The University of Bristol supports all its staff to take one day of volunteering leave per year to help make a positive impact in the local community. This December the Bristol Poverty Institute (BPI) brought together teams of staff from across the University to volunteer at a local food bank in the run up to Christmas, helping out a good cause and having a really rewarding, enjoyable day with colleagues in the process.

The BPI team are acutely aware of how many people now unfortunately have to rely on food banks, particularly with recent changes to Universal Credit, the impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods, and rising fuel prices, and we therefore felt that this was a good opportunity to help make a contribution. The food bank also offered flexibility in terms of timings (for example, if someone needed to leave early due to caring responsibilities), as well as disabled parking, access and toilet facilities, therefore making it an accessible and inclusive option for us.

We wanted these volunteering days to also be an opportunity for members of the BPI community to get to know one another, and to mix with colleagues who have a shared ethos but whose paths may not ordinarily cross. We were delighted to bring together 17 volunteers representing academia, Research and Enterprise Division (RED), the University Research Institutes (URIs), and Policy Press across three volunteering days in December, although unfortunately one date was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances.

The volunteering days themselves were fantastic; the staff at the food bank were so welcoming, friendly, and helpful, and the work was really rewarding. Our primary task was to sort through mountains of donations, writing expiry dates on everything so the warehouse team could distribute them in date order to minimise waste. We were also tasked with pulling out and sorting all the Christmas goodies (including more custard than you could ever imagine!) ready for handing out in the coming days and weeks to make the festive season a little brighter. It was wonderful to see how much people had given, but at the same time humbling to see how much was needed and to be reminded of how much we take for granted. The fact we were only there for a day meant we could only make a small contribution to such a mammoth endeavour, but everyone involved found it so rewarding to see the stacks of crates being wheeled into the warehouse at the end of the day as a result of our hard work.

 

We’re really looking forward to going back, hopefully this time next year, and all came away with a renewed drive to be more mindful about popping something in the food bank donation boxes every time we go to the supermarket or making a monetary donation when we can, as well as contributing to knowledge and trying to influence policy that may help to reduce the need for food banks in the future. Most supermarkets have donation boxes near the checkout, and many of them include a list of recommended/requested items. You can also find lists on food bank websites of the types of items they most frequently need (see the Trussell Trust website, for example), with lists of non-food items such as sanitary products, nappies, laundry detergent and toiletries alongside regular food items including:

• Cereal
• Soup
• Pasta
• Rice
• Tinned tomatoes
• Pasta sauce
• Lentils, beans and pulses
• Tinned meat
• Tinned vegetables
• Tea/coffee
• Tinned fruit
• Biscuits
• UHT milk
• Fruit juice

This was the second time the BPI have organised volunteering days. In 2019 a team of academics and professional services staff came together for a great day working at the Hartcliffe Community Farm in South Bristol association with the Matthew Tree Project, which provides support for people on the verge of homelessness and crisis. This includes both opportunities for members of the community to learn about growing food and to benefit from the fruits (and vegetables!) of their labour, quite literally. It was a really enjoyable, but tiring, day, with activities including digging out rubble to clear new spaces for vegetable beds, planting out new seedlings, and laying a bark chip path to help people to move around the site and access different parts of the farm more easily. Check out our news story for more details.

We hope to be able to run more volunteering days in 2022, subject to restrictions. We are hoping to do one outdoors activity in the summertime, and another food bank activity in the lead up to Christmas. If you want to be kept in the loop of plans and activities, please sign up to the BPI mailing list by emailing bristol-poverty-institute@bristol.ac.uk.

This blog was written by Dr Tigist Grieve, Senior Research Associate in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol and Member of Bristol Poverty Institute’s (BPI) Advisory Board. It was posted earlier in the summer on the University’s International Development Research Group blog, and has been reproduced here with their kind permission.

The University of Bristol’s Faculty of Social Sciences and Law International Development Research Group was recently approached by the BBC for their views on the UK Aid cut. Professor Guy Howard, Global Research Chair Environmental and Infrastructure Resilience and BPI Advisory Board member, outlined how the impact of the reduction will be devastating for those most impoverished.

Funding cuts in the middle of a global pandemic, as the public sector is struggling and where health care provisions are stretched, is detrimental to those already most marginalised and at-risk including girls and women in low income countries. Despite the renewed commitment from the UK at the 2019 International Conference on Population and Development in Nairobi – the ICPD25 Nairobi Summit – the withdrawal of funding to organisations such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) halts the progress made so far in advancing the rights and dignity of women and girls globally.

The University of Bristol (UoB) is a founding member of the UNFPA’s University Network, TransformU, and UoB’s researchers and its Perivoli Africa Research Centre were at the UK “On the Road to Nairobi UNFPA ICPD25” Parliamentary Reception hosted by Baroness Sugg CBE at the House of Lords. UoB’s researchers subsequently shared their work on sexual and reproductive health and rights at the Nairobi summit as well as at a “Translating commitments to actions” side event at the Aga Khan University.

The ICPD25 Summit catalysed significant economic and political commitment to build on the progress made since the inaugural ICPD Summit in Cairo to help accelerate the UNFPA’s “3 Zeroes Agenda“. While many areas are affected by the UKAid cuts, the significant drop in funding to the UNFPA and others will pose a serious challenge in translating these important commitments into action.

 

 

 

You can read Professor Guy Howard’s interview with BBC Newsbeat as part of the following article ‘UK foreign aid cut: Where does it go and what is it used for?‘. Professor Howard is co-lead of UoB’s Faculty of Social Sciences and Law International Development Research Group, interim Director of the Cabot Institute for the Environment, and a member of the BPI Advisory Board.

This blog was written by the authors of the Unequal Pandemic: Clare Bambra (Professor of Public Health, Population Health Sciences Institute at Newcastle University); Katherine Smith (Professor of Public Health Policy at University of Strathclyde); and Julia Lynch (Professor of Political Science at University of Pennsylvania). It was originally posted on the blog Transforming Society and has been re-posted here with their kind permission. 

In 1931 Edgar Sydenstricker identified inequalities in the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, reporting a significantly higher incidence among the working classes. This challenged the widely held popular, political and scientific consensus of the time that ‘the flu hit the rich and the poor alike’.

In the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, there have been parallel claims made by politicians and the media – that we are ‘all in it together’ and that the COVID-19 virus ‘does not discriminate’.

But we can dispel this emerging myth of COVID-19 as an ‘equality of opportunity’ disease, by showing how, just as 100 years ago, the pandemic is experienced unequally across society. COVID-19 and inequality are a syndemic – a perfect storm.

Our new book delves into international data and accounts, reaching the conclusion that the pandemic is unequal in four ways:

The pandemic kills unequally: COVID-19 deaths are twice as high in the most deprived neighbourhoods of England than in the most affluent, and infection rates are higher in the more deprived regions such as the north-east of England and in urban areas. There are also significant inequalities by ethnicity and race, with the mortality of ethnic minorities in the UK considerably higher than expected, and the death rates of black Americans in US cities such as Chicago far higher than for their white counterparts. This is because of the interaction of the pandemic with existing social, economic and health inequalities.

The pandemic is experienced unequally: the COVID-19 ‘lockdowns’ have resulted in a significant increase in social isolation and confinement within the home and immediate neighbourhood for an average of 10–12 weeks. The social and economic experiences of this lockdown are unequal, as lower-income workers are more likely to experience job and income loss, live in higher-risk urban and overcrowded environments, and have higher exposure to the virus by occupying key worker roles.

