This chapter sheds light on how gender equality is integrated into official development assistance to selected themes and to fundamental issues for women’s voices and rights.
Development Finance for Gender Equality 2024
Abstract
USD 143 billion of bilateral official development assistance (ODA) were examined against the Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) gender equality policy marker on average per year in 2021‑22, distributed across development co-operation sectors. Only USD 60.4 billion of those funds include gender equality objectives, much of which also include other complementary policy objectives. There is scope to increase the focus on gender equality in bilateral ODA overall.
Some areas, such as humanitarian aid and energy, are well funded by DAC members but have a very limited focus on gender equality. Although the focus is improving in energy, it remains low. In addition, support for some of the fundamental areas for women’s and girls’ voices and rights, such as the sustainability and effectiveness of local women’s rights organisations (WROs), represents only a fraction of ODA.
Other sectors, such as peace and security, have seen their focus on gender equality increase over time. Directly linked to gender equality, while funding with the policy objective of supporting reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH), tracked by the DAC policy marker with the same name, has overall increased, aid in the areas of reproductive health care and family planning dropped.
This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of ODA by DAC members in a few thematic areas. These were selected either because they are of key importance to strengthening women’s voices and achieving transformative change for gender equality or because they provide clear opportunities for increased investments in gender equality.
Conflicts are escalating around the world, with 614 million women and girls living in contexts exposed to fragility and conflict in 2022, 50% higher than in 2017 (UN Women and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2023[1]). The OECD assesses fragility in countries and contexts through a multidimensional framework which covers economic, environmental, security, societal and human dimensions. Gender indicators are included in all these dimensions (OECD, 2022[2]). In 2021-22, 60 contexts1 were classified as experiencing high to extreme fragility, of which some are also conflict-affected.2
Conflict and fragility affect everyone. None of the contexts currently experiencing high to extreme fragility are on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to hunger, good health or gender equality. Recognising that fragility and conflict have differential and devastating consequences for different segments of the population is a prerequisite for effective crisis response and humanitarian aid that alleviates suffering in both the short and the long term. Responses to fragility, crises and conflict, including through ODA, must account for the needs and participation of women and girls. During historic, recent and ongoing conflicts, women experience: higher rates of death compared to women and children in peaceful settings; increased maternal and infant mortality; heightened levels of conflict-related sexual violence, including rape and human trafficking; heightened risks of other forms of gender-based violence, including being targeted for political violence and intimate partner violence at higher rates; and an overall deepening of gender inequalities (Bendavid et al., 2021[3]; United Nations Secretary-General, 2024[4]; UN OCHA, 2022[5]; United Nations Security Council, 2023[6]). Conflict also has less immediately visible impacts on women and girls, including: diminished opportunities for and access to education; increased prevalence of early pregnancy and early marriage; diminished economic opportunities which, in turn, increases the risk of intimate partner violence; and increased disruption to health and income from food insecurity, hunger and famine (Phelps, 2023[7]; UK Aid, 2024[8]; Bentaouet Kattan, Khan and Merchant, 2023[9]; OECD, 2022[2]).
All the above-mentioned factors illustrate some of the reasons why it is necessary to maintain a focus on gender equality in development aid to fragile- and conflict-affected settings. Ignoring gender in these settings may inadvertently perpetuate instability, heighten the risk of or exacerbate existing armed conflict, increase mortality rates, and deepen pre-existing gender inequalities. Involving women in peacebuilding processes is also crucial for their success and sustainability.
DAC members struggle with integrating gender equality objectives into greater volumes of aid to contexts experiencing extreme fragility
It is often in settings exposed to fragility and conflict that DAC members deliver ODA. Out of the USD 143 billion of bilateral ODA examined against the gender equality policy marker on average per year in 2021-22, USD 47.7 billion were committed to contexts experiencing fragility. Of this, USD 20.5 billion (44%) integrated gender equality objectives. Of the 60 contexts classified as fragile by the OECD in 2021‑22, 15 are considered to be exposed to extreme fragility – scoring high on all the dimensions of the fragility framework. Extreme fragility is often protracted and necessitates whole-of-system approaches to support stabilisation and sustainable development – including working on advancing gender equality. While extreme fragility is not synonymous with being conflict-affected, 11 contexts experiencing extreme fragility were also conflict-affected (Davies, Pettersson and Öberg, 2022[10]; OECD, 2022[2]).
It is striking that, overall, extremely fragile countries that are also conflict-affected and receive high amounts of ODA tend to have a low focus on gender equality. The vast majority of contexts receiving over USD 1 billion had gender equality objectives in less than one-third of ODA (Figure 3.1). For example, Afghanistan received USD 3.9 billion in 2021-22, but only 32% included gender equality objectives. With Afghan women and girls currently living in conditions described as “gender apartheid” (OHCHR, 2024[11]; UN Women, 2024[12]), the low integration of gender equality objectives into aid to Afghanistan is concerning and risks contributing to a deeper entrenchment of the backsliding of the rights of women and girls. While recognising the difficulties of operating in a deeply politically constrained environment, DAC members must commit to consistently supporting both targeted and mainstreamed efforts for advancing the rights of and conditions for women and girls in all contexts experiencing fragility and conflict.
Note: ODA: official development assistance.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9. OECD (2022[2]), States of Fragility 2022, https://doi.org/10.1787/c7fedf5e-en.
While volumes of humanitarian aid have grown, the focus on gender equality has shrunk
In the humanitarian aid sector, the share of bilateral aid with gender equality objectives has historically been low. However – worryingly – this share is decreasing even further. The volume of bilateral humanitarian aid overall has more than doubled over the past decade, making it one of the sectors with the highest volumes of ODA at USD 29.3 billion on average per year screened against the gender equality policy marker in 2021-22. The share of bilateral humanitarian aid with gender equality objectives has, however, decreased over the past four years, stagnating at only 17% in 2021-22 (Figure 3.2).While the growing volumes of bilateral humanitarian aid reflect DAC members’ responsiveness to a global rise in contexts necessitating humanitarian aid (OECD, 2024[14]; UN OCHA, 2021[15]; 2022[5]), the low and decreasing inclusion of gender equality objectives illustrates important and concerning challenges with maintaining commitments to gender equality while responding to urgent crises and humanitarian situations.
Two-year averages
Note: ODA: official development assistance.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The areas of humanitarian aid that received the highest volumes of ODA in 2021-22 also had some of the lowest shares of gender equality integration. This especially concerns emergency food assistance, which received USD 9.8 billion, of which only 8% included gender equality objectives.
Access to emergency assistance is, however, not gender-neutral. A study by the World Food Programme conducted in five contexts experiencing extreme fragility (Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, South Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic) on access to assistance shows that women and girls face particular barriers in accessing humanitarian assistance in crises settings: as a result of structural inequality, women and girls often have lower levels of literacy and limited access to educational opportunities and access to financial services. This impacts their ability to access basic information on how, when and where to receive humanitarian assistance (World Food Programme, 2023[16]). Other examples include bureaucratic barriers, such as women having lower rates of access to the civil documentation often needed to register for food distribution lists. These obstacles occur before women and girls seek to access food assistance, yet there are challenges throughout the process, including security concerns and heightened risks of gender-based violence in contexts where women are the primary collectors of assistance (World Food Programme, 2023[16]). For example, poorly organised and managed distribution sites heighten the risk of sexual exploitation and abuse and can be exacerbated by operating intermixed lines of women and men (The Global Women's Institute, 2023[17]). Designing interventions with a gender lens, as a minimum, is crucial to avoid further exacerbating the differentiated impact of humanitarian crises on women and girls.
