Over the last decade, DAC members have paid increased attention to gender equality in their bilateral allocable official development assistance (ODA), reaching USD 60.4 billion with gender equality objectives in 2021-22. This represented 42% of ODA (USD 143 billion). Most of this integrated gender equality as one policy objective among others (38%), while 4% focused on gender equality as the principal objective.

However, despite a rise in volume, the share of 42% of ODA with gender equality objectives was a drop from 45% in 2019-20. Of the 32 DAC members, 20 focused less on gender equality in 2021-22 than in 2019-20. This is concerning and needs to be reversed considering that progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 5 is off track, more countries are seeing a pushback against gender equality, and there is an alarming increase of poverty and inequalities. It is worrying that conflicts and violence rise around the world, yet responses tend to pay little attention to women’s rights and gender equality. No correlation can be observed between existing gender inequalities and the focus on gender equality in ODA to countries. Climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss are also obstacles, as they disproportionately affect women and girls. Every development intervention has an impact on gender equality, whether intended or not, and excluding gender equality objectives from policies, programmes or investments leads to missed opportunities to advance on several fronts in parallel.

In addition to the USD 60.4 billion of ODA, DAC members also included gender equality considerations in USD 3.5 billion of their other official flows, corresponding to 42% of such flows that were examined to see if they had gender equality objectives, using the DAC gender equality policy marker. However, DAC members can largely improve their reporting of such flows against the Marker for greater transparency.

Gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls remains unevenly integrated across development themes and sectors. The strong focus on gender equality by DAC members in other social infrastructure and services, education, and agriculture and rural development is positive. Conversely, humanitarian aid and aid in the energy sector continue to have a particularly low focus on gender equality.

It is especially concerning that while DAC members’ volume of humanitarian aid has grown, from USD 21.6 billion in 2019-20 to USD 29.3 billion in 2021-22, the focus on gender equality has decreased, from 19% to 17% over the same period. Strikingly, less than 10% of the ODA provided to Ukraine in 2022 in the context of Russia’s war of aggression included gender equality objectives. In conflict zones, women and girls tend to be disproportionality affected by violence and displacement. DAC members need to tailor aid to local realities to avoid compromising the future of recovery efforts.

The clean energy transition is an opportunity to advance gender-responsive initiatives while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Integration of gender equality in the energy sector has improved in recent years, notably in energy generation from renewable sources, but the share of aid with gender equality objectives can be further increased from its current 30%. Gender equality is central to achieving universal energy access.

Looking at areas recognised as essential to achieving transformative change for gender equality, sexual and reproductive health and rights are fundamental. Worryingly, recent years have seen well-funded attempts to reverse progress in this area. While funding with the objective of supporting reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health has increased overall, aid in the specific areas of reproductive health care and family planning dropped in 2021-22. Reporting by DAC members can improve in the area of reproductive health to allow for a comprehensive understanding.

It is vital to consider how financing reaches those most in need. DAC members recognise the important role of women’s rights organisations and feminist movements in creating change by addressing the root causes of inequalities and being on the frontline in local communities. Funding for their effectiveness, influence and sustainability, however, remains low, persistently under 1% of ODA for gender equality. DAC members should replicate those members who have been strong supporters for women’s rights organisations over several years.

Development actors other than DAC members represent an enormous potential to ensure sufficient financial support for gender equality. Multilateral organisations and banks committed USD 36.6 billion of development flows with gender equality objectives on average in 2021-22. However, an additional USD 144.4 billion per year of multilateral outflows were reported to the OECD but either lacked a gender equality focus or the potential focus was not reported.

Non-DAC donor countries and South-South co-operation providers can offer valuable political support for gender equality. Currently, 11 countries report support for gender equality either to the OECD or to total official support for sustainable development (TOSSD), adding up to approximately USD 13 million per year in total.

The private sector is also stepping up efforts to invest with a gender equality lens. USD 4.6 billion of private finance mobilised through DAC members’ public development finance in 2022 included gender equality objectives. Approximately the same amounts of mobilised finance were reported as lacking gender equality objectives and without information about their potential gender equality focus. In addition, more than 40 private foundations provided USD 3.4 billion of funding with gender equality objectives. This corresponds to 28% of foundations’ overall development funding and indicates scope for a stronger focus on gender equality.

OECD data show that USD 108.4 billion of development finance from all actors currently have gender equality objectives, while an additional USD 271.2 billion are available but either lack a gender equality focus or the focus is not reported. The amount of development finance available is potentially much larger, since a sizable part of finance is not reported to the OECD.