The pandemic impoverishes unequally: COVID-19 and the lockdowns have resulted in an unprecedented shock to the economy with widespread predictions of the worst recession for 300 years. This economic devastation will result in job losses, wage reductions, higher debt and more poverty, as well as increases in the ‘deaths of despair’. However, the social and geographical distribution of these economic impacts will be unequal – with low-income workers, women and ethnic minorities bearing the brunt.

These pandemic inequalities are political: the unequal impacts of COVID-19 were not inevitable – the pandemic was a predictable event and its unequal effects could have been mitigated or avoided through better preparation. The original inequalities leading to these unequal impacts were a result of prior political choices, and policy makers could have chosen to address the unequal impacts of the pandemic or not. Governments responded differently and those countries with higher rates of social inequality and less generous social security systems had a more unequal pandemic.

So, COVID-19 is a syndemic of infectious disease and inequalities. It has killed unequally, been experienced unequally and will impoverish unequally. These health inequalities, before, during and after the pandemic are a political choice – with governments effectively choosing who gets to live and who gets to die. Our book concludes by showing how we can learn from COVID-19 quickly to prevent inequality growing and to reduce health inequalities in the future.

Clare Bambra is Professor of Public Health, Population Health Sciences Institute at Newcastle University.

Katherine Smith is Professor of Public Health Policy at University of Strathclyde.

Julia Lynch is Professor of Political Science at University of Pennsylvania.

This post was originally written for the blog Transforming Society and has been re-posted here with their kind permission.

This blog post was coordinated by Dr Tebeje Molla (Deakin University, Australia) and Dr Tigist Grieve (University of Bristol, UK), with contributions from Prof Leon Tikly (University of Bristol, UK), Dr Emily (Markovich) Morris (American University, Washington D.C., USA),  Dr Arif Naveed (University of Bath, UK), and Mr Simon Ingram-Hill (former Country Director for the British Council in Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Hungary, Mauritius). All views expressed are those of the contributor(s) cited.

 

Introduction

As part of the Bristol Poverty Institute Conference, Poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals: From the Local to the Global (27-29 April 2021), an international group of scholars held a round-table discussion on education and poverty. The session was convened by Prof Leon Tikly and Dr Tigist Grieve. The panellists shared empirical findings and analytical reflections on the topic. However, we had limited time to answer questions posed by the chair Prof Leon Tikly at the end of the session. This short blog post therefore collates our responses to the questions. The video recording of the session along with some of our presenters’ slides can be found on the Bristol Poverty Institute website.

Visual Minutes of the Session (Credit: Bristol Poverty Institute, Jorge Martin Illustrator)

 

Discussion

Question 1: Tigist, how do we ensure the voices of rural girls are heard by policy makers?

Tigist: In answering this question, I am highlighting a piece of writing from my doctoral research. It has sections on voices and while it is a bit of a long response it captures my take on the issues of voice overall. In practice, it is notoriously difficult to get a hearing from policy makers even to the recommendations from senior scholars and established institutes let alone from girls. The possibility of getting voices of people living in rural areas heard and then taken seriously in the policy sphere is unattainable. In sum, I would say in the majority of cases where claims are made about ‘voices of the poor’ it is a proxy one. For further discussion and critical perspectives on this see (Chambers, 1997; Holland and Blackburn 1998; Boyden and Ennew 1997; Hart 2013; Morrow 2001) for example.

To begin with, there is limited direct link between the people in the policy sphere and academics engaged in research. Where there is direct link, there is a filtration of voices even within the academic sphere where those researchers on the ground perhaps with direct access to those voices are not the same as those who make the final call in the analysis, in how data is interpreted, what gets stripped away and what gets amplified. Further, the voices are diluted to fit academic style outputs, or policy briefs and so on.  Some established academics may get a hearing as government advisors and I am sure they do their best in maximising the opportunity to influence policy but that is a rare privilege and available for few. I don’t want us to misunderstand that I am arguing or expecting the voice to become policy rather I am saying a policy anchored on lived experience of people, responding to their concerns and that takes into account the impact of decisions e.g. the complex interplay between education, poverty and gender as we are speaking now will be impacted by decision for withdrawal of services, change in procedures and so on. For more about policy making please refer to the following publications:

• Globalizing Education Policy (Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard);
• Education Policy and Social Class (Stephen J. Ball).

Further, although community consultation can ideally be instrumental in ensuring that the voices of girls are heard, structural issues including repressive gender culture means that it might be difficult to hold open and free discussion in rural communities (see Tebeje’s comments below).  Even when you are entrusted by communities and successfully consult, as anthropologists and ethnographers do, you may generate so much knowledge (data), but you know deep down the complexities of utilising that into policy that can genuinely transform their situations.

Moreover, I am aware despite the increasing popularity of voice in social research and development discourse there are many questions over its practical application and at times it remains a rhetorical device (Wells 2009:182; also see Komulainen 2007). Commitment to voice should not blind us to the importance also of going beyond the immediate social worlds of children to theorise how children’s everyday lives are shaped and reshaped through globalization as well as political and economic conditions (see relevant discussions for this in Abebe 2020, Boyden 1997, Hart 2008, Katz 2004, Komulainen 2007; and for education-related policy relevant discussions see Crossley 2001, Tikly & Barrett 2013).

Generally, there is limited evidence of where girls’ voices from rural context influence policy. Having said that, we must also acknowledge the mighty but small-scale work by genuinely engaged third sector organisations, communities themselves and activists. In this context it is possible to hear and act on the voices of girls in small ways but still transformative in changing practices on the ground. To sum up, as we seek to amplify voices or for this to be part of transformative agenda in relation to gender equity in education, I want to draw our attention to recent critical contributions on the topic and call for greater sensitivity to the way voices of (children, teachers, communities) are interpreted in scholarly and policy circles.

 

Question 2: Emily, how might the Zanzibarian government most effectively respond to drop out? Ought they to focus on in school or out of school factors primarily (e.g. labour markets)?

Emily: Governments (Zanzibar and beyond) can start using the term pushout, recognizing that the majority of young people do not leave on their own volition and start tracking why young people are leaving, as well as listening to youth narratives of push-out and pull-out (echoing Tigist’s research).

In the case of Zanzibar, school quality – when linked with geography and familial poverty – is a major contributor to youth being pushed out of school and therefore an integrated approach to improving school quality is needed (for example better teacher training, increased guidance and counselling, accessible tuition/tutoring in difficult subjects like English) to ensure youth are not pushed out as a consequence of failing the exams (I echo all of Arif’s points on quality, see below).

Also, governments need to recognise that the human capital theory has its limitations when there is a small formal economy and large inequities in income based on geography, gender, and other factors (linking to Arif’s work on rate of returns and his points above). While Zanzibari boys tend to associate education with economic ends, this is not always the case for girls who see intrinsic and extrinsic value to education beyond economic ends. Thus collaboration between Ministries of Labour, Social Welfare, Women, and Children are critical to ensuring that education is relevant to the aspirations of youth of all genders and geographies (linking to Tigist and Tebeje’s points). Looking at the curricula and how school is preparing youth for different futures is part of ensuring education is relevant, as well as ensuring that youth have the support needed to navigate the many barriers and obstacles they encounter while trying to achieve “the good life.”

