African Woman and Child Feature Service

Even as women at this Beijing+15 Review forum push their governments to adopt actions to advance the cause of gender empowerment, one can easily read on global faces the massive apprehension about the future of funding for gender programmes.

Recent developments in countries that have traditionally supported gender programmes in Africa and Asia is sending a strong signal of a troubled future. In the Netherlands, a country known for providing funding to its NGOs that in turn support gender related programmes in Africa and Asia, the situation is worrying.

The collapse of the coalition government, in which the Labour Party, one of the biggest supporters of the Millennium Development Goal three (MDG3) Fund, was a member has sent NGOs into panic. There are real fears that if the right wing leaning party that has expressed little support to funding development programmes outside The Netherlands wins the next elections, taps for funding NGOs maybe shut.

This is not far fetched. The right wing politicians have questioned on several occasions why NGOs should receive so much money to fund programmes in Africa and Asia when back at home they are struggling with unemployment and other issues that need funds.

To them, the 0.8 percent of their Gross National Income, which they give out as Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), should be reduced. They argue that if NGOs want to raise money, then they can do so from other sources.

“At the moment, the developments in the political arena have left us unsure about the fate of MDG3 Fund which funds programmes of 45 international and regional organisations,” says Ireen Dubel, HIVOS Programme Manager Gender, Women and Development.

The Fund, whose three-year funding period ends mid-2011, has been instrumental in turning around the lives of many women in Africa and Asia as well as safeguarding and enhancing their rights.

If the Fund fails to get future monies from the Dutch government, it will send serious ripple effects thousands of miles away in Africa.

“The Dutch government is reducing funding to Dutch NGOs, which fund gender programmes in the South. This problem might be exacerbated if a new government decides to go against the commitments made by the outgoing government,” says a worried Dubel.

This was seen recently in Sweden where the new government cited the economic crisis to break funding agreements it had signed with the Swedish NGOs.

An Association for Women’s Rights in Development study, Context and Trends Influencing the Funding Landscape for Gender Equality and Women’s Organizations and Movements, warns that donors are going to cut their gender funding as part of the overall reduction in their ODA as they respond to the economic crisis.

Nevertheless, recent actions and statements of commitment made by various countries towards financing gender programmes are promising.

Spain’s US$65 million and Norway’s US$3.5 million bilateral contribution to the UNIFEM’s Fund for Gender Equality is one of the actions giving hope to gender advocates.

Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Irish, Foundations in the USA, the Bill Gates and Nike foundations, Oxfam, ActionAid, and other new actors have expressed willingness to renew commitment to gender issues.

The only fear is that with the current financial crisis, these commitments might not to be honoured soon as these countries and individuals work to stabilise their economies and businesses.

Dubel says under the current circumstances, the future of funding gender programmes calls for expanding sources which include bringing on board philanthropists and other new actors.