These challenges around integrating gender equality in humanitarian assistance or aid to contexts experiencing fragility also applies to emerging crisis response, for example in ODA to Ukraine in 2022 (Box 3.1).
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members committed USD 18.9 billion in bilateral allocable official development assistance (ODA) to Ukraine in 2022 in the context of Russia’s war of aggression, representing a significant increase from 2021. However, less than 10% of it (USD 1.8 billion) included gender equality objectives.
Half of ODA to Ukraine (USD 9.4 billion) was committed to the “government and civil society” sector, largely to support public sector policy and administrative management in particular (USD 8.7 billion). This includes, for example, institution-building assistance to strengthen core public sector management systems and capacities as well as public policy co-ordination, human resource management or organisational development. However, of all ODA to this sector, 96% (USD 9.1 billion) did not include any gender equality objectives.
Examples of programmes that did account for gender equality include support for building greater democratic resilience through media training and support to civil society; capacity development of lawyers, health professionals and other human rights defenders; legal assistance to victims of human rights violations; and institutional capacity building and administrative modernisation.
Similarly, humanitarian aid to Ukraine in 2022 amounted to USD 3.1 billion, of which only USD 908 million (29%) included gender equality objectives (OECD, 2024[18]). This share is higher than the average share of humanitarian assistance with gender equality for all partner countries combined but remains low.
Several humanitarian aid programmes in Ukraine in 2022 that were intended to support affected people, provide basic food and health services, shelter, and medical material were reported to the OECD as not considering gender issues. Bearing in mind the disproportionate impact of crises and conflict on women and girls, it is essential to level up efforts to advance gender equality across all contexts and crisis responses.
Women’s rights organisations as agile first-responders in crises
Conflict-related sexual violence has been reported in high numbers in Ukraine and while the government was swift to acknowledge the prevalence of it, women’s rights organisations (WROs) were at the forefront of supporting victims/survivors, reprogramming funding and mobilising donor support for humanitarian response activities that targeted women and girls (Trokhym, 2024[19]; Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund, 2024[20]). This included scaling up services for victims of gender-based violence, including emergency shelters for women and girls (Trokhym, 2024[19]).
A sudden increase in funding also came with additional challenges, namely the risk of overwhelming and undermining WROs’ strategic planning and shrinking the space for dialogue concerning their missions (Trokhym, 2024[19]). However, by addressing the risks associated with an unsustainable expansion of operations, some WROs pivoted from providing frontline support to acting as capacity-strengthening partners for other WROs while working with international partners to scale programming to address the needs of women and girls across the country (Trokhym, 2024[19]).
Source: OECD (2024[18]), Official Development Assistance for Gender Equality in Ukraine in 2022, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/GEN(2024)4/en/pdf; World Bank et al. (2023[21]), Second Ukraine Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA2): February 2022‑February 2023, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099184503212328877/P1801740d1177f03c0ab180057556615497; The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation (2023[22]), They Came Together Not to Be Silenced: Gender-based Violence in Conflict & the Role of Women’s Rights Organisations, https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/publications/they-came-together-not-to-be-silenced-gender-based-violence-in-conflict-the-role-of-womens-rights-organisations.
Humanitarian aid is increasingly channelled through United Nations agencies but with a low and declining focus on gender equality
Most commonly, DAC members channel bilateral humanitarian aid through multilateral organisations, particularly through UN agencies, funds or commissions. In 2021-22, this sub-channel alone was used to deploy more than half of all bilateral humanitarian aid (USD 16.5 billion of the USD 29.3 billion of bilateral aid screened against the gender equality policy marker). The volume of humanitarian aid channelled through UN agencies has tripled over the past decade. At the same time, the gender equality focus of aid channelled through UN agencies, funds or commissions has steadily declined (Figure 3.3). In 2021-22, only 15% of humanitarian aid channelled through UN agencies had gender equality objectives. While these channels can and may transfer funds they receive onwards to other actors, it is still concerning that, at the outset, only a fraction of bilateral humanitarian assistance includes gender equality objectives. DAC members need to work closely with UN agencies to ensure gender equality objectives are included in emergency contexts and humanitarian aid.
Two-year averages
Note: ODA: official development assistance.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The second largest sub-channel by volume is donor country-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which was used for about one-fifth of all bilateral humanitarian aid in 2021-22 (USD 5.1 billion). Of this, 22% included gender equality objectives (USD 1.1 billion). The third largest sub-channel by volume is international NGOs, which received one-tenth of all humanitarian aid (USD 3.1 billion). Of this, 20% included gender equality objectives (USD 0.6 billion). Cumulatively, these three sub-channels were used for almost all humanitarian aid in 2021-22 (USD 24.6 billion of USD 29.3 billion), all with low integration of gender equality objectives.
While the share of humanitarian aid with gender equality objectives is low across most channels, there are some noticeable exceptions. For example, 82% of humanitarian aid channelled via recipient governments had gender equality objectives, although total volumes were much lower. Compared with international or donor-country based NGOs, humanitarian aid channelled through partner country-based NGOs also has a higher share of gender equality objectives (36% in 2021-22), but overall volumes are very low.
Successes in putting gender equality on the agenda: Lessons from peace and security
The data paint a mixed picture of the successes and failures in integrating gender equality across the humanitarian, development and peace nexus. Whereas the share of humanitarian aid with gender equality objectives decreased, the share of ODA with gender equality objectives in the peace and security sector has grown over the past decade, from 26% in 2011-12 to 49% in 2021-22. However, the sector has experienced a decline in overall volumes of ODA over the past years (OECD, 2023[23]).
The peace and security sector has likely benefited from political momentum and concerted efforts to implement the women, peace and security agenda over the past decades, propelled by the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 (UNSC, 2000[24]) and ensuing resolutions, as well as countries’ national action plans. This is an illustration of how political will and policy efforts can help drive more financing.
DAC members recognise that promoting gender equality is crucial for climate change mitigation and adaptation and are increasingly financing projects that tackle these objectives in an interconnected manner (OECD, 2023[25]) (Box 3.2). A similar conclusion has also been observed in the intersection of biodiversity and gender equality (OECD, 2023[26]). Energy, especially clean energy, is a central theme in efforts to combat climate change, since many renewable energy sources emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants and are continuously replenished. However, transitioning away from fossil fuels can reduce climate-related pressure on biodiversity, but brings its own risks. Unless carefully managed, the expansion of renewable power could compromise biodiversity, which in turn would have negative repercussions on gender equality and other social goals (OECD, 2024[27]).
The case for a gender-responsive just transition towards clean energy economies is underscored in global commitments such as the Paris Agreement, Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) and the SDGs (OECD, 2024[28]). Gender equality and energy access are inextricably linked, and addressing them together can offer multiple development gains, including poverty reduction, food security, increased access to health, clean air and education, and innovation (ENERGIA, World Bank and UN Women, 2018[29]). Policies and programmes that consider gender equality in the energy sector are essential not only for achieving SDG 5 on gender equality and SDG 7 on affordable and clean energy but also for those linked to poverty (SDG 1), health and well-being (SDG 3), education (SDG 4), climate change (SDG 13), life below water (SDG 14), and life on land (SDG 15) (Cecelski and Oparaocha, 2023[30]).