 

Question 3: Tebeje, how might the Ethiopian government go about evaluating and prioritising the capability set for learners in Ethiopia?

Tebeje: Educational capability refers to people’s genuine options to be well educated. It is widely seen as a foundational capability that expands human freedom in other spheres of life.

Achieved educational outcomes are observable and easy to assess. Whereas educational capability sets may not be readily discernible, we can only access those through indirect means of assessment. To begin with, governments can evaluate and prioritise the capability sets of learners through two interrelated processes. First, to understand the substantiveness of opportunities of equity targets, one can start with assessing observable outcomes of the group. It is a backward process that proceeds from the outputs to inputs. The focus is on what genuine options people have to achieve alternative functionings. For instance, policymakers who are interested in addressing gender inequality in education may visit rural schools. A high level of gender inequality in those schools may force the visitors to ask about real options that girls in the area have to participate in education and training.

But such evaluative processes cannot provide a complete picture about substantiveness of educational opportunities and conversion abilities of individuals. For example, a backward evaluation does not tell us why two groups or individuals with similar educational capability sets might end up achieving different levels of outcomes. A young girl from illiterate farming families in rural Ethiopia and a boy from high-paid professional parents in Addis may have equal access to basic education (in terms of having a publicly funded school nearby) but they are surely not equally positioned to take advantage of the opportunity. Conversion abilities of the two students vastly vary. Hence, there is a need for a complementary process, namely public consultation. Broad-based community consultation enables governments to understand specific conditions and needs of equity target groups such as girls in rural areas, students with disability, and learners from historically marginalised ethnic groups. Clarity on those issues, in turn, makes it possible for policymakers to ensure that educational opportunities are adequate, relevant, and convertible.

Still, public consultation is not without limitations. The notion of public reasoning presupposes a democratic political culture where people freely and reflectively express their wishes. In reality, as Sen notes, “the way people read the world in which they live” can be obscured by relational and structural factors around them. Hence, due in part to political, cultural, and social barriers, people in less democratic countries (e.g. Ethiopia) may not be completely free to articulate their needs and aspirations during public consultations.

 

Question 4: Arif, what are the two or three top priorities for South Asian governments who wish to use education to combat poverty?

Arif: I feel there are a few things that the governments could do to enhance the transformative potential of schooling in the lives of the poor in South Asia.

First, the quality of education needs to be improved drastically, specially at the basic levels. The kind of schools and schooling that have been made available to the poor do not enhance their skills that are economically rewarding or even help them pursue further schooling. The unprecedented expansion of education in the last 2-3 decades has led to the overcrowded and under-resourced classrooms with children graduating without acquiring literacy and numeracy skills. Without significant improvement in quality, the levels of schooling that poor can realistically acquire cannot help them break out of poverty.

Second, the evidence from the longitudinal studies points towards a targeted approach for the poor families as universal approaches do not serve them. Poor children are more likely to drop out of schools at early stages. Scaffolding their academic progression and helping their transitions into decent work are essential. Third, economic opportunities are fundamental for the poor families’ educational decision-making. If the labour market doesn’t provide a fair chance to everyone, and poor are less likely to gain decent employment through schooling, the goals of universalising educational access and eradicating poverty through it cannot be realised. Transforming labour markets however requires a wider set of reforms that address all forms of social inequality at the community levels, and the national and global power structures that determine the possibilities of economic growth in the regional countries.

 

Question 5: Simon, based on your rich experience, which country that you have worked in has been most successful in tackling poverty and what role did education play?

Simon: This is a difficult question to answer as my direct experience in each of the six Sub-Saharan African countries I worked in from the mid-80’s (Cameroon, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mozambique Mauritius, and Sierra Leone) was time-bound and came at different historical points in the struggle to alleviate poverty. Each, except notably Mauritius, was facing very significant internal challenges such as Ebola in Sierra Leone in 2014/15, or were recovering, five to ten years on, from hugely destabilising civil conflicts as in Mozambique, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone. But global factors have also been critical. For example, Sierra Leone’s economy was already suffering from the 2013 collapse in global iron ore prices which made its recovery from Ebola all the more difficult.

Statistics tell different stories, some suggesting a degree of stagnation in the standard of living in certain countries over the last 30 years; however, World Bank GDP per capita figures do show a steady improvement in all six countries with significant dips where crises have occurred. Covid-19 is set to continue this pattern.

Within education, increases in access and latterly of quality have taken place. While these cannot be stated as directly causing poverty reduction, some initiatives such as increasing girls’ education can be seen to have an impact on social development. For example, evidence suggests each additional year of a girl’s secondary schooling can reduce the chance of pregnancy by approximately 6%.

The richer the country, the better it has fared. Mauritius has been able to tackle its own economic challenges more successfully – as on the removal of the EU sugar subsidy, through greater diversification of its economy.  At the other end of the scale Sierra Leone has taken some important education decisions with its 2015 National Ebola Recovery Strategy. It has focused on improving teaching quality and skills-based learning at primary and secondary levels and increasing the relevance of higher education curricula to create a more effective workforce. These strongly suggest how that country sees the interconnections between education and poverty alleviation.

 

Round-table Discussion Participants

Prof Leon Tikly (Global Chair in Education and Director of the Centre for Comparative and International Research in Education, School of Education, University of Bristol, UK).

Dr Tigist Grieve (Senior Research Associate, School of Policy Studies, University of Bristol, UK)

Dr Emily (Markovich) Morris (Director of International Training and Education Program and Senior Professorial Lecturer, School of Education, American University, Washington D.C., USA)

Dr Tebeje Molla (DECRA Fellow, Deakin University, Australia).

Dr Arif Naveed (Lecturer, School of Education, University of Bath, UK).

Mr Simon Ingram-Hill (former Country Director for the British Council in Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Hungary, Mauritius).

 

Recordings and presentation slides from the full round-table discussion are available on the Bristol Poverty Institute’s conference webpages.

The BPI Conference on Poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals: From  the Local to the Global took place online from 27-29 April 2021 inclusive.

Throughout the conference our fantastic scribe captured visual minutes, summarising the key messages and discussion points. You can view the full conference programme on our website, and recordings and presentations will be available via the BPI website after the conference.

Day 1, Multidimensional Poverty

Day 1, Child Health and Development

Day 2, Livelihoods and Debt

Day 2, Food and Nutrition

Day 3, Engaging with Policy and Practice

Day 3, Education and Building Back Fairer

Author: Dr Saffron Karlsen, Associate Professor in Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, University of Bristol

Dr Saffron Karlsen explores some of the key issues that must be addressed if we are to establish a more complete picture of these inequalities and their drivers

Introduction

The evidence of ethnic inequalities in the number of COVID-related infections and deaths in the UK is compelling. Rates of hospital death among Bangladeshi, Black African and Pakistani people are between two and four times those of the UK’s white British population.

But discussions of how to address these inequalities are dominated by preconceived assumptions about their cause. Despite lacking empirical support, such assumptions form a barrier against a more comprehensive investigation which might offer effective solutions.

Why the focus on the causes of ethnic inequalities is too selective

Over the past year, media, politicians and many academics have emphasised the role of individual factors – for example, particular genes/biologies or cultures/behaviours – in the generation of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19. We have heard much about the effects of co-morbidities and multi-generational residential choices, but less about the impact of social exclusion and the ways in which the opportunities of many people in society are limited.

