-WASH

FCDO humanitarian aid

Calendar year disbursements

1541.9

1264.8

 

-41%

-28%

 

Fiscal year budget

1458.3

1212.4

906.0

-38%

-25%

2021 figure based on Humanitarian preparedness and response theme budget allocation, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-04-21/hcws935

Source: FCDO reporting to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, accessed May 4th 2021. For other sources see notes in the table.
Notes: Fiscal year is April to March and year corresponds to the start of the fiscal year (e.g. 2020 is the fiscal year April 2020 to March 2021)

        2020 also saw aid cuts to other purposes of high relevance to women and girls compared to 2019, such as family planning (-37%), reproductive healthcare (-48%) and women’s rights organisations (-10%) (see figure 2).

        Although FCDO aid allocations for 2021-22 are still being finalised, the recent announcement by UNFPA that the UK is reducing funding for its family planning programme by 85% shows that funding at best will continue to be significantly lower in this area than it was in 2019 (see figure 2).

Figure 2 – 2020 saw aid cuts to areas with a significant relevance to women and girls

£ million (current prices)

2019 spend

2020 spend

2021 budget

% change 2019 to 2020

Notes

Family planning

254

161

194

-37%

2021 budget figure based current activities and the leaked 85% cut to UNFPA funding, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1090892

Human rights

52

27

 

-48%

 

Reproductive health care

143

110

 

-23%

 

Women's rights organisations and movements, and government institutions

24

21

 

-10%

 

Source: FCDO reporting to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, accessed May 4th 2021. For other sources see notes in the table.
Notes: 2021 in the table refers to the fiscal year April 2021 to March 2022

Section 2 - Analysis of gender equality gender marker within sectors and sub sectors of significant relevance to Women and Girls

        Alongside the cuts to areas outlined above, there is evidence that projects that have been marked as advancing gender equality have seen deeper cuts than those not, such as within domestic revenue mobilisation and education (see figure 3). In both cases projects where gender equality is not targeted increased in 2020 compared to 2019, in comparison to cuts both in overall terms and in projects where gender equality is a project objective.

        This trend is set to continue with FCDO’s 2021-22 budget. Figure 3 shows that education projects not targeting gender equality will increase compared to 2020, whilst funding for gender will remain at levels seen in 2020, and still significantly lower than in 2019.

Figure 3 – aid cuts to education and domestic revenue mobilisation has been highest in projects where gender equality is a key objective

£ million (current prices)

2019 spend

2020 spend

2021 budget

% change 2019 to 2020

FCDO aid for domestic revenue mobilisation

Project does not target gender equality

16.0

18.3

 

14%

Gender equality is an important and deliberate objective of project

8.2

2.3

 

-72%

Gender equality is the main objective of the project

3.9

2.0

 

-48%

FCDO aid to education

Project does not target gender equality

70.6

77.3

82.5

9%

Gender equality is an important and deliberate objective of project

591.6

397.1

457.6

-33%

Gender equality is the main objective of the project

98.6

60.7

-38%

FCDO humanitarian aid

Project does not target gender equality

575.6

392.2

 

-32%

Gender equality is an important and deliberate objective of project

950.0

861.8

 

-9%

Gender equality is the main objective of the project

10.8

6.6

 

-39%

Source: FCDO reporting to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, accessed May 4th 2021. 2021 figure based on Girls’ education theme budget allocation, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-04-21/hcws935.
Notes: 2021 in the table refers to the fiscal year April 2021 to March 2022

Section 3 - Analysis of gender equality gender marker within sectors and sub sectors of significant relevance to Women and Girls

        Based on the current funding landscape it is possible to estimate the change in the numbers of people that can be supported, based on the DFID’s funding data from 2015 to 2018 and the number of people reached. Figure 4 shows that for education the estimated funding between 2019 to 2022 will mean 700,000 less girls supported, 2 million less women supported by humanitarian assistance, 8 million less women and girls support by nutrition interventions and 9 million less women support to access clean water and sanitation.

 

        Despite cuts to family planning in 2020 and 2021, the estimated funding between 2019-22 will still be higher than 2015-18 because of an increased investment in this area in recent years, meaning more women and girls could potentially be supported than previously, although still less than if the cuts had not taken place.