Women and girls are disproportionately affected by energy poverty due to gender norms and economic disparities, particularly in female-headed households that often have fewer financial resources (ENERGIA, 2024[31]; ENERGIA, World Bank and UN Women, 2018[29]; Cecelski and Oparaocha, 2023[30]). Energy poverty limits their ability to carry out daily activities, such as cooking, accessing clean water and using technology, which directly impacts their health, education and livelihoods (ENERGIA, 2024[31]). An estimated 341 million women and girls will still lack electricity by 2030, with 85% residing in sub-Saharan Africa (ENERGIA, 2024[31]). Their reliance on inefficient energy sources for cooking not only increases indoor air pollution and health risks but also the amount of time spent on unpaid domestic work, limiting opportunities for education and employment (Krishnapriya et al., 2021[32]). Women and girls also bear the physical burden of collecting fuel and water, often risking their safety and health, especially in areas affected by climate change and biodiversity loss (WHO, 2016[33]; OECD, 2021[34]). Further evidence indicates that women and girls are at risk of sexual violence when they collect fuel and water or are outside after dark (Rewald, 2017[35]).
The interlinkages between energy and gender equality go beyond clean cooking and access to energy. Despite making up 39% of the global labour force, women only account for 16% of the energy sector (IEA, 2022[36]). Gender norms and systemic barriers restrict their participation in the energy sector labour market, where they face wage gaps and limited opportunities. In 18 economies around the world, women are still prohibited to perform certain tasks in the energy sector (World Bank, 2024[37]). Despite their key role in energy use and clean energy deployment in underserved areas, women are also underrepresented in energy governance and decision making (ENERGIA, 2024[31]). In January 2023, only 11% of ministerial positions responsible for energy, natural resource fuels and mining were held by women across 190 countries (IPU and UN Women, 2023[38]).
Enhancing women’s access to modern3 energy services and involving them in energy policy, decision making and the labour market are essential for a sustainable and just energy transition. This is an opportunity for DAC members to accelerate progress on the SDGs, and is in line with the commitments set out in the OECD DAC Declaration on a New Approach to Align Development Co-operation with the Goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (OECD/LEGAL/0466) (OECD, 2021[39]).
Gender inequality, climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation are interconnected challenges and are mutually reinforcing. Women and girls are disproportionately exposed to the impacts of climate change and have fewer resources and less information to be able to adapt to it. For example, when families are faced with scarce resources due to climate change, they may feel forced to take girls out of school and sometimes into early marriage. Another example is the increased exposure to gender-based violence, as women and girls need to travel longer distances to collect resources.
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has been tracking the extent to which international development finance approaches these challenges in an interconnected manner. The data show a positive trend. While only 32% of climate-related official development assistance (ODA) included gender equality objectives 2011-12, this increased to 59% in 2021-22. The volume of bilateral ODA targeting both gender equality and climate also reached a record high in 2021-22 at USD 27.6 billion.
Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls is considered particularly crucial for biodiversity and for the effective implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Women and girls, particularly from indigenous peoples and local communities, play a vital role in biodiversity management and conservation. However, gender inequalities limit their rights to land and produce, and restrict their access to decision-making processes. Acknowledging this, DAC members have been increasingly integrating biodiversity and gender equality across their development finance and increasing bilateral ODA focused on both gender equality and biodiversity over time, in absolute and relative terms: in 2021-22, 68% of biodiversity-related bilateral ODA from DAC members also targeted gender equality (USD 6.8 billion), an increase from 53% in 2011-12 (USD 3.1 billion).
Source: OECD (2024[40]), Biodiversity and Development Finance 2015-2022: Contributing to Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, https://doi.org/10.1787/d26526ad-en; OECD (2023[25]), “The gender equality and environment intersection: An overview of development co-operation frameworks and financing”, https://doi.org/10.1787/c16d8fe8-en; Elias et al (2024[41]), Placing Gender Equality at the heart of the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Gender equality is more and more integrated in energy ODA but there is still a lot of room for improvement
Out of the USD 143 billion of bilateral ODA examined against the gender equality policy marker on average per year in 2021-22, USD 8.7 billion went to the energy sector. Of this, USD 2.6 billion, or 30%, included gender equality objectives. This represents an increase from 2011-12, when the share was only 7% (USD 0.4 billion of USD 5.7 billion).
DAC members are overall moving in the right direction, but the energy sector continues to be one of the sectors with the lowest share of gender equality objectives: two-thirds of energy-related ODA still entirely lack gender equality considerations and there are almost no energy-related programmes with gender equality as a principal objective (Figure 3.4).
Two-year averages
Note: ODA: official development assistance.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The DAC members with the highest shares of energy-related ODA with gender equality objectives in 2021‑22 were Canada (100%), Ireland (95%), Iceland (73%), Finland (71%) and the EU institutions (65%). These DAC members are leading the way to show that gender integration is possible. Other DAC members who are struggling to make their energy-ODA more gender-responsive could learn from those who are ahead of the curve to make the most of their energy programmes and projects. It is good practice for DAC members to collectively exchange on how to promote sustainable development in a gender-responsive way.
In terms of volumes of ODA with gender equality objectives for the energy sector, the European Union is the largest contributor, followed by Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. While Germany and Japan are among the largest funders of overall ODA for the energy sector, most of their ODA does not include gender equality objectives. It is important to note, however, that both increased their gender equality focus in 2021‑22 compared to 2019-20.
The focus on gender equality of ODA in support of clean energy generation has increased
Of the USD 8.7 billion of bilateral allocable ODA committed to the energy sector on average per year in 2021‑22, USD 4.1 billion went to energy generation – renewable sources. This is the largest focus area and one which has been increasing since 2011-12. ODA for this area has also seen a better integration of gender equality objectives over time. In 2021-22, 37% of the USD 4.1 billion included gender equality objectives (corresponding to USD 1.5 billion; Figure 3.5), up from only 10% (USD 0.2 billion of USD 2.1 billion) a decade ago. This suggests a stronger focus on gender equality in new programmes related to clean energy.
ODA with gender equality objectives in this area includes contributions to financial funds; financial incentive schemes for private and public actors for renewable energy generation; capacity development for local institutions and communities, with a particular focus on vulnerable communities and women; and the installation of infrastructure facilities for clean energy generation. For instance, Global Affairs Canada invested in the Climate Investment Funds to accelerate the transition from coal-powered to clean energy in Asia and Africa. In addition, Canada set up a Women-Led Coal Transitions mechanism to directly support local communities and organisations working on the rights of women and other excluded groups (Climate Investment Funds, 2024[42]).
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
In 2021-22, the areas in the energy sector with the next two largest volumes of ODA with gender equality objectives were energy policy (USD 0.6 billion) and energy distribution (USD 0.4 billion). Energy policy programmes can target technical, knowledge or capacity development support that enables countries to create, sustain and use renewable energy sources. For example, Oxfam’s Inclusion Project Phase II in the Mekong sub-region funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation is a good practice example. The project promotes the leadership roles of women and representatives of marginalised social groups in influencing national and regional state and non-state actors in water resource governance and energy policy and planning processes (Oxfam, 2020[43]). Programmes in this area also focus on providing assistance on national policy and regulatory framework reforms for energy. Norway’s programme is another example. It aims to promote a just transition from coal to renewable energy and clean cooking solutions in three African countries (OECD, 2024[13]) by improving national energy policies and regulatory frameworks, boosting cross-border renewable energy trade, and encouraging financial divestment from coal while increasing investment in renewables, including women-led enterprises. Energy distribution programmes include for example rural electrification programmes, improvement of existing systems and power transmission capacity development, among others. For instance, Germany provided a USD 3 million promotional loan to Uganda to enhance the power transmission capacity between Kampala and Entebbe, ensuring a reliable electricity supply for Entebbe (OECD, 2024[13]).