This ignores the wealth of evidence showing the overriding importance of such structural or societal factors, including that provided by more than 4,000 stakeholders to the Public Health England inquiry into ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 last year, where racism and its consequences were considered central.

Instead, conversations remain somewhat simplistic. There is little space to discuss the institutional racisms experienced in education, employment, housing, healthcare etc. Or how these and other racisms contribute to ethnic inequalities in experiences of deprivation, unemployment, over-qualification, low pay, and poorer health – including hypertension, diabetes and respiratory illness, with their well-publicised links to COVID-19 complications.

If we wish to establish a more complete picture of these inequalities and their drivers, there are several issues that need addressing:

(1) We must recognise there is no evidence that ethnic inequalities in COVID-19, or the vast majority of health conditions which vary by ethnicity, are explained by genetic or biological factors. The ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infections and deaths we see in the UK and United States are not consistent around the globe. Indeed, the relatively unscathed experience of many African countries is, to date, considered among the few pandemic success stories.

(2) We must acknowledge that little can be learned about these patterns of inequality through sweeping categories such as ‘BAME’, ‘white/non-white’ – or even slightly more disaggregated ethnic categories such as ‘Indian’ and ‘Black African’, which still ignore the vast differences in experiences within these population groups. Of course, experiences also differ by age, gender, religion, class etc. To ensure we are asking the right questions of the right people, we must embed people with lived experience early in the research process.

(3) We must also understand that proving the importance of one COVID-19 risk factor will not necessarily negate another. There is often an assumption that to see a true ‘ethnic’ effect, we must remove the muddying effects of ‘deprivation’. But this ignores the inter-relationships between these experiences. More sensitive approaches recognise deprivation as one of the ways in which racism affects the health of those in racialised groups – and this holds true for COVID-19.

These inter-relationships can also help us understand other limitations with the traditional approaches to addressing ethnic inequalities. Methods which statistically adjust for deprivation assume we are comparing like with like – that these measures mean the same to everyone in our analytical models. But the value of (for example) educational outcomes and social class as proxies for socioeconomic position is questioned in the face of evidence of the greater ‘over-qualification’ experienced, or lower wages received, by people in ethnic minority groups for similar roles.

Similarly, broad markers of employment status might accommodate ethnic inequalities in unemployment, but not the particular economic and health consequences of the repeated and longer-term unemployment that is more common within some ethnic minority groups. And there is also a need here to recognise that routes into self-employment may not always tell a positive story, particularly for those experiencing racism in the workplace, or while trying to access it. In the same way, assumptions that owner-occupation of property indicates affluence/good health become less reliable among those excluded from renting by racism or other constraints.

Without taking these realities into account, we can’t be confident that we have adjusted for everything we think we have.

(4) The desire to identify simple (biological) solutions to COVID’s ethnic inequalities produces barriers against more in-depth exploration. The concentration of people in ethnic minority groups in key worker roles is no doubt part of the explanation for ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 among the general population. But it does not help us understand ethnic inequalities in deaths among health workers.

While we know these inequalities cannot be explained by genetics, such assumptions mean we still do not fully understand what does explain them. Do health workers with certain ethnicities undertake roles which put them at higher risk of infection than other health workers? What has been the impact of the reported ethnic inequalities in access to PPE on COVID-19 risk? Or the reliance on public transport to get to work?

Additional workplace risk assessments and removing people in ethnic minority groups from the frontline were an appropriate response to an emergency, buying us time to establish the cause of these disparities. But assumptions of biological risk have prevented this more detailed work being done – which may in turn lead to employer reticence when recruiting or promoting staff from ethnic minority groups, exacerbating existing ethnic inequalities in employment without justification.

(5) This selective focus also limits attention on other implications of the pandemic. People in ethnic minority groups already struggling to make ends meet commonly found themselves in occupations that were more vulnerable to the economic consequences of social distancing measures. Our understanding of the mental health, educational and other consequences of lockdowns that have been lived in situations of deprivation, food-scarcity, overcrowding or digital exclusion remains lacking, but must also be part of this story – along with the positive contributions made by local organisations and communities to mitigate these difficulties, and how we may build on this in future.

Conclusion: We cannot find solutions by ignoring the roots of the problem

Summer 2020: amid the terror of COVID-19, an opportunity. Never before had so many people been galvanised around the need for action – in the face of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19, and recognition of the myriad ways racism devastates lives and the true sources of the UK’s ethnic inequalities problems. Unfortunately, this energy risks being snuffed out even before it really gets going.

In their controversial government-commissioned report, Dr Tony Sewell et al were right to draw attention to the legacies of racism – but not for the reasons they expressed. Historical experiences of racism laid the ground for the distrust and disengagement of many of those in Britain’s racialised communities. But these concerns persist, because racist attitudes and behaviours continue to be repeated and reinforced by members of the public – and society’s representatives and leaders. We cannot address ethnic disparities, including in vaccine uptake, if we ignore the reasons for this widespread distrust.

The pandemic has already seen a dramatic rise in incidents of anti-Asian and other racist violence; other patterns will no doubt emerge with the latest ‘foreign’ variants. COVID-19 has exacerbated existing ethnic inequalities in many ways, some of which – such as the impact of vaccine passports – are yet to be felt. Sewell et al’s report makes it less likely that these issues will be given the attention they require, adding to the sense that Britain is a society for some and not others.

 

Dr Saffron Karlsen is Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Bristol, and co-leads the Bristol Race Equality Network. A recording of Saffron’s talk on ‘Understanding Ethnic Inequalities in COVID-19’ at the Bristol Poverty Institute’s webinar on ‘Poverty Dimensions of the Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Communities’ can be found via the following link, alongside talks from Dr Andrea Barry (Joseph Rowntree Foundation), Ms Chiara Lodi (Black South West Network) and Dr Soumya Chattopadhyay (Overseas Development Institute): http://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty-institute/key-resources/bpi-webinars/poverty-dimensions-of-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-bame-communities/ 

This blog post was originally posted on the International Public Policy Observatory (IPPO) blog and has been re-blogged here with their kind permission in recognition of the BPI’s role in supporting their collaboration with Dr Saffron Karlsen: https://covidandsociety.com/ethnic-inequalities-in-covid-19-acknowledge-multifaceted-influence-racism/  

Introduction

On Thursday 11 February, the Bristol Poverty Institute (BPI) held the fourth webinar in our ‘Poverty Dimensions of COVID-19’ series: Poverty Dimensions of COVID-19 for Girls in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

The webinar had over 60 attendees representing a range of sectors and organisations including civil sector, national and international NGOs, charities, consultants, and academics from around the world, including individuals from France, Mexico, Canada, Senegal, Indonesia, Norway, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Turkey and China. This diverse audience was deliberate: the series has been designed to bring together a variety of participants representing different sectors, with a range of theoretical, methodological, and disciplinary approaches.

Our webinar featured four fantastic speakers who explored different dimensions of the impact COVID-19 has had on girls in LMICs from different perspectives, with a Q&A session at the end. The slides from these presentations will be available shortly on the BPI website, and we will also be uploading recordings of the presentations.

