What’s Unsaid | Why we need to fund feminists

Obi Anyadike:

Today on What’s Unsaid: Why we need to fund feminists 

 

Did you know that women's rights organisations, movements and institutions get less than one percent – just 0.34 percent - of total global aid flows? And this is actually down from the 0.42 percent they received in 2020. 

 

Only around a billion dollars was spent on women’s rights organisations in 2022. To put that into context, aid donors spent ten times more on their administrative costs. 

 

Despite driving systemic change, and supporting their communities, a new report shows the extent to which young girls and women are overlooked — and makes a plea to the humanitarian sector.

 

Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah: 

Young girls, young feminists, find themselves playing active roles in a time of crisis, but actually find themselves unable to benefit from support. Beyond the numbers, this is about people's lives. This is about changing systems. 

 

Anyadike: 

So, does the humanitarian system need to do far better for girls and young women everywhere - from Sudan, Ukraine, Palestine…and beyond?

 

This is What’s Unsaid. A bi-weekly podcast by The New Humanitarian, where we explore open secrets and uncomfortable conversations around the world’s conflicts and disasters. My name is Obi Anyadike, staff editor at The New Humanitarian. 

 

On today’s episode: Why we need to fund feminists 

 

With us today is Nana-Darkoa Sekyiamah. She co-authored the report, ‘We need to know the humanitarian sector stands with us,' for the Institute for Journalism and Social Change – or IJSC. 

 

She also wrote the award-winning book, The Sex Lives of African Women. Nana-Darkoa, thanks for joining us.

 

Sekyiamah:

Thank you Obi. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

 

Anyadike: 

Can you start by telling us, how are women and young girls overlooked when it comes to funding?

 

Sekyiamah:

I almost don't know where to start from, right? Because it's a persistent issue. And if you were to ask me why it happens, I think it’s to do with large structural issues, right? It's to do with creating systems that are often determined by men, right? That think of women as an add-on and are not involved right from the beginning. I mean, Afghanistan is a classic example, right? You know, the United States pulled out. Taliban took over. Taliban basically said women and girls cannot work, right? Humanitarian actors are active in the country. And they have, in general, actually stopped working with women and girls. What we found when we spoke to feminist activists who are still active in the country, is they are finding ways to still employ women and girls, right. What they also said to me when I interviewed them is that if you don't involve women and girls in the distribution of humanitarian aid, for instance, it actually means that aid doesn't receive women and girls, and particularly those women and girls who are most vulnerable, like women living with disabilities. We know that there is basically gender apartheid happening in Afghanistan. So just imagine complying with the Taliban, not employing women and girls in the humanitarian sector. Meanwhile, in the years prior to the Taliban taking over, women and girls were actually the ones who were running the majority of NGOs, and leading, you know, the majority of NGOs.

 

Anyadike:

To underline the problem, let's zero in on some figures. Your report notes that the words, girls or young women are rare in most records of humanitarian spending. Out of more than 24,000 rows of data in the OECD’s dataset for humanitarian assistance in 2022, only two projects mentioned young women, and they only received about $350,000 - a minuscule 0.001 percent - if my maths serves me well - of the total spent on humanitarian aid. What? Why? What's going on?

 

Sekyiamah: 

Well, that's the question. That's the question that we are asking as well. What is going on? And I think what's great is that these figures are figures that come from the donors themselves. They themselves report this, right. And so, this is a question that I think we need to be asking donors: What is going on? Why are you…This is not just an underfunding of young girls. It's minuscule. It's like a drop in the ocean, right. So, why are you underfunding young girls to this extent, when on the other hand, you recognize the importance of supporting young girls. And you say this, right? So, a lot of the donor countries we're looking at as well, are also donor countries that have committed to having feminist foreign policies. And so, it feels to me like the feminist foreign policies are meaningless if that doesn't result in, you know, actually putting money where you say your heart is.

 

Anyadike: 

Just following on from what you've just told us, from the Taliban removing women from public life in Afghanistan, to the threat to reproductive rights in the US, this really feels at a time that humanitarian organisations should be focusing even more on women and girls. So, why isn't it happening?