In all three of these areas, over the past decade, the volume and share of ODA that includes gender equality objectives has been steadily increasing, and rose significantly from 2019-20 to 2021-22.
Delivery channels of energy-related ODA integrating gender equality objectives
Of the USD 2.6 billion of energy-related ODA with gender equality objectives, more than half is channelled through public sector institutions and nearly a third through multilateral organisations and banks (Figure 3.6). The ODA being channelled through the World Bank stands out as a good practice, integrating gender equality objectives in four-fifths of the USD 0.5 billion in 2021-22 on average (OECD, 2024[13]).
Note: CSO: civil society organisation; PPP: public-private partnership.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
Women’s rights organisations and feminist movements are essential actors to achieve transformative and sustainable change for gender equality. They are rooted inside communities and bring contextual expertise that is critical to understand and address structural drivers of inequality. For example, WROs work on the frontlines to protect women and girls from violence and support victims/survivors of violence. Analysis shows that strong local women’s rights and feminist movements have been instrumental in changing laws on ending violence against women (Weldon and Htun, 2013[44]). As such, it is important to support their core functioning with direct, flexible and predictable multi-year funding to enhance their effectiveness, influence and sustainability. It is positive that DAC members have committed to increasing funding for these actors in the DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (OECD/LEGAL/5022) (OECD, 2024[45]) and to supporting civil society and locally led development through the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (OECD-LEGAL-5021) (OECD, 2021[46]) and the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development (USAID, 2022[47]).
A dedicated code of the OECD database allows tracking funding aimed specifically to support the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of women’s rights organisations and institutions.4
The volume of aid to women’s rights organisations remains around USD 0.5 billion per year
ODA to the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of WROs consistently remains at a strikingly low volume and amounts to less than 1% of ODA for gender equality. In terms of volumes, this has slightly fluctuated over the past decade but remained around USD 0.5 billion per year, with a spike in 2019-20 (Figure 3.7). Total ODA to enhance the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of WROs in 2021-22 was USD 596 million. Excluding ODA to support public sector institutions, mainly ministries of women and gender equality, this amount drops to USD 432 million in 2021-22. In turn, the amount of this ODA for public sector institutions has increased slightly over time, amounting to USD 164 million.
The spike in funding in 2019-20 was mainly due to large contributions by Canada to the Equality Fund (USD 269 million) reported in 2019 and contributions by the Netherlands to Power of Voices and Leading from the South projects (USD 164 million) reported in 2020.
Two-year averages
Note: ODA: official development assistance; WRO: women’s rights organisation.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
While funding remains low, there are many examples of good practices for working with WROs, including leveraging their power in post-conflict recovery and reconstruction efforts as an avenue for advancing gender equality, sustainable development and stabilisation in conflict settings (Box 3.3).
In 2021, Sweden funded a programme to support political transition in the Syrian Arab Republic through gender-sensitive social reconstruction. The programme leverages the Euromed Feminist Initiative, a local women’s rights network with decades-long experience collaborating with Syrian women’s rights activists. By contributing to inclusive and gender-sensitive peacebuilding and social reconstruction processes in Syria, the programme is expected to support women’s rights organisations (WROs) with a toolkit towards combating gender-based violence as a barrier to women’s participation in all levels of decision making, enhance synergies between women’s rights- and human rights organisations, improve access to comprehensive knowledge on gender issues for activists, including youth; and address gender-based discrimination in law and prepare a comprehensive legal framework for curbing violence against women and girls.
Programmes that foster the empowerment of local WROs and actors are crucial towards engendering sustainable and durable development for gender equality.
Different components of the programme were reported to the OECD under the women’s rights organisations and movements, and government institutions code, the ending violence against women and girls code, and the democratic participation and civil society code – all channelled through “networks”.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9; Euromed Feminist Initiative (2023[48]), “Supporting political transition in Syria through gender-sensitive social reconstruction”, https://www.efi-ife.org/en/offer-detail/309-terms-of-reference-for-external-evaluation-of-the-program-supporting-political-transition-in-syria-through-gender-sensitive-social-reconstruction.
Few DAC members provide consistent funding for women’s rights organisations
Some DAC members stand out as consistent and strong supporters of WROs to enhance their effectiveness, influence and sustainability (Figure 3.8). Others have increased their support in the last few years.
Two-year averages
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
Over the past decade, 15 DAC members consistently accounted for nearly all the ODA to enhance the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of WROs. In particular, over time, the volume of ODA has largely been driven by the consistent contributions of the Netherlands and Canada, who have also initiated some of the most innovative programmes aimed to reach local women’s rights organisations and movements while ensuring leadership by local actors. For example, the Netherlands supported the Leading from the South programme that worked with the African Women’s Development Fund to manage and disburse grants for local, national and regional WROs working towards the empowerment of African women and the promotion and realisation of their rights (OECD, 2024[13]); (OECD, 2022[49]).
This funding landscape is currently shifting slightly, with France being the largest contributor of ODA to the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of WROs in 2021-22 (USD 132 million) through the Feminist Fund, followed by Canada (USD 64 million) then the EU institutions (USD 56 million). It is a positive sign that more DAC members are increasingly funding WROs. More members should follow the example and learn from those who have been strong and consistent supporters over several years.
Challenges remain in terms of directly funding the core work of southern women’s groups, including donors’ institutional or regulatory barriers on funding modalities. For example, development partners may encounter concerns over the perceived risk of funding local organisations, leading to a preference to fund organisations already familiar to them, which will typically be international CSOs or CSOs based in DAC member countries (OECD, 2023[50]). Other challenges include reporting requirements to demonstrate results and a reigning perception that WROs have less capacity to deliver at scale and in a manner that meets donor requirements (OECD, 2016[51]). Finally, pressure to keep transaction costs low may leave fewer people to administer grants in DAC member institutions, while there is a simultaneous concern that capacity building WROs is time- and resource-intensive (OECD, 2016[51]). For the organisations themselves, these challenges impact their work beyond solely being a barrier to funding in the first place. Having to live up to complex and burdensome administrative requirements from DAC member institutions, for example the effort put into extensive grant proposal writing or reporting, may not always correlate positively to the amount or type of funding received, i.e. directive or heavily earmarked (OECD, 2016[51]). In an OECD review of donor support to WROs, women’s rights organisations expressed that reporting requirements were often inappropriate for capturing the structural and transformative changes they were seeking, and that the organisations do not struggle with a lack of capacity per se but may lack capacity to meet current donor requirements (OECD, 2016[51]). Mitigating these challenges may include shifting funding modalities by increasing direct, core support to local CSOs to favour ownership and leadership (OECD, 2024[52]). The first Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance on Funding Civil Society in Partner Countries (OECD, 2023[50]) underlines the need for providers to increase the availability and accessibility of direct, flexible and predictable support to partner country CSOs, including women-led ones.
Over half of the funding for women’s rights organisations’ sustainability is channelled through the UN system or civil society organisations based in a donor country
DAC members’ funding in support for women’s rights organisations’ and movements’ effectiveness, influence and sustainability most often reaches these actors through intermediaries such as multilateral organisations, larger CSOs or women’s funds.
