The Intel

This depends on two questions. First: what’s the point of a target? If it’s to give the Foreign Minister an “announceable”, then the 80% target has been a failure. The only year it’s been met since 2014 was under Partnerships for Recovery, when it was (ironically) downgraded from a target to an indicator.

If the purpose of a target is to drive progress over time, then the picture here doesn’t look much better – results have fluctuated between 75-80%, somewhat unpredictably. However, this shows that DFAT have held the line on robust assessments and resisted any pressure to arbitrarily ‘meet’ the target. But it doesn’t look like it has improved the aid program’s ability to perform on gender.

Which brings me to my second question: is this target measuring the right thing? That is, can it actually tell us anything meaningful about whether Australia’s development cooperation is advancing gender equality?

There are actually two gender targets now: the 80% target (an annual measure of performance against 6 criteria) and the commitment introduced in 2022 that all programs over $3m must have gender equality as their principal or significant objective. Working together, the two targets should ensure that almost all DFAT programs are underpinned by robust gender analysis and go beyond just including women, instead aiming to transform the structural causes of gender inequality.

Shifting gender norms can take generations, so 18 months is too soon to see real results. But if we want to speed up the pace of change, I’d suggest adding one more target: increasing the percentage of aid to women’s rights organisations – consistently found to be the most effective actors on gender outcomes, but currently receiving less than half a percent of Australia’s ODA. The most transformative outcomes are achieved when women’s rights organisations are provided with core, flexible, long-term funding – when they are funded to be, not merely to do. Lifting the proportion of funding going to the most effective actors to even 5% of Australia’s ODA would unlock real progress on gender equality.

It’s easy to say that Australia is committed to gender equality in the development program. But it is much harder to be honest about what is needed to achieve it. The recently-released PADC report might show we are currently falling short of gender equality targets, but the presence of a credible, public report on aid performance is good news in itself.

After the integration of AusAID into DFAT in 2014, the transparency agenda tumbled from lofty priority, enshrined in a Transparency Charter, to deep dark fear. For those new to aid management and big budget program implementation, the very real risk of failure seemed spooky enough – so why would you tell people about it? What would the Minister think?

But you can’t fix what you don’t know. After nearly a decade on shaky footing, the 2023 development policy signalled a renewed commitment to accountability, signed off by the Ministers responsible for enabling and encouraging it.

Transformative development work is hard, especially when it involves shifting norms and changing culture. Thanks to this report, we now know where we stand on our commitments, what the issues are, and how far there is to go.

There is another piece of good news to take away from lower ratings – they are driven by improved robustness. Instead of DFAT itself deciding if it is achieving its own goals, more investment monitoring reports are being independently verified. This is an important driver for accountability and performance.

While we aren’t there yet, the report shows us the gender targets in the aid program are within reach. We are much more likely to meaningfully achieve them by grappling with complexity and examining our effectiveness with transparency and rigour.

It is not surprising the department has not met its gender target – it is honest. Being honest about how we achieve inclusive gender equality, through intersectional approaches that seek the removal of inequalities everywhere, requires contestability within our organisations. It must be backed up by development systems and structures that foster this change.

A culture of transparency and contestability that provides space to question, tell the truth (and in this case, support DFAT to deliver an accountable development program within a complex geo-strategic environment) might make it harder to achieve the gender target. However, it may also make the process of realising the target more robust in a world where the minimum time to realise gender equality is more than a lifetime.

As a general rule, patriarchal, misogynistic, white supremacist, colonial systems, and racist structures – to name merely a few of the tools of dehumanisation – are pretty bad for gender equality. This is equally true whether you’re talking about a development program, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, or the way we engage in our homes, communities, states and the region.

There is opportunity in the new international development policy and the twin targets for all new investments over $3m to include gender equality objectives, and half of them to include climate change objectives. It poses the question – how can one be done without the other? A strategic alignment, and cooperative locally-led approach to gender, climate and environment investments may support DFAT to achieve these targets. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting interventions that are climate, environment and gender-informed tend to work better. Australia’s national action plan on women, peace and security provides one mechanism to consider the intersections of these issues in the region.