 

Sekyiamah:

It's a great question. And it's something that the humanitarian sector, I think, is very much aware of, because there's been lots of conversation. There's been a number of, you know, agreements. There's always talk of localization. It feels to me like a lack of political will, frankly. I don't think there's a lack of knowledge, it feels like a lack of political will. And also, because it is really revolutionary to change the system, not to do aid as usual, to do the hard work of identifying, you know, community organisations, feminist organisations, women's rights organisations on the ground, who are closer to the crisis, who are the most affected and, who I think are best placed to respond to the challenges in their own environment.

 

Anyadike:

And Sudan is like a practical example of this. Less than 1 percent of total aid went to women's rights organisations in 2022. And this month happens to be the fifth anniversary of what was a women's led revolution that ousted the former President Omar Al Bashir. Reem Abbas was one of the women quoted in your report: 

 

Reem Abbas: 

Women were the backbone of the revolution. This is a fact. They were present. And they were doing a lot of the legwork. But I think we were punished for being so present in the public spaces. And this punishment just happened just right after the revolution, when many people felt that women were finally able to tell their stories. They felt very strong and empowered by being in the public spaces, and they were able to express themselves in different ways - even by dressing differently than they used to before - and this is why we were punished.

 

Anyadike:

So, what's happened to the women's movement in the ensuing chaos of this past year?

 

Sekyiamah: 

It's really sad. And I feel like this is always the pattern, right? When in essence, women and girls and feminists have a win, then patriarchy reforms, reshapes, strengthens, and there's always a strong backlash, and it feels like that's a huge part of what is going on in Sudan at this point in time. And, at the same time, what we found through our research is again, even in this moment, you know, young Sudanese feminists, gender non-conforming people are actually really being active. They've created emergency humanitarian rooms. They provided support for women who are suffering gender based violence. We know gender based violence has gone through the roof. We know lots of young Sudanese girls have been kidnapped. There have been reports of girls being sold at markets. We've also had Sudanese groups in neighbouring diaspora countries like Egypt organise to basically evacuate the most vulnerable people, especially gender nonconforming people out of the country. And it really feels like sometimes the world is not paying enough attention to Sudan.

 

Anyadike:

Right. Reem Abbas quoted in your report, told us that women built an entire infrastructure out of the revolution in Sudan. As you mentioned, the emergency rooms, the revolutionary committees, and they filled an absence created by more established humanitarian organisations. Let's listen to what she had to say.

 

Abbas: 

Women are the ones who are basically running most of the humanitarian work. From providing food, organising soup kitchens, providing health services, operating the health care clinics within the neighbourhoods. They are almost becoming a local government or a local governance structure.

 

Anyadike:

Why are they not more supported by formal humanitarian systems?

 

Sekyiamah: 

So, the formal humanitarian actors have a whole range of criteria. And, for that reason, they tend to work with international non-governmental organisations, which are really professionalised, right? Have people with all sorts of qualifications and experiences, who know in theory exactly what to do in times of crisis. However, I think the people who know most what to do in times of crisis, are the people who live in the country or territory experiencing the crisis. So, you find that a lot of young feminists, young girls, you know, they may have just started an informal group. There was one person we spoke to called Yosh from Ukraine. And, you know, a couple of years ago, they had just started a young feminist group, just to learn about feminism, just to support each other. And when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine occurred, they turned to provide humanitarian assistance. So, they lived in a town really close to the border of Poland, so lots of people were literally displaced, and ended up in their town trying to get to Poland. And they opened two shelters for women and children. They found themselves creating activities to keep the children engaged, providing a range of services to the woman, you know, really doing humanitarian assistance work, which is not something they would have done under normal circumstances. They realised they needed help. They needed support. They needed funding, but found themselves ineligible for the main sources of humanitarian funding. And, at least at the time - I don't even know if they're registered now - may not have been a formally registered group. They may not have years of audited accounts. And in a sense, they don't then meet the criteria to be supported by these large humanitarian actors. But then when you look at who can actually be supported by these large humanitarian actors, and you realise localisation can never happen, and so I think it's down to the humanitarian actors to be creative, and to figure out how to get the money to the people who can actually make a difference in their own communities. I don't think it's for these groups to, in a sense, now have to professionalise and become like an INGO to be able to access resources to do the work that they need to do. Something is not working, and I think it's for the major players to change the system.