In 2021-22, USD 160 million were channelled through UN institutions such as the Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund, which mobilises and channels flexible and quality funding and capacity support to women peacebuilders, humanitarians and human rights defenders. This was followed by USD 145 million channelled through donor-based CSOs (Figure 3.9).
Note: UN: United Nations; CSO: civil society organisation; PPP: private-public partnership.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
Only USD 29 million were provided directly from DAC members to WROs based in a recipient country (Figure 3.9). Directly providing funding to local WROs reduces the intermediaries in the aid chain from development partner to recipient and allows for support to be grounded in local contexts and needs (OECD, 2023[50]). Local civil society actors also tend to demand accountability from their governments, and vice versa (OECD, 2023[50]). On the other hand, many contexts have legal restrictions in place that impact WROs’ and CSOs’ ability to receive direct funding from development partners and channelling funds directly may expose them to risks (OECD, 2023[50]). DAC governments may also have limited capacities to manage direct funding relationships with local civil society actors due to transaction costs. Overall, of the USD 60.4 billion of total ODA with gender equality objectives in 2021-22, only USD 1.2 billion were channelled directly by DAC members to and through a local CSO based in a partner country (see Chapter 2).
With one of the overarching challenges facing WROs being a lack of predictable and flexible funding, their ability to do invaluable work is threathened and this continuity risk is deepening (Women's Peace and Humanitarian Fund, 2023[53]). Additional challenges – and dangers – include the shrinking or restricted civic spaces in which many WROs operate, backlash against the rights of women and girls, and the direct influxes of aid may inadvertently heighten WROs’ operational and physical risks. Tangible risks include harassment, violence and threats of “retaliation” (Women's Peace and Humanitarian Fund, 2023[53]; The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, 2023[54]).
However, WROs consistently illustrate immense resilience as actors which can be leveraged to enable positive social change. They have contributed to lowering rates of child marriage, establishing quotas for women’s participation in government, and improved societal attention to gender equality issues such as care and labour rights (Alliance for Feminist Movements and Equal Measures 2030, 2024[55]). This includes in fragile and conflict-affected settings (Box 3.4); however, less than 1% (USD 142 million) of total ODA to contexts exposed to fragility and conflict went towards enhancing the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of WROs in these contexts.
Despite the extremely modest levels of funding, women’s rights organisations (WROs) play a crucial role for delivering sustainable development and humanitarian assistance and supporting peace. They can play productive roles in peace negotiations and processes; their participation in peace processes can lower the risk of conflict relapse, for example in the aftermath of civil war; and they act as important advocates for advancing better governance systems on a national level (OECD, 2023[23]). During conflict, WROs also showcase extensive capacity for resilient responses and are uniquely situated to do so.
Currently, during the evolving conflict in the West Bank and Gaza Strip – with catastrophic levels of food insecurity and famine in some parts, outbreaks of communicable diseases such as polio, ever worsening maternal health and birth conditions, more women and children killed by military than in any other recent conflict in a single year, and much more – women-led organisations are at the forefront of humanitarian responses.
These organisations provide critical field support, and many organisations have shifted their operations virtually overnight to provide life-saving aid (UN Women, 2024[56]). This is despite the fact that half of the organisations surveyed in UN Women’s Rapid Gender Alert saw their funding decline or suspended entirely by donors (UN Women, 2024[56]). The vast majority of organisations report that – second only to safety and security concerns – a lack of funds to address extensive humanitarian need is the most critical challenge (UN Women, 2024[56]).
The examples of the resilience and adaptability of WROs in conflict stretch across contexts experiencing fragility and conflict such as Afghanistan, Myanmar and Ukraine, among others.
Source: OECD (2023[23]), “Peace and official development assistance”, https://doi.org/10.1787/fccfbffc-en; IPC (2024[57]), Gaza Strip: IPC Acute Food Insecurity Special Snapshot, https://www.un.org/unispal/document/gaza-strip-famine-ipc-snapshot-25jun24; WHO (2024[58]), “Regional health ministers rally to support immediate steps to stop polio from paralyzing children in the Gaza Strip”, https://www.emro.who.int/polio-eradication/news/regional-health-ministers-rally-to-support-immediate-steps-to-stop-polio-from-paralyzing-children-in-the-gaza-strip.html; Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation (2024[59]), “Obstetric, reproductive & maternal violence in Gaza”, https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/publications/obstetric-reproductive-maternal-violence-in-gaza; UN Women (2024[56]), Gender Alert: Voices of Strength: Contributions of Palestinian Women Led Organizations to the Humanitarian Response in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/gender-alert_palestine-wlos-en.pdf; Oxfam (2024[60]), “More women and children killed in Gaza by Israeli military than any other recent conflict in a single year”, https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict.
The second Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance on Shifting Power with Partners (OECD, 2024[61]) underlines the necessity of a power shift when it comes to supporting CSOs – including WROs. This includes levelling up direct support to partner country CSOs and engaging consciously with the power imbalances present between provider country and international CSOs vis-à-vis partner country CSOs – an imbalance which may be exacerbated by the operating practices of development partners – to improve the efficacy and long‑term sustainability of development efforts (OECD, 2024[61]).
The overall low levels of funding to enhance the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of WROs, especially those channelled through recipient-based CSOs, indicate that there are still many missed opportunities for synergising efforts for gender equality in development co-operation and humanitarian assistance. The above-mentioned factors, and more, underline the importance of identifying the most efficient and appropriate channels and modalities for funding WROs so that they can continue to do critical work globally.
Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are fundamental to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. Only when people have the possibility to decide over their own bodies and lives, with access to comprehensive sexuality education and healthcare, will they be able to realise opportunities and contribute fully to society.
2024 marks the 30th anniversary of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development. However, pervasive challenges and deficits in SRHR continue. While most men have complete bodily autonomy, only 56% of married or in-union women aged 15-49 make their own choices regarding sexual relations, contraceptive use and reproductive healthcare, and maternal mortality remains unacceptably high. Nearly nine in ten deaths due to complications related to pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe abortion occur in sub-Saharan Africa and Central and Southern Asia (UN Women and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2023[1]).
Recent years have seen increased attempts to reverse progress on SRHR. The broad movement of actors leading this opposition is known as the “anti-rights” or “anti‑gender” movement, reflecting the fact that it is transnational, well-financed and increasingly co‑ordinated (Denkovski, Bernarding and Lunz, 2021[62]). Opposition to SRHR often goes hand-in-hand with broader democratic issues of restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the right to organise (Roggeband and Krizsán, 2020[63]).
While support with “reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health” objectives is overall increasing, aid to reproductive health is decreasing
A DAC policy marker for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) was introduced in 2012. The marker is intended to capture activities on the “continuum of care” life-cycle approach and includes funding for a broad range of issues in this area, such as integrated service delivery for women and children from reproductive health to pre-pregnancy, delivery, the immediate postnatal period, and childhood.
While not all DAC members apply the RMNCH policy marker in their reporting to the OECD to the same extent that they use the gender equality policy marker, reporting has improved over the years. Currently 88% of bilateral allocable ODA (USD 132 billion) are screened against the RMNCH policy marker, allowing for a reasonably good overview of funding with RMNCH as a policy objective. However, reporting by DAC members on this policy marker can further improve to allow for full transparency.5
Of DAC ODA examined against the RMNCH policy marker, USD 14.7 billion included policy objectives relating to RMNCH in 2021-22. Approximately one-third of this, USD 4.9 billion, was dedicated to RMNCH as the principal objective. It is important to note that these funds are not additional to ODA with gender equality objectives analysed throughout this report, but for a large majority also include gender equality objectives. This is unsurprising given that gender equality and RMNCH are closely linked, and these policy objectives often align with and complement each other.