Figure 4 – Estimated change in the numbers of women and girls supported due to the change in UK aid funding in 5 specific areas

 

DFID bilateral funding 2015-18 (£ mns)

Number supported 2015-18 (mns)

Funding per capita supported (£)

Estimated funding 2019-22 (£ mns)

Estimated number supported 2019-22 (mns)

Difference in numbers supported (mns)

% split in difference in girls/women supported

Education (DFID's portfolio)

2563.0

12.3

209.1

2266.2

10.8

-1.4

50%

Family planning

508.6

93.7

5.4

801.8

147.7

54.0

100%

Humanitarian assistance

5229.7

32.6

160.4

4618.7

28.8

-3.8

55%

Nutrition

2862.3

49.7

57.6

2265.7

39.3

-10.4

79%

Water and sanitation

728.8

44.4

16.4

425.3

25.9

-18.5

49%

Source: FCDO reporting to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, accessed May 4th 2021. OECD Credit Reporting System (CRS). DFID Estimated result 2015-20
Notes: Funding for 2022 is estimated to be the same as 2021, given the move to 0.5% of GNI on aid will likely carry over into this year.

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/9/pdfs/ukpga_20140009_en.pdf

[2] See Annex, figure 3

[3] See Annex, figure 3 

[4] See Annex for analysis with calculations

[5] UNFPA ‘Statement on UK government funding cuts’ 28th April 2021   https://www.unfpa.org/press/statement-uk-government-funding-cuts

[6] World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2021, 30 March 2021.

[7] Patrick Wintor. Dominic Raab is challenged to admit 40% cuts to foreign aid for girls’ education. The Guardian, 27th April 2021.  

[8] Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP. ‘Targeted aid remains a priority: article by the Foreign Secretary.’ Gov. Uk, 25 November 2020.

[9]G7 to boost girls’ education and women’s employment in recovery from COVID-19 pandemic’, Gov.uk, 3rd May 2021

[10] See Annex, figure 3, for analysis

[11] Patrick Wintor. Dominic Raab is challenged to admit 40% cuts to foreign aid for girls’ education. The Guardian, 27th April 2021.  

[12] See Annex, section 3 for analysis

[13] See Annex, figure 2, for analysis

[14] Liz Ford. ‘‘Devastating for women and girls’: UK cuts 85% in aid to UN family planning.’ The Guardian, 29th April 2021.

[15] Liz Ford. ‘‘Devastating for women and girls’: UK cuts 85% in aid to UN family planning.’ The Guardian, 29th April 2021.

[16] William Worley and Sara Jerving. ’UK cuts funding for UNAIDS by 83%.DEVEX, 29th April 2021.

[17] Lot 1 is led by MSI. Partners include: IPPF, DKT, Ipas, THINKPLACE, Options and Leonard Cheshire Disability. Lot 2 is led by IPPF. Partners include: Development Media International (DMI), Humanity and Inclusion UK (HI), International Rescue Committee (IRC), Marie Stopes International (MSI), Options Consultancy Services (Options).

[18] Lot 1: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Cote D’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone Lot 2: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burundi, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

[19] See Annex, figure 1

[20] See Annex, figure 3

[21] See Annex, figure 3 

[22] Compared with 2015-2018, See Annex, figure 4

[23] Peter Geoghegan. ’UK government accused of ‘grotesque betrayal’ as full foreign aid cuts revealed.’ Open Democracy, 5 March 2021.

[24]UNFPA. ’Urgent funding needed to provide protection and health services to millions of women in Yemen.’ UNFPA Press Release, 1st March 2021.

[25] Laura Martineau Searle, Michelle Spearing and Noha Yeyha. ’Women leaders COVID-19 response from the grassroots to government: perspectives from Yemen.’ LSE Blogs, 2nd June 2020.

[26] UNFPA. ’Urgent funding needed to protect health and safety of women and girls in Yemen amidst COVID-19.’ UNFPA Press Release, 6th May 2020.

[27] Joe Summerland. ‘‘Devastating blow’: UK to cut aid to Syria by one-third’. The Independent, 30th March 2021 

[28] Tamara Alrifai and Rachel Dore-Weeks. ’Here's Why Syrian Women are Integral to Peace.UN Women, 31st July 2018.

[29] Tamara Alrifai and Rachel Dore-Weeks. ’Here's Why Syrian Women are Integral to Peace.’ UN Women, 31st July 2018.