 

Dr Tigist Grieve and Dr Alba Lanau Sánchez, ‘Corona has really spoiled a lot of things’: Adolescent girls experiences of COVID in Burkina Faso & Sierra Leone

Our first presentation came from two collaborative speakers: Dr Tigist Grieve, Senior Research Associate at the University of Bristol; and Dr Alba Lanau Sánchez, Research Fellow at the Centre d’Estudis Demogràfics (CET) which is an affiliated institute to the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in Spain.

Tigist began by providing an outline of the African Report on Child Wellbeing 2020, produced by the African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) in collaboration with partners including the University of Bristol and researchers across the five countries where the research took place. In response to the emergence of COVID-19 the project team are seeking to explore what the economic impact of the pandemic has been on adolescent girls, and to what extend the impacts of the pandemic have been mediated by factors such as girls’ socio-economic status and geographical location.

This presentation focussed primarily on impacts in Burkina Faso and Sierra Leone. Tigist explained how the situation girls in each country is different. For example, Burkina Faso have prioritized improving young people’s access to health care though its National Health Development Plan, whilst in Sierra Leone they abolished secondary school fees and focused on the National Reproductive, New-born, Child, and Adolescent Health Strategy. The countries at the focus of the research have relatively low figures of COVID-19 in terms of deaths; however, there is major concern over adolescent girls. Tigist explained that poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa is already a huge problem, and one which is likely to worsen.  There is major concern about the risks to children because of increased food insecurity, with more than 26 million girls across Africa already relying on school meals as a source of nutrition. Access to school feeding programs have been stopped due to schools being closed, significantly impacting on the lives of huge numbers of children and young people.

Alba then introduced some of the findings of their project to date. She began by explaining how whilst most research studies are generally focussed on health this project specifically sought to draw upon girls’ voices, which are rarely heard. The study involved talking to 87 adolescent girls aged 14-19 across five countries. Girls were asked about their education, safety, health, hopes and dreams and specifically their own understanding and experiences of COVID-19.  Alba explained that the general expectation is already for an increase in poverty and inequality in Africa; however, the team wanted to find out how COVID-19 has reinforced this, and how it has affected girls’ experiences.

Alba highlighted that girls have different experiences depending on their positionality, and the team identified three different groups (plus an additional group only in Burkina Faso). The groups were

1. Those with limited economic impact.
2. Those who are managing to cope.
3. Those who are struggling and/or have been severely impacted.
4. Those whose lives are defined by conflict (Burkina Faso only).

Alba explained that the first group are relatively sheltered from the economic impact of pandemic. The second group have experienced some loss in livelihood and income but are coping and adapting by using their existing resources. In this group more girls are now working in their family workplace. The third group are those struggling and suffering severe impact, including extreme poverty and hunger and complete loss of income. Many girls in this group reported impacts on others rather than themselves, talking about their friends/family members losing income and having to care for others.  Some girls also reported others who were struggling and turning to sex work.  For those in the fourth group (Burkina Faso only) conflict is still the key factor in their lives, and COVID-19 has therefore not altered their lives. Alba noted that within this group those who have money had sent their children away, whereas those without money were forced to remain in the conflict situation. This is therefore an example of how experience of the pandemic is mediated by socio-economic and geographic position, and those better off are often more protected.

Alba highlighted how important it is to listen to children’s voices to understand their lived experiences, particularly girls, who often downplay economic struggles. The girls interviewed through this project commonly reported isolation, fear of COVID-19, and feelings of insecurity, with one interviewee stating that “early marriage is when you are sent to marriage at an early age due to poverty”.

Alba and Tigist concluded by highlighting that the pandemic will increase economic inequality, hitting the poorest the hardest. Income support is therefore needed for those working in informal sectors, small farms, and other small businesses. The pandemic is likely to deviate transitional trajectories accelerating the end of schooling and/or marriage and increasing gender inequality. They therefore called for responses to the (post) pandemic to be gender sensitive.

 

Ms Maria McLaughlin, The Case for Holistic Investment in Girls: Improving Lives, Realizing Potential, Benefitting Everyone

The next speaker was Maria McLaughlin, Global Policy and Advocacy Advisor for Economic Empowerment at Plan International with a focus on adolescents and youth. Maria is also a researcher on women and youth empowerment, with a focus on market entry-points for women and youth, and analysis of their barriers to entry and success. Plan International is an independent development and humanitarian organisation that advances children’s rights and equality for girls.

Maria introduced a study undertaken by Plan International and Citi bank during late 2019 and completed in 2020. The study looked at the case for holistic investment in girls, specifically adolescent girls. She explained that this study is based on some assumptions on the pathway through adolescence for girls and how it compares with the situation for adolescent boys. The assumptions made in this study is based on information from various analyses, including from the Gates Foundation, focusing on ages 10-19 which is a critical phase in life for both girls and boys when many transitional social, economic, and biological events are taking place.

Maria explained that challenges faced by girls in LMICs include early and forced marriage, with 21% married before their eighteenth birthday. She went on to introduce some key pre-COVID-19 statistics, which showed that:

• 132 million girls worldwide are out of school, including 100 million girls at secondary school age.
• More than 85% of girls in low-income countries do not complete secondary school.
• Intimate partner violence affects around 29% of girls aged 15-19 worldwide.
• Globally one in five women were married before their eighteenth birthday.
• Almost a billion girls and young women under the age of 24 are lacking key skills needed for life and work. In lower middle-income countries, this translates to 75% and rises to 93% in low-income countries.

This research was carried out in eight LMIC’s: Ghana, Uganda, Mali, El Salvador, Bolivia, India, Lao PDR, and Egypt. The team looked at potential for investment in 12 years of education through to secondary school completion and two years of multi complement intervention to prevent child marriage and violence and promote economic independence. There is an assumption that this leads to increased years of schooling, leading to higher employment earnings. The analytical framework for the research looked at the business-as-usual scenario and compared with an increase in investment scenario. Maria explained that assumptions must be made around education, labour demand, and government policies, so the research does not take these variables into account. Maria also explained that there were limitations and boundaries for this research. For example, one challenge when looking at global data was that it rarely segregates for gender and age.

With these caveats notes, Maria reported that the project findings indicated that if 100% secondary school completion were achieved and if investment of achievement were in place it could lift the emerging economies by ten percent compared with pre COVID-19. The report makes an argument that the level of investment involved – $1.30 per day – has a multiplied effect in terms of GDP as well as moral investment. She noted that the cost in Mali and Uganda would be greater than the returns; however, the positive impact there would be much greater than the other countries. She also reported that in countries where the secondary school completion rate is lower the benefits will take longer to materialise but are greater long term. Maria therefore summarised that holistic approach to investment would have a higher return over the course of a girl’s life. The report states that it is not just the education alone to achieve the benefits: a multi-level approach is required.

Maria concluded her presentation by exploring the potential impacts of COVID-19 on these groups. The emerging research speculates on the impacts of COVID-19 based on the trajectories. Before COVID-19 more than 130 million girls worldwide were out of school, one in five women were married before their eighteenth birthday, and almost 30% of girls aged 15-19 were affected by intimate partner violence. After COVID-19, 743 million girls were out of school and UNESCO estimates that over 11 million girls may not return to school after the crisis. Teenage pregnancies often increase in times of crisis, extreme poverty will be faced by many families who relied on school lunch programmes, and cases of child marriage and domestic violence are all rising. These are therefore worrying trends that need urgent attention.