The USD 14.7 billion represent an increase in the volume of ODA with RMNCH objectives, from USD 11.9 billion on average in 2019-20. The share of ODA including RMNCH objectives also increased, from 10% in 2019-20 to 11% in 2021-22. This increase corresponds to 18 DAC members increasing the volumes of their ODA with RMNCH objectives overall, from 2019-20 to 2021-22. The additional funds with RMNCH objectives were largely committed in the area of COVID-19 control. On the contrary, support in the areas of reproductive health care and family planning declined from 2019-20 to 2021-22.
Germany was the largest donor for programmes with RMNCH objectives in 2021-22 (USD 3.5 billion on average per year), providing support, for example, for strengthening health systems, with a focus on reproductive health in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 3.10). EU institutions (USD 2.9 billion) and the United States (USD 2.1 billion) also provided large volumes of aid with RMNCH objectives.
Note: These funds are not additional to official development assistance with gender equality objectives. A vast majority also includes gender equality objectives.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
ODA with reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health objectives is mainly channelled through multilateral organisations
DAC members channelled large parts of their ODA with RMNCH objectives through multilateral organisations (Figure 3.11). This includes funds channelled through the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents, a partnership hosted at the World Bank that aims to reduce poverty and inequity by advancing the health and rights of women, children and adolescents. It also includes programmes channelled through United Nations Population Fund to reduce maternal mortality, eliminate female genital mutilation or strengthen health services with a focus on reproductive health.
Much of the aid with RMNCH objectives is also channelled via public sector institutions, including programmes aimed at strengthening countries’ health systems, or support for health services tailored to the needs of survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.
USD million
Note: NGO: non-governmental organisation; PPP: public-private partnership.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
ODA with reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health objectives goes mostly to health-related sectors
Not surprisingly, a large part of ODA with RMNCH objectives was reported in the health sector, including in the areas of COVID-19 control, health policy and administrative management, and basic healthcare. In particular, the area of COVID-19 control drove much of the overall increase of aid with RMNCH objectives from 2019-20 to 2021-22.
In addition, much of the funding with RMNCH objectives was reported in the sector of population programmes/policies and reproductive health. The multi-sector, humanitarian aid, and government and civil society sectors also all received substantial amounts of aid with RMNCH objectives.
ODA to the population and reproductive health sector is decreasing
Beyond the RMNCH policy marker, the OECD database includes a sector dedicated to population programmes/policies and reproductive health. This sector is intended to capture programmes on population policy and administrative management, reproductive healthcare, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases (STD) control including HIV/AIDS, thus partly aligning with the focus of the RMNCH Policy Marker.
Overall, a total of USD 7.4 billion of bilateral ODA was reported in the sector of population programmes/policies and reproductive health on average per year in 2021-22. This represents a decrease from USD 8 billion in 2019-20, explained by the drop in the specific areas of reproductive health care and family planning, from USD 2.5 billion in 2019-20 to USD 1.9 billion in 2021-22.
The bulk of funding in this sector – USD 5.1 billion – was committed to STD control including HIV/AIDS programmes. Such programmes include, for example, efforts to sustain HIV epidemic response and control, HIV clinical services, and efforts to develop next-generation HIV vaccines. It is noteworthy that of these USD 5.1 billion for STD control including HIV/AIDS, very little includes RMNCH objectives (only 7%) or gender equality objectives (only 27%). This low focus on gender equality and RMNCH represents a missed opportunity to ensure gender-equal HIV epidemic response and control.
In addition to gender inequalities, many women and girls face additional compounding dimensions of vulnerability and discrimination. These can be related, for example, to race, ethnicity and national origin; minority or indigenous status; faith/religion; socio-economic status; education level; class; caste; geographic location; age; ability; sexual orientation; gender identity and sex characteristics; or migration status. An OECD study found that most DAC members consider these inequalities in their policy and strategic framework documents in the context of their work in support of gender equality (OECD, 2024[64]).
There is limited information on funding at the intersection of gender and disability
Compounding inequalities that intersect with gender position the women who also face these forms of discrimination as the most disadvantaged in their society across the globe. The status of women and girls with disabilities is not only worse than that of their male peers, but also worse than that of women without disabilities. Women with disabilities are at least two to three times more likely than other women to experience violence, including by family, intimate partners, caregivers and institutional facilities (OECD, 2024[64]).
Data on funding for the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities, based on the DAC policy marker dedicated to this theme, can be crossed with the data on funding for gender equality to allow for an understanding of DAC members’ support of the intersection of gender and disability. However, the use of the disability policy marker is optional for DAC members and only 22 members examine either some or all of their aid against this marker. This implies that less than half (only 42%) of total allocable bilateral ODA by DAC members is examined against the disability policy marker and that the disability focus of most bilateral allocable aid is unknown.
Of the DAC members that reported against the disability policy marker for 2021-22, Iceland, Japan, the European Union, Australia and Ireland have the highest shares of aid with gender equality objectives that also targets the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities (Figure 3.12). The EU institutions and Japan provided particularly large volumes of aid integrating both policy objectives, with the European Union providing more than USD 6 billion on average per year and Japan more than USD 4 billion.
Note: Includes the 22 DAC members that report on the DAC policy marker for the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
It is important that more DAC members report against the DAC disability policy marker to gain a more complete picture of funding flows for this issue and allow for more in-depth analysis of support at the intersection of gender equality and disability.
A few other initiatives have used OECD data to develop analyses crossing the DAC gender and disability markers, including Sightsavers (Sightsavers, 2024[65]) and CBM (CBM Australia, 2022[66]).
Some information can be gleaned about DAC funding at the intersection of gender and sexual orientation and identity
Many DAC members work to protect and safeguard the rights of individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, expression and sex characteristics. This implies extending the same rights to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and gender-diverse (LGBTQIA+) persons as those set out in international human rights standards (OECD, 2024[64]). In many countries, however, discriminatory laws criminalise private, consensual same-sex intimacy, exposing millions to the risk of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment, or even the death penalty (OHCHR, 2024[67]).
Work on LGBTQIA+ rights specifically, however, does not automatically address the lack of rights experienced by many women. On the contrary, the conceptualisation of LGBTQIA+ rights has traditionally not effectively incorporated fundamental areas of women’s rights, such as women’s (lack of) property and inheritance rights or their freedom of movement. Conversely, women’s rights are often not conceptualised as including LGBTQIA+ rights, for instance by excluding forced marriage of lesbian women as part of a broader narrative on forced marriage (OECD, 2024[64]).
There is no dedicated DAC policy marker or CRS purpose code to track funding for LGTBQIA+ inclusion and rights. Therefore, a word search of programme descriptions reported in the CRS was instead undertaken as a one-off exercise with a view to gaining an understanding of DAC members’ support for these issues. While this methodology is not as robust as using data reported against a DAC policy marker and/or CRS purpose code, it allows gaining a basic idea of funding flows. It should be noted that this report does not argue for the creation of a DAC policy marker or purpose code. One essential limitation to this methodology is that DAC members reporting their programmes may have opted to omit their policy focus on LGTBQIA+ issues, either as an oversight or as a strategic choice given the political and legal sensitivity of these issues in many contexts, to avoid exposing their partners.