 

Anyadike: 

That’s interesting, so it's not, because the way it is set up at the moment, there's so many checks, that it’s almost impossible for small groups to access funding because it's so onerous the level of…

 

Sekyiamah: 

Absolutely. 

 

Anyadike: 

Okay. Five years ago, the UN, World Bank, USAID, and other organisations launched RESPECT - a policy framework to prevent violence against women. Did it have any effect?

 

Sekyiamah:

I mean, this is the thing, right. I feel like the frameworks have been created. The commitments have been made. There's been a lot of good talk. A lot of good documentation. It’s past time for action. And really, what we need to see is real action, a real revolution, change in the system from the inside out. The key players need to show that they have the political will. And I think if they have the political will, they will do what needs to be done. It means funding, making localisation real, and not just it being like a fancy, you know, word or buzzword. It means moving resources to the people on the ground who are doing the work and changing the system from the inside out.

 

Anyadike:

So, it's kind of systemic change. I mean…

 

Sekyiamah:

Absolutely. I think revolutionary change, right?

 

Anyadike:

Right. 

 

Sekyiamah:

Not just sort of tweaking at the edges, which is what feels like has been happening for a really long time.

 

Anyadike:

So, you feel it is just lip service: localisation, gender rights, it’s just a box that gets ticked. Is that the problem?

 

Sekyiamah:

I think so. I think the figures don't lie, you know. What's the data telling us? The data is telling us that in spite of the talk, there is little money going towards women, and there’s little money going towards girls. And there’s ways in which to do that, for example, big humanitarian agencies could work better with feminist organisations that have really done the work of figuring out how to work and support community-based organisations, because an argument is often that small organisations cannot absorb huge sums of money. And I think if you think that's a challenge, you could work with feminist funds, who have a proven track record of supporting really small community-based organisations.

 

Anyadike:

That's really interesting. So basically, it's a kind of workaround, but anchored on women's small organisations that are actually doing the work on the ground. I mean, do you have examples of really proactive, radical change that's being promoted by some of these women's groups on the ground?

 

Sekyiamah:

For example, there is MADRE that has been working with feminists in Afghanistan to basically support Afghanistan women right now. They've created online education platforms to ensure that girls, even though they cannot go to school right now, are getting educated. They’ve created systems to enable Afghanistan women in the country to take up jobs remotely. You know, this is actually sustaining people and saving lives because Afghanistan women are in a situation right now that it feels like no other group of women in any other part of the world are facing, where they are literally trapped in their homes. So, I think this is essential lifesaving work. And that's being supported by feminist funds, including MADRE.

 

Anyadike:

And on the point of feminist funders, how do they decide who to work with? And how do they get the funds to these organisations, which might be operating under the radar or not as formally?

 

Sekyiamah:

Feminists funds tend to raise money in a number of ways; from private foundations, and also sometimes from bilaterals. I also think the main humanitarian actors, like I mentioned, should also provide resources to these feminist funds - and they tend to work through networks of feminist activists. I think what's really great about feminist funds is they invest in movements. So, supporting an ecosystem of feminists who are supporting change. So, this could be women who work at the grassroots level. This could be women who work in policy spaces. And I think it's through those networks that they tend to be able to identify groups to support, but then groups also reach out to feminist funds. So, there was a woman from Afghanistan that I interviewed. She was the first one alongside other feminists in her community to start a magazine for feminists, and really it was a magazine to learn, to share, you know, to inspire them. And when the Taliban takeover happened, she and other women human rights defenders felt that their lives were at risk and needed to escape. They had recently been in touch with FRIDA which is a young feminist fund. There was a fund created to basically support young feminists and young girls. And FRIDA then connected her to Urgent Action Fund. Urgent Action Fund is a network of sister funds that basically provide urgent responses to women and girls, wherever they may be. And in this case, you know, the urgent response that was needed was to help these women human rights defenders who were likely to be targeted by the Taliban because of the activism they had been doing, evacuate and leave the country. I think that's another example of how feminist funds work by working in collaboration. So, if one feminist fund doesn't have the resources or skill or experience to support an emergency situation, for instance, they're able to reach out to sister feminist funds.

 

Anyadike:

Traditional sort of aid impact seems to measure deliverables or numbers. But you seem to be suggesting what's equally, or even more important, is building networks of solidarity, of trust, of community. Is that how you're kind of recasting the kind of aid that you think that feminist organisations are doing?