 

Dr Anita Ghimire, the impact of COVID-19 on girls working in the adult entertainment sector in Nepal

The final speaker was Dr Anita Ghimire, Research Director at the Nepal Institute for Social and Environmental Research (NISER).  Her research experiences are on migration and mobility, social norms and gender, adolescents and young people, and social protection, in addition to evaluation studies of different interventions.

Anita introduced ‘Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence’ (GAGE), a nine-year programme of work looking at research in nine LMICs to try and understand what works for enabling adolescent girls to transition into a better adulthood.  In Nepal there are three different strands of GAGE, with Anita’s presentation focussing on girls working in risky jobs in the adult entertainment sector (AES). Anita explained how the AES is an informal economy, consisting of hotels, guesthouses, commercial sex work on the street and freelance sex work. This work is establishment based and affiliated with an institution such as a hotel or dance bar, and involves physical, economic, and sexual exploitation of girls, including minors. Girls enter this sector through their peer network, boyfriends, or male relatives, or recruiting mechanisms from brokers who are operating online.

Anita noted that entertainment sectors were closed in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, informal personal connections remained, and hotels were still connecting girls with clients discreetly. There was still a decrease in work, with sex workers reporting that they previously had three to five customers a day, which dropped down to only one or two clients a week during lockdown. The Nepalese government eventually eased lockdown for a few hours per day which meant clients visited early morning and evening, although there continued to be a lower demand due to factors including changes in working hours, challenges of childcare for the women workers, worries about catching COVID-19, and closed borders preventing people from travelling from surrounding countries for adult entertainment.  As a result many girls moved their work onto the streets, increasing competition for the limited clientele. This included an increase in international sex workers from China, Malaysia, and Africa who had previously worked in high-end casinos and were willing to charge lower rates, creating more competition for Nepalese girls and women.

The implications of lockdown for these women and girls were therefore severe, including an increase in food insecurity and vulnerability. Many of the girls had previously eaten their daily meals in the establishment where they worked, so were unable to eat due to their workplace being closed. Some were also living in the hotels or guesthouses where they worked, and when the establishments closed, they were also made homeless. Sometimes the girls were so desperate that they sold their bodies for a single meal or drink. Anita reported that the levels of desperation were so severe that some said they would work for a small amount of money to buy poison to kill themselves and their children, as they would rather die than be unable to feed their children.

The girls reported an increase in violence from their partners and/or clients, and some clients would not pay them money and buy them a beer instead. There was also violence from police arresting girls for just being on the streets. Some were blackmailed for sex from clients; there were threats to tell the girls families if they did not provide sex for free. There was also increased vulnerability to COVID-19 infection because of the close contact, and an increase in sexually transmitted infections and in pregnancies.

Anita went on to introduce some of the survival strategies the women and girls had implemented during lockdown. For example, some of the unmarried, child-free girls had previously made a good amount of money and were therefore able to use their savings to survive. Working for less money or for food was another strategy. Some girls tried alternative livelihoods, some cut down on food and basic hygiene, and some sold their assets. Anita then highlighted some of the other outcomes of the pandemic on girls on the AES. For example, she noted how some of the girls organised themselves into groups to help with childcare and to help one other with clients. In addition, whilst some girls started revisiting exploitative relationships with partners and employers, there was an increased recognition of the exploitation they were facing and a movement towards making decisions that were beneficial for themselves. They also learnt the value of savings and looked at alternative less risky livelihoods.

Anita concluded by highlighting the importance of activating and creating awareness on secondary reporting mechanisms and to tackle issues related to deprivation of basic human rights of children, particularly around food, shelter, and protection. Having hungry children hungry is a big problem for the girls in the AES and the social protection system should therefore expand to women working in this area.

 

Discussion

Following the presentations the Chair, Dr Lauren Winch (BPI Manager) opened up the floor to questions from the audience, as well as discussions among the panel members. Topics of discussion included how poverty and sex work can go hand-in-hand in many different country contexts, gender inequalities, and shifting aspirations among girls in terms of education, career and family lives.

Recordings of the discussion, as well as all of the presentations, will be available on the BPI website shortly.

Closing the discussions Lauren summarised how the webinar covered a range of interesting and important topics. She noted how COVID-19 is having wide ranging, complex, and devastating impacts on communities across the world and those in poverty will be disproportionately affected, exacerbating existing inequalities including those relating to gender. She noted that hopefully by coming together and learning about different perspectives, approaches and challenges we can be better situated to make a positive impact individually and collectively. The Bristol Poverty Institute is keen to keep these discussions going, and to explore ways to tackle the challenges and inequalities exposed and exacerbated by this pandemic. For more information or to discuss an idea please get in touch with the BPI team (bristol-poverty-institute@bristol.ac.uk).

Finally, Lauren also announced that the BPI are running a large online conference from 27-29 April 2021 exploring Poverty and the Sustainable Development Goals at all scales from the local to the global. The conference will have non-academic speakers throughout, including people with lived experiences of poverty to ensure their voices are represented. It will explore a wide range of topics, from food and nutrition to education, and from livelihoods and debt to child health and development, and the ambition is to bring together representatives from across the world to tackle these complex issues.

For more information on the BPI…

Check out our website: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty-institute/

Follow us on Twitter: @bristolpoverty

Get in touch: bristol-poverty-institute@bristol.ac.uk

 

Authors: Mrs Melanie Tomlin and Dr Lauren Winch

Bristol Poverty Institute and Perivoli Africa Research Centre hosted

The poverty and inequality dimensions of COVID-19 in Africa

Thursday 12 November 2020 (online)

On Thursday 12 November the  Bristol Poverty Institute (BPI) and Perivoli Africa Research Centre (PARC) co-hosted a webinar exploring the poverty and inequality dimensions of COVID-19 in Africa. This webinar was attended by around 50 participants representing a range of sectors and organisations including international NGOs and academics from around the globe. More than a third of registered attendees were from outside the UK, with almost half of these from African countries including Burkina Faso, Rwanda, Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya.

This webinar provided a broad overview of how COVID-19 has been intersecting with and exacerbating inequalities and poverty in Africa, recognising the huge breadth of challenges, geographies, societies, political and physical environments, and other dimensions of both poverty and COVID-19 across the continent. We were delighted to be joined by a fantastic panel of seven speakers, who gave four thought-provoking presentations. Presentations lasted around 15 minutes each, with a short Q&A following each one.

The slides and recordings from these presentations can be accessed via the BPI website.

 

Professor David Gordon, COVID-19 infection vulnerability in Africa

The first speaker was Professor David Gordon, Professor of Social Justice and the Director of the Bristol Poverty Institute and Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research at the University of Bristol.

David began by introducing survey microdata from over 50 countries with information on some 3.2 million people, analysis of which found that the COVID-19 crisis is likely to increase the amount of severe poverty, affecting from 10s to 100s of millions of people, depending on duration of the pandemic. He highlighted how evidence from previous twenty-first century epidemics, including Zika, SARA and Ebola, shows us that there is a consistent increase in the inequalities not only during pandemics themselves but also during the subsequent 5 years.

David noted that the situation in Africa is particularly problematic, where concerns relating to population density in poor urban areas, plus a large informally employed population, insufficient handwashing basics, and high rates of underlying health conditions suggested potential for disaster.