Overall, the amounts of ODA with LGTBQIA+ inclusion and rights objectives included in programme descriptions reported by DAC members to the CRS seem to increase slightly over time, standing at USD 182 million on average per year in 2021-22 (Figure 3.13).
Two-year averages
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
It is interesting to note that, in 2021-22, only about two-thirds of ODA with LGBTQIA+ objectives included in their descriptions, as reported to the CRS, were reported as also including gender equality objectives (USD 131.5 billion out of USD 182.4 billion) (Figure 3.14). This implies that one-third of these funds was reported as not having any gender equality objectives, pointing to a potential reporting issue.
Source: OECD (2024[13]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The Global Philanthropy Project publishes a report every two years which provides data on the distribution of LGBTQIA+ funding by geography, issue, strategy, population focus and type of donor, offering a tool for identifying trends and gaps (Global Philanthropy Project, 2024[68]).
References
[55] Alliance for Feminist Movements and Equal Measures 2030 (2024), Fast Track or Backtrack? The Prospects for Gender Equality by 2049, Equal Measures 2030, https://equalmeasures2030.org/fast-track-or-backtrack.
[3] Bendavid, E. et al. (2021), “The effects of armed conflict on the health of women and children”, The Lancet, Vol. 397/10273, pp. 522-532, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00131-8.
[9] Bentaouet Kattan, R., M. Khan and C. Merchant (2023), “Achieving gender equality in education: Examining progress and constraints”, World Bank Gender Thematic Policy Notes Series, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099503011032311205/idu09e9110ff0456004aed08a580ded5f758bbd1 (accessed on 14 August 2024).
[66] CBM Australia (2022), Re-establishing DFAT’s Leadership on Disability Equity and Rights: How the OECD-DAC Disability Marker Can Help, CBM Australia, Richmond, Victoria, https://www.cbm.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Reestablishing-DFATs-leadership-on-disability-equity-and-rights-Nov-23.pdf.
[30] Cecelski, E. and S. Oparaocha (2023), The lack of gender targets for clean energy is harming women and girls, SDG Action, https://sdg-action.org/the-lack-of-gender-targets-for-clean-energy-is-harming-women-and-girls (accessed on 5 August 2024).
[42] Climate Investment Funds (2024), Women-Led Coal Transitions (WOLCOT) Grant Mechanism Under Accelerated Coal Transitions Program (ACT), Climate Investment Funds, Washington, DC, https://www.cif.org/sites/cif_enc/files/knowledge-documents/Gender_WOLCOT_brief.pdf.
[10] Davies, S., T. Pettersson and M. Öberg (2022), “Organized violence 1989-2021 and drone warfare”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 59/4, pp. 593-610, https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221108428.
[62] Denkovski, D., N. Bernarding and K. Lunz (2021), Power Over Rights: Understanding and Countering the Transnational Anti-gender Movement – Volume I, Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy, Berlin, https://centreforffp.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PowerOverRights_Volume1_web.pdf.
[41] Elias, M. et al. (2024), Placing Gender Equality at the heart of the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/200ea10a-77b7-4c70-98d2-a75d89b0d1eb (accessed on 16 August 2024).
[31] ENERGIA (2024), Energy access: Why women and energy, web page, https://energia.org/what-we-do/why-gender-and-energy (accessed on September 2024).
[29] ENERGIA, World Bank and UN Women (2018), “Global progress of SDG 7: Energy and gender”, Policy Briefs in Support of the First SDG 7 Review at the UN High-Level Political Forum 2018, No. 12, United Nations, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/17489PB12.pdf.
[48] Euromed Feminist Initiative (2023), Supporting political transition in Syria through gender-sensitive social reconstruction, https://www.efi-ife.org/en/offer-detail/309-terms-of-reference-for-external-evaluation-of-the-program-supporting-political-transition-in-syria-through-gender-sensitive-social-reconstruction (accessed on 2 October 2024).
[68] Global Philanthropy Project (2024), 2021-2022 Global Resources Report: Government & Philanthropic Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Communities, Global Philanthropy Project, https://globalresourcesreport.org.
[36] IEA (2022), Understanding Gender Gaps in Wages, Employment and Career Trajectories in the Energy Sector, OECD, Paris, https://www.iea.org/articles/understanding-gender-gaps-in-wages-employment-and-career-trajectories-in-the-energy-sector (accessed on 9 August 2024).
[57] IPC (2024), Gaza Strip: IPC Acute Food Insecurity Special Snapshot, Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, https://www.un.org/unispal/document/gaza-strip-famine-ipc-snapshot-25jun24.
[38] IPU and UN Women (2023), Women in Politics: 2023, Inter-Parliamentary Union and UN Women, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Women-in-politics-2023-en.pdf.
[32] Krishnapriya, P. et al. (2021), “Do improved cookstoves save time and improve gender outcomes? Evidence from six developing countries”, Energy Economics, Vol. 102, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988321003431.
[64] OECD (2024), Addressing Inequalities that Intersect with Gender in Development Co-operation, ONE Members and Partners, https://one.oecd.org/official-document/DCD/DAC/GEN(2024)5/en.
[40] OECD (2024), Biodiversity and Development Finance 2015-2022: Contributing to Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d26526ad-en.
[45] OECD (2024), DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5022.
[14] OECD (2024), “Final ODA statistics”, https://public.flourish.studio/story/2150513 (accessed on 14 August 2024).
[27] OECD (2024), Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Renewable Power Infrastructure, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/357ac474-en.
[13] OECD (2024), OECD Data, Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9 (accessed on 15 August 2024).
[28] OECD (2024), OECD Forum on Gender Equality: Navigating Global Transitions – Background Note, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd-events.org/forum-on-gender-equality/en.
[18] OECD (2024), Official Development Assistance for Gender Equality in Ukraine in 2022, ONE Members and Partners, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/GEN(2024)4/en/pdf.
[52] OECD (2024), Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation: Learning By Example, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/51079bba-en.
[61] OECD (2024), Shifting Power with Partners: Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7987e8db-en.
[26] OECD (2023), A Decade of Development Finance for Biodiversity, 2011-2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6c182aa-en.
[50] OECD (2023), Funding Civil Society in Partner Countries: Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ea40a9c-en.
[23] OECD (2023), “Peace and official development assistance”, OECD Development Perspectives, No. 37, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fccfbffc-en.
[25] OECD (2023), “The gender equality and environment intersection: An overview of development co-operation frameworks and financing”, OECD Development Perspectives, No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c16d8fe8-en.
[49] OECD (2022), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls: DAC Guidance for Development Partners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0bddfa8f-en.
[2] OECD (2022), States of Fragility 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c7fedf5e-en.
[46] OECD (2021), DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5021.
[34] OECD (2021), Gender and the Environment: Building Evidence and Policies to Achieve the SDGs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d32ca39-en.
[39] OECD (2021), OECD DAC Declaration on a New Approach to Align Development Co-operation with the Goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0466.
[51] OECD (2016), Donor Support for Southern Women’s Rights Organisations, OECD, Paris.
[67] OHCHR (2024), About LGBTI people and human rights: OHCHR and the human rights of LGBTI people, web page, https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/about-lgbti-people-and-human-rights (accessed on August 2024).
[11] OHCHR (2024), “Gender apartheid must be recognised as a crime against humanity, UN experts say”, press release, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/gender-apartheid-must-be-recognised-crime-against-humanity-un-experts-say (accessed on 6 September 2024).
[60] Oxfam (2024), “More women and children killed in Gaza by Israeli military than any other recent conflict in a single year”, press release, https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict.