 

Sekyiamah:

Absolutely. And I love how you framed it. I think that's super, super important. I think, also, sadly, a time of crisis is also an opportunity to reshape society in a way that's more just and that's more fair. And I think it's well known that in times of crisis, you know, we often find that, in a sense, there are more opportunities for women to lead, right? And then usually, when the crisis is over, the men come back and take over, and then we end up in a difficult situation.

 

Anyadike:

And can you share something that surprised or shocked you while you're researching this report?

 

Sekyiamah:

I think I was surprised by how active young feminists are, especially at a time of crisis. You know, it's easy to think young girls may not care about issues facing their countries. I was surprised by how active a role they play, how they just rally to get their creativity, their energy. Also really just using digital platforms, I feel like a lot of us know more of what is happening about Sudan, not because of mass media stories, but because of how Sudanese feminists who have access to the internet, who are in the diaspora, are keeping what's going on in Sudan alive. We've also had situations in Palestine, for instance, we've had Palestinian feminists in the diaspora organise to provide eSIMS to Palestinians in the country so that they can also report directly about what's happening. I think that's super important to hear the stories from the people on the ground who are most affected by the issues. And I think it's amazing, you know, the young feminists are making sure that we are all aware, and hopefully being aware is a first step to, I guess, provoking our conscience, provoking the conscience of those who actually have real power to make a difference.

 

Anyadike:

And if the humanitarian sector is serious about gender equality, what do you think it needs to do?

 

Sekyiamah:

I think it needs to change the system from the inside out. It needs to make localisation real. I think it needs to work with primarily women and girls on the ground, from grassroots communities. If they find it's difficult to identify groups, they can collaborate with feminist funds to help them identify groups to support, and to do this in a meaningful way, where the community women and girls are equal players at a table, and not in a sense, recipients of tiny, tiny, tiny drops of funding - insignificant frankly - drops of funding, which is the situation today.

 

Anyadike:

And if you got into an elevator with the money people, and you made your pitch, why is it important to invest in women's organisations?

 

Sekyiamah:

Because there is evidence that actually investing in women's rights organisations, and investing in feminist movements, is the only real way to bring about concrete change. And that's just a fact. You know whenever we've seen social change, it's been as a result of the work of movements. Change just doesn't happen. It comes through struggle. It comes through activism. And so it's important to support movements who are committed to creating a better world that benefits us all.

 

Anyadike:

So, you’ve used the word revolution a few times, which is how your work with the sex lives of African women could be [seen]. So, what have you learned from that that the humanitarian sector could use?

 

Sekyiamah:

It's a great question. I think the thing I have learned from my book, and even the process of co-writing this report is, it's really, really important to speak to women, to hear their experiences, to learn from their experiences, to believe them, to trust, they have their solutions, and to hear what they say the solutions are. That's really just been part of my practice, whether it's in, you know, how I created my book, The Sex Lives of African Women, or my approach to research. 

 

Anyadike:

The podcast is called What's Unsaid, and we're looking at uncomfortable truths or conversations that might be held behind closed doors. So, what do you think people are afraid to talk about when it comes to this issue? 

 

Sekyiamah:

That change hasn't happened because the main players and the humanitarian actors are comfortable with the status quo. And, it's not in their best interest for there to be meaningful change, because that means a loss of power for them.

 

Anyadike:

And revolution looks like what?

 

Sekyiamah:

Women and girls at the front.

 

Anyadike:

Nana Darkoa, thank you so much for being with us today. 

 

Sekyiamah:

Thank you Obi. It’s been a pleasure.

 

Anyadike:

Nana Darkoa Sekyiamah is a Ghanaian writer and co-founder of the Institute for Journalism and Social Change - or IJSC.

 

Please visit TheNewHumanitarian.org for ongoing reporting on humanitarian issues in crisis zones across the world. 

 

And what are people afraid to talk about in today’s crises? What needs to be discussed openly? Let us know: send us an email: [email protected]. Or subscribe to The New Humanitarian on your podcast app for more episodes of What’s Unsaid – our new podcast about open secrets and uncomfortable truths hosted by Ali Latifi and me, Obi Anyadike

 

This episode is produced and edited by Freddie Boswell, sound engineering by Mark Nieto, with original music by Whitney Patterson. Thanks for listening!