He noted, however, that the African Union had adopted a continental strategy promptly in March 2020 including quarantines, lockdowns, border controls, and public health information. This involved a different set of policies and approaches to the European-style lockdowns, which would have had limited effectiveness in many African contexts and may even have been counter-productive. This is one of many illustrative examples of how it cannot be assumed that the policies of the Global North can be transplanted to Africa and other global contexts.

Despite the severe challenges that this pandemic has presented, the next section of David’s presentation highlighted that severe poverty has not prevented an effective fight against the pandemic. He gave examples of how Uganda, Togo, and Rwanda have managed to suppress the outbreak. For example, in Uganda they were able drew upon the experience of a public health system that already knows how to deal with outbreaks, meaning that anti-infection measures were in place four days before the first case arrived. This resulted in only 2,750 cases and only 28 deaths at the time of reporting. This was in stark comparison to the UK, with only a slightly larger population and a vastly larger public expenditure, which had had 40,000 deaths and over one million cases by the end of August.

David was keen to ensure that this success story was balanced by an account of vulnerability, however, indicators of which included crowded living conditions, age, obesity, lack of cleaning supplies, shared/scarce toilet facilities and water sources, and other factors. These factors led to increased contact and risk of spreading disease both through the shared use of resources and facilities but also due to the fact that compliance with social distancing in these situations is difficult if not impossible.  David emphasised that governments need to provide money, for loans, essential food, soap, water, cleaning materials to aid compliance, and that local authorities can also have a positive impact through initiatives such as queuing systems and provision of masks.

David concluded his presentation by noting that despite the successes in some quarters there are still desperately challenging times ahead across the continent, including both direct and indirect impacts of COVID-19.

Professor Gordon’s presentation can be viewed in full via the BPI website.

 

Professor Isabella Aboderin, The impact of COVID-19 on older generations in Africa

The second speaker was Professor Isabella Aboderin, the Director of the Perivoli Africa Research Centre (PARC) at the University of Bristol. Isabella began by highlighting the importance of situating thinking around the impacts and implications of COVID-19 in Africa in the context of the broader discourse on ageing and older populations. She highlighted now Africa is a very ‘young’ continent, but one with a rapidly growing absolute number of older people. There has been little concern to date with the impacts of ageing on the sustainability of systems, whereas the ensuring of wellbeing and rights has been the focus.

Isabella outlined the recent discourse and scholarly trends surrounding older age research, and the general truths that a) later-life poverty reflects exposures in earlier phases of life course (e.g. lack of formal education, ill-health, etc.) and b) there is no one systematic approach to later-life course. She then went on to explore the debate on social protections, and why we are seeing inequalities in older populations.

Isabella went on to highlight that heightened COVID risk among older adults are influenced by a range of factors including lower income, food insecurity, higher prevalence of chronic diseases, compromised capacity for protection against COVID, access and adequacy of health system responsiveness, and restrictions on movement including practical, social and emotional. The tolls these factors take on mental and physical health is considerable and have implications for scientific and policy debate when considering a wider context in sub-Saharan Africa.

She noted how it is imperative to identify priority investments to reduce poverty and inequality. Within that, there is an urgent need to better understand the nature and scope of old age poverty and inequalities. Specifically, how has the COVID crisis impacted age-based multidimensional poverty inequalities and what role have intergenerational dynamics played? How does age interact with other factors (gender, geography, disability, etc.) and, crucially, how is this likely to evolve over medium term?

Isabella concluded by noting the significance of these conceptual and methodological challenges, as well as the important opportunity collectively such challenges present for concerted Africa-led research.

Professor Aboderin’s presentation can be viewed in full via the BPI website.

 

Professor Hassan O Kaya, Dr Injairu Kulundu-Bolus, Dr Michael Tusiime and Dr Rafael Mitchell, Researching education, poverty and sustainability in the context of COVID-19

The next presentation came from a panel of speakers representing the GCRF research network Transforming Education for Sustainable Futures (TESF), which focuses on socially and environmentally just education for climate action, decent work and sustainable cities. TESF is supporting up to 80 Southern-led projects in Rwanda, Somalia/Somaliland, South Africa and India. The presentation featured four speakers representing several of the programme partners: Professor Hassan O Kaya (University of KwaZulu Nata, South Africa), Dr Injairu Kulundu-Bolus (Rhodes University, South Africa), Dr Michael Tusiime (University of Rwanda, Rwanda), and Dr Rafael Mitchell (University of Bristol, UK), bringing a range of knowledge, expertise and perspectives to this important discussion.

 

Professor Hassan O Kaya opened the presentation with a short talk on COVID-19 research and paradigm shifts, highlighting how the pandemic has exposed and worsened the uncertainties and contradictions in the conceptualisations of global challenges including pandemics, poverty, climate change, educational transformation, social justice and human rights. He called for a multi- and trans-disciplinary research approaches for a holistic understanding, from the perspectives of the affected communities and social groups themselves.

Hassan observed how Africa’s response to the pandemic in terms of education saw institutions at all levels closing abruptly and moving learning online. This exposed and exacerbated existing socioeconomic inequalities and the digital divide between privileged and underprivileged pupils, students and families. Hassan concluded that there ought to be emphasis laid on self-reliance, and it is critical to build on complementary indigenous knowledge systems.

The second TESF speaker was Dr Injairu Kulundu-Bolus, whose short talk emphasised how the pandemic has exacerbated existing challenges including food security, access to water, and ongoing economic precarity. She also noted not it has also highlighted different dimensions of poverty, including the interconnected concepts of ‘poverty of trust’ and ‘poverty of connectedness’ relating to trust between the government and between communities, felt most starkly in the most unequal countries.

Injairu then went on to highlight how different community action networks have responded to these related concerns. For example, some have been hiding in plain sight, acting in meaningful ways despite a lack of government support such as community food kitchens which fulfilled a dire need particularly when the schools closed taking with them a vital source of nutrition for many children.

Injairu observed how the pandemic had raised many questions, such as how can you maintain proper hand-washing hygiene when water is scarce, what is needed next in order to adequately support communities, and how do we foster an embodied local engagement. She concluded by commenting on how the pandemic has created a space for young people to assert their futures and look beyond the paradigm of charity. The question of how to ‘build back better’ and foster social solidarity by rewiring our ways of working has a ready if incomplete answer in community action networks. These have rich potential to support deep reflection on which we can build to go forward.

The third speaker from the TESF network was Dr Michael Tusiime, who introduced two aspects of his work in Rwanda. Firstly his work with communities to identify the most vulnerable families who have not been able to access remote learning, and the measures taken to try and remedy this. He also highlighted the perpetual problem of ‘catching up’ and associated continued inequalities for these children, and how teachers’ capacity to provide remedial teaching when schools resume is of great concern.

Michael then went on to introduce his subsequent work which examines opportunities and challenges communities experience as they negotiate their children’s continuity of learning as they encounter wider issues surrounding sustainability. For example, how can existing local community structures be empowered to proactively support children’s learning during and post COVID-19? How best can they tap into the local resources they have? He concluded that it remains to be determined what is needed for education institutions to reopen safely for disadvantaged groups, and how inequalities can best be tackled.

The final TESF participant was Dr Rafael Mitchell. Due to time constraints he was unable to share his presentation during the webinar; however, it is available to view via the BPI website alongside recordings of all the presentations.