[43] Oxfam (2020), Inclusion Project – Phase 2: Mekong Regional Water Governance Programme (MRWGP), web page, https://asia.oxfam.org/what-we-do-mekong-water-governance/inclusion-project-phase-2-mekong-regional-water-governance (accessed on 11 August 2024).
[7] Phelps, H. (2023), “The disproportionate effects of war and conflict on women and girls”, The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. XXIV, pp. 1-10, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/online/volume-xxiv-online/the-disproportionate-effects-of-war-and-conflict-on-women-and-girls.
[35] Rewald, R. (2017), “Energy and women and girls: Analyzing the needs, uses, and impacts of energy on women and girls in the developing world”, Oxfam Research Backgrounder Series, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11185.07526.
[63] Roggeband, C. and A. Krizsán (2020), “Democratic backsliding and the backlash against women’s rights: Understanding the current challenges for feminist politics”, UN Women Discussion Paper, UN Women, https://doi.org/10.18356/c181abf2-en.
[65] Sightsavers (2024), OECD-DAC Disability and Gender Markers: Data Analysis 2018-2022, Sightsavers, https://www.sightsavers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sightsavers-OECD-DAC-data-analysis.pdf.
[17] The Global Women’s Institute (2023), Empowered Aid Lebanon: Summary Report, George Washington University, https://www.wvi.org/publications/lebanon/empowered-aid-lebanon-summary-report.
[59] The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation (2024), “Obstetric, reproductive & maternal violence in Gaza”, A Situation and Policy Brief, Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/publications/obstetric-reproductive-maternal-violence-in-gaza.
[54] The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation (2023), Hope and Resistance Go Together – The State of Women Human Rights Defenders 2023, The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Kvinna-till-Kvinna-Foundation-The-state-of-women-human-rights-defenders-2023.pdf.
[22] The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation (2023), They Came Together Not to Be Silenced: Gender-based Violence in Conflict & the Role of Women’s Rights Organisations, The Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/publications/they-came-together-not-to-be-silenced-gender-based-violence-in-conflict-the-role-of-womens-rights-organisations.
[19] Trokhym, I. (2024), “Women-led organisations’ response to the Ukraine crisis”, Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Vol. 85, https://odihpn.org/publication/women-led-organisations-response-to-the-ukraine-crisis.
[8] UK Aid (2024), Women’s Economic Empowerment in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668e5004d9d35187868f481e/WOW-helpdesk-query-91-Womens-Economic-Empowerment-in-Fragile-and-Conflict-Affected-States.pdf.
[5] UN OCHA (2022), Global Humanitarian Overview 2023, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-humanitarian-overview-2023-enaresfr.
[15] UN OCHA (2021), Global Humanitarian Overview 2022, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, https://2022.gho.unocha.org.
[56] UN Women (2024), Gender Alert: Voices of Strength: Contributions of Palestinian Women Led Organizations to the Humanitarian Response in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN Women Regional Office for the Arab States, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/gender-alert_palestine-wlos-en.pdf.
[12] UN Women (2024), Gender Country Profile: Afghanistan, UN Women, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/Gender-country-profile-Afghanistan-en.pdf.
[1] UN Women and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2023), The Gender Snapshot 2023, UN Women and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/gender-snapshot/2023/GenderSnapshot.pdf.
[4] United Nations Secretary-General (2024), Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Report of the United Nations Secretary-General, United Nations, https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/SG-2023-annual-reportsmallFINAL.pdf.
[6] United Nations Security Council (2023), Women and Peace and Security : Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations Security Council, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n23/279/08/pdf/n2327908.pdf.
[24] UNSC (2000), Resolution 1325 (2000), United Nations Security Council, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n00/720/18/pdf/n0072018.pdf.
[47] USAID (2022), Donor Statement on Supporting Locally Led Development, United States Agency for International Development, https://www.usaid.gov/localization/donor-statement-on-supporting-locally-led-development.
[44] Weldon, S. and M. Htun (2013), “Feminist mobilisation and progressive policy change: Why governments take action to combat violence against women”, Gender & Development, Vol. 21/2, pp. 231-247, https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2013.802158.
[58] WHO (2024), “Regional health ministers rally to support immediate steps to stop polio from paralyzing children in the Gaza Strip”, https://www.emro.who.int/polio-eradication/news/regional-health-ministers-rally-to-support-immediate-steps-to-stop-polio-from-paralyzing-children-in-the-gaza-strip.html (accessed on 21 August 2024).
[33] WHO (2016), Burning Opportunity: Clean Household Energy for Health, Sustainable Development, and Wellbeing of Women and Children, World Health Organization, Geneva, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/204717.
[20] Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund (2024), “In her own words: Halyna Skipálska”, United Nations, https://wphfund.org/in-her-own-words-halyna (accessed on 27 August 2024).
[53] Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund (2023), CSO Survey on Women, Peace and Security and Humanitarian Action, Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund, https://wphfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WPHF-Global-CSO-Survey-Brief_April-28-2023_FIN-1.pdf.
[37] World Bank (2024), Women, Business and the Law, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-2063-2.
[21] World Bank et al. (2023), Second Ukraine Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA2): February 2022-February 2023, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099184503212328877/P1801740d1177f03c0ab180057556615497 (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[16] World Food Programme (2023), Unequal Access: Gendered Barriers to Humanitarian Assistance, World Food Programme, Rome, https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000153869/download/?_ga=2.138236656.1194333037.1722418153-168885496.1716381778.
← 1. For an exhaustive list of contexts experiencing fragility, see States of Fragility 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1787/c7fedf5e-en). The forthcoming States of Fragility 2025 will likely include updates to the conceptual classification of contexts experiencing fragility and conflict.
← 2. Fragility is a combination of exposure to risk and insufficient coping capacity of the state, system and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks. Fragility can lead to negative outcomes, including violence, the breakdown of institutions, displacement, humanitarian crises or other emergencies. See States of Fragility 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1787/c7fedf5e-en).
← 3. Electricity, automated transportation and information technology are essential to economic development. They are also basic features of modern society, and thus energy sources and systems that meet these needs reliably and affordably can be considered as “modern”. See: (https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/goal-7-ensure-access-affordable-reliable-sustainable-and-modern-energy-all).
← 4. While these data are the basis for the analysis in this section, some support channelled through these local actors is reported in other sectors and not captured here. For example, a project aimed to address sexual and gender-based violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was reported under civilian peacebuilding, conflict prevention and resolution, despite being centred on capacity strengthening between Palestinian feminist organisations. Another example includes the Equality Fund, funded by Canada, which aims to create sustainable and predictable grant funding for WROs in ODA-eligible countries through different grant-making streams. In 2021, some funding for the Equality Fund was reported under the code human rights or democratic participation and civil society. As such, support for these valuable initiatives for WROs will not necessarily show up in the OECD database as funding for the effectiveness, influence and sustainability of WROs. The OECD is currently exploring ways of strengthening the tracking of the exent to which those funds are committed to and through WROs.
← 5. Other well-recognised initiatives exist which are aimed at monitoring and analysing global funding in support of SRHR, notably the “Muskoka 2 Methodology”, developed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This approach uses OECD data and applies imputed percentages to different sector codes to monitor funding for SRHR, family planning and RMNCH, respectively. See: https://datacompass.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/1526 and https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30005-X/fulltext. This report, however, bases its analysis on the DAC policy marker for RMNCH and argues for the strengthened use of the policy marker as a more straightforward and robust tool to monitor funding for SRHR.