Amidst ongoing and escalating global crises, adults with caregiving responsibilities and children constitute the majority of populations affected by fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV); by 2030, the World Bank estimates that more than 50 percent of people facing extreme poverty will live in FCV countries. Displaced children face increased development risks, while caregivers face a range of increased challenges in providing care, exacerbated by trauma, increased risk of violence, and economic instability. Despite the established evidence on the importance of childcare in FCV settings and the clear links between early childhood development (ECD), childcare, and gender equality, access to affordable, quality childcare in FCV settings remains scarce.

Now is an opportune time for bilateral and multilateral donors to invest in ECD and childcare in FCV settings, as the International Development Association (IDA) replenishment, IDA21, is underway. The World Bank’s IDA is the largest source of concessional financing to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and 40 percent of IDA countries are currently classified as fragile- and conflict-affected situations (or FCS, an acronym synonymous with FCV which is often utilized by the World Bank).

Unfortunately, the proposed IDA21 policy package reflects further backtracking on gender equality and childcare, and it misses opportunities for ensuring resources go to FCS countries. It is critical that action is taken in the upcoming replenishment meeting scheduled for October 28-29, 2024.

Shortcomings in current financing and programs from donors

Traditional approaches to short-term humanitarian aid and long-term development assistance have often been unable to come together to holistically address the adversities faced by families in FCV settings.

In part, this is because response initiatives are often designed without children and their caregivers’ realities in mind, failing to give crisis-affected populations the resources and services to adapt and build sustainable livelihoods. The divide between humanitarian and development actors is another factor, compounded by the limited amount of research being done on humanitarian interventions, for example, rarely integrating a gender analysis. A third point of contention is that costs or baseline investment of care services, children’s development, and WEE, particularly in FCV contexts, are unknown, often leaving these issues without a policy or investment strategy.

Despite recent recognition by bilateral and multilateral donors of the importance of investments in ECD and childcare in FCV settings, the current landscape of available and/or quality of financing remains insufficient, particularly sustained initiatives to address the longer term challenges experienced by children and caregivers.

Additionally, there are real constraints to the predictability and flexibility of funding for FCV populations writ large. Conflicts are increasingly protracted, lasting on average 12 years, yet the volume and proportion of development assistance for countries facing long-term crises has been reduced. ECD funding in 2018 stood at just 2 percent of the total distributed humanitarian funding, with 19 percent reported as ‘multi-sector.’

With efforts being led by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to additionally “ring fence” or “boundary set” what falls under humanitarian response, the pot of funding allocated for long-term needs will continue to be reduced. This results in wider societal harms for both host and displaced communities that influence outcomes across generations.

An innovative approach which builds on recent evidence should bring together the ECD, childcare, and gender equality sectors to center FCV investments around children and their caregivers. This includes ensuring access to services for those outside formal systems, creating a combined approach of equity at scale. Read our second blog post in this series to learn more about how the Center for Global Development and the International Rescue Committee (IRC) have been generating evidence and developing partnerships to support this innovative approach.

Without action, IDA21 will become a missed opportunity for childcare, ECD, and WEE in FCV countries

IDA typically goes through a three-year replenishment cycle, with resource pledges from donors accompanying a negotiation on policy priorities. The negotiations culminate in a policy package with commitments on key issues of importance and development priorities for IDA countries.

The previous replenishment, IDA20, marked a big step forward in recognizing the importance of childcare for gender and development, and ECD for human capital, with specific policy commitments that included country targets; this enabled monitoring and reporting. IDA20 also featured specific FCV policy commitments, and targets for FCS countries were woven throughout policy commitments in other thematic areas, though not the childcare or ECD policy commitment. The Invest in Childcare initiative was a complement to the IDA20 childcare policy commitment to support at least 15 countries to expand access to quality, affordable childcare, creating programs which integrated ECD, childcare, and WEE considerations. FCV contexts benefited, although minimally, from this initiative as well.

Throughout the replenishment negotiation process, IRC has emphasized the importance of a robust IDA21 replenishment, particularly for FCV settings and for refugee inclusion in early childhood education and care. Experts from CGD have also discussed the need for a robust replenishment which does not sacrifice the quality of financing by ensuring sufficient contributions from donors. This is necessary to meet the concessional financing needs of LMICs amidst an array of crises which limit resources for key development goals.

This has been accompanied by concerns about the quality of the policy package, particularly for gender equality, with recommendations to ensure there are accountability mechanisms in place for resource allocations. IDA21 is still in the midst of ongoing negotiations, but institutional changes have led to pressures to take a more streamlined approach to IDA and reduce policy commitments. This simplified framework, including the policy package and results measurement, poses significant risks for the impact of IDA21 resources. Recent changes to the proposed policy package released on October 18 stand to only increase these risks, particularly for childcare and WEE.

Though the May 2024 version of the proposed policy commitments was dramatically scaled back from IDA20, it maintained policy commitments on childcare and ECD. Discussions with donors, think tanks, funders, and civil society reflected broad support for the inclusion of these commitments. However, to maintain IDA’s important historic and increasing role for supporting gender equality, CGD recommended additional policy commitments on gender. To elevate FCV settings in IDA21, CGD also recommended setting FCS country targets within the policy commitments–for example, within a policy commitment on expanding quality and affordable care services, including a sub-target that half of the countries be FCV settings. These targets are critical to ensure relevant resources reach FCS countries, especially given what we know about existing shortfalls and the importance of providing long-term concessional financing in these settings.

However, not only does the October 2024 proposed policy package not integrate any FCS country targets, it also cuts the childcare policy commitment and does not include any specific gender lens targets for country-level actions. This is counter to our recommendations, and it came as a surprise even to those of us participating in numerous IDA21 and gender discussions over the course of the replenishment process with donors, funders, and civil society organizations, where we have heard agreement upon the importance of prioritizing gender, care, and FCV countries.

These changes mean that the value-add of IDA for setting specific, monitored targets to provide accountability has been erased. The exclusion of a childcare policy commitment would be a huge blow to the momentum on childcare within the World Bank and risks the continued success of the Invest in Childcare initiative. This will also have likely ripple effects to other MDBs and donors given the World Bank’s power as a signaler of global development priorities.

Recommendations for IDA21

However, IDA21 negotiations are ongoing. It is not too late to prioritize FCV settings and childcare in IDA21 and ensure accountability for policy commitments. Specifically, the World Bank can:

1. Include country-level action policy commitments (under the gender lens) on childcare and gender-based violence (GBV), as initially proposed in the May 2024 policy package. These commitments should revert to the stronger language from IDA20 and include more ambitious country targets given the limited number of policy commitments.
2. Introduce a job lens country-level action policy commitment focused on employment creation and productive economic inclusion. This should include a specific target for women and a focus on more and better jobs in care service sectors.
3. Integrate FCS country targets throughout the country-level action policy commitments, particularly on ECD, childcare, GBV, and jobs. We recommend a target of 50 percent FCS countries for the ECD and quality and affordable childcare policy commitments.
4. Meaningfully weave in gender equality and inclusion language or introduce gender-focused policy commitments under the other focus areas and lenses, particularly climate, infrastructure, and prosperity (this policy note provides specific recommendations for standalone gender commitments in these areas).

The IDA replenishment presents a rare opportunity to boost investments in the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. Supporting women and children in FCV settings should remain a priority and should be reflected in IDA21.