 

Ms Angeline Munzara, COVID-19 Aftershocks: Out of time

The final speaker was World Vision’s Angeline Munzara. Angeline began by highlighting how there has been a clear loss of income and reduced access to food for most vulnerable, and how this pandemic could reverse progress made towards the 2030 agenda and the SDGs irreversibly damaging lives. She introduced work from World Vision’s rapid assessment in 24 countries which suggests that millions of children will go hungry and be forced to beg. She gave examples of especially acute problems which have been observed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, how desert locusts have ruined crops in Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya, an increased risk of sexual violence against children, and how the resurgence of Ebola in some regions has complicated the response to COVID-19.

Angeline gave a stark warning that the basic right to provide needs of children is being inhibited; COVID-19 is curtailing caregivers’ ability to look after children. The world is also edging towards another global food crisis with rising food prices and a pronounced loss of income for many small businesses in Africa, and urgent action is required because this leaves the wellbeing of children at major risk, including a hugely increased incidence of child marriage.

In the final section of her presentation Angeline introduced World Vision’s key recommendations in response to these challenges, as shown in the below slide. She concluded that systemic, holistic, integrated approaches to economic recovery are required, and that it is crucial to understand how to learn from the pandemic to shape systems and deliver services to most vulnerable communities and children.

Angeline’s presentation can be viewed in full via the BPI website, and she has also written a fantastic blog piece reflecting on the discussions in this webinar which is available via this link. The full World Vision report cited in this presentation is available on their website.

Conclusion

This webinar therefore covered a range of interesting and important topics, and also generated engaged discussion through the Q&A sections. Clearly COVID-19 is having wide ranging, complex, and devastating impacts on communities across the African continent and those in poverty will be disproportionally affected, exacerbating existing socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities. Hopefully by coming together and learning about different perspectives, approaches and challenges we can be better situated to individually and collectively make a positive impact. Both the Bristol Poverty Institute and Perivoli Africa Research Centre are keen to keep these discussions going, and to explore ways to tackle the challenges and inequalities exposed and exacerbated by this pandemic. We encourage participants – and blog readers – to get in touch if you are interested in future collaboration.

Recordings of all presentations are available on the via the BPI website, alongside slides from presentations where speakers have given us permission to share these.

Authors: Lauren Winch (BPI) and Elliot James (PARC)

Author: Angeline Munzara

Editor: Keetie Roelen

 

The children of Africa are bleeding

The COVID-19 outbreak is like a double-edged sword to a poor African child, piercing through bone and marrow. Even before the pandemic, children in sub-Saharan Africa were disproportionately affected by poverty. Sub-Saharan Africa has increasingly become a locus for extreme poverty and is home to 59% (413 million) of the world’s extreme poor. Experiences with other communicable diseases highlight their far-reaching negative consequences on lives and livelihoods. Countries such as Sierra Leone and Democratic Republic of Congo are still recovering from the socio-economic impacts of Ebola.  Analysis by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Program (WFP) about acute food insecurity in October shows that these countries are most affected.

Growing fears of repeat of history

Similar to Ebola, COVID-19 has had serious knock-on effects on household income. With few or no government social protection schemes in place, COVID-19 is putting children at risk of eating less food, having to beg, or in some cases, even to be married off early or drop out of school as parents and caregivers resort to negative coping mechanisms.

Studies increasingly reveal evidence of the economic impact of COVID-19. Vision Fund, the microfinance arm of World Vision, carried out rapid assessments on COVID-19 impacts among its 2400 microfinance clients in eight countries in Africa (DRC, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Malawi and Zambia) showing how 92% reported loss of income. Another rapid assessment was also carried out among savings for transformation refugees/host settlements groups in West Nile, Uganda with 47% of members facing reduced income and 10% percent having already sold productive assets.

What needs to be done? A Call to Action

Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that parent(s) or main caregivers have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions that are necessary for the child’s development. COVID-19, however, is making it hard to fulfil these obligations. We are OUT OF TIME to address the impacts of COVID-19, and must act now. Without immediate action to protect people’s livelihoods now, the impact of this pandemic will reverse progress toward the post 2030 Agenda and irreparably damage the lives of current and future generations of children.

As we look into COVID-19 Recovery Responses, integrated and sustainable solutions are required. In helping families recover from the Ebola crisis, World Vision supported 42,000 small traders in Sierra Leone – almost 80% of whom were women – kick-start their businesses by providing small loans and grants to help members’ pool resources and fund their businesses. Through a combination of targeted cash transfers and financial literacy training, 302 savings groups were established (10,546 members with 6,373 females) including the first child savings group (known as ‘Destiny’) during 9 months of lockdown and school closures.

An analysis of the Women Empowered for Leadership and Development  in Sierra Leone shows how members used the earnings from the loans shows that 81.3% of beneficiaries used funds to pay school fees and buy learning materials, and 60% used the funds for medical expenses. The majority of loans provided for the basic needs of more than 40,000 children at a time when basic incomes were severely limited.

Based on these key learnings, governments, UN agencies, donors, NGOs, and the private sector must act together to:

• Urgently scale up child sensitive social protection measures to help poor families meet immediate food, nutrition and income needs of children
• Where school closures halted school meals programmes, ensure children continue to access food through such means as delivering food to homes.
• Keep food and agriculture market systems functioning through prioritising the rapid analysis, response and adaptations to food and agricultural markets.
• Protect jobs and livelihoods by providing funding to support Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), particularly, those led and owned by women to allow for faster economic recovery. Debt financing should allow flexible repayments and grace periods.
• Invest in interventions promoting a green recovery and develop economic recovery interventions that integrate resilience to climate change and restore environmental assets central to food security, safety nets and natural resource-based livelihoods.

World Vision’s Response 

The wide range of COVID-19’s impacts require a multi-pronged response and strong partnerships to provide such a response. World Vision’s COVID-19 Emergency Response plan aims to directly support 72 million of the most vulnerable people and 36 million children in 70 countries. In some cases, this means plugging the gaps following discontinuation of services, such as reported by our teams in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC):

“Communities shared feedback about their children who used to benefit from school feeding, but are now going hungry as a result of school closures. World Vision and WFP listened and reached a consensus to provide food rations to families of 18,651 children in the Kasai region, who had already been registered and were benefitting from the programme before schools closed.”

Elsewhere, World Vision is working on targeted programmes on nutrition-sensitive agriculture and  providing cash vouchers and food assistance to the most vulnerable children and their families, supporting savings groups with technical guidance and recovery support, working to analyse disrupted market systems to identify recovery strategies that both engage market forces and support the productive capacity of poor households, particularly smallholder farmers.  World Vision is also offering an integrated package of assistance, savings groups, training and assets (e.g., seeds, sewing machines, livestock, etc.) coupled with ongoing coaching support, to enable the most vulnerable families to escape the extreme poverty trap. Alongside this, we are collaborating with faith actors to train communities on Empowered World View, an approach that reaches deep into people’s core beliefs, transforming their view of the world so that the cycle of chronic poverty and hopelessness can be broken.

But over and above any interventions that can be offered, children and their families need to be able to find and hold onto hope that their present, painful circumstances can change.

This blog post was written by Angeline Munzara, who is Senior Advisor, Livelihoods External Engagement & Savings Groups, World Vision. It was originally published on the Poverty Unpacked blog by Keetie Roelen following the Bristol Poverty Institute  webinar on ‘The poverty and inequality dimensions of COVID-19 in Africa‘ that was held on 12 November 2020.

Photo credit: gitgitau_photography