Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Wednesday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Gender & equality, explained.
More than 90 participants gathering in Phnom Penh on 24 July 2026 to launch the first cohort of the Gender-Responsive Procurement program for women-owned businesses and gender-responsive enterprises (Sophorn Lim/UN Women)
As the US withdraws from UN bodies focused on women’s rights, fulfilling new pledges requires a fundamental rethink of funding.
Canberra and London commit to gender equality, but who will pay?Canberra and London commit to gender equality, but who will pay?
About the author
Serena Roy
Serena Roy studies law and econometrics at the University of New South Wales.
The joint statement from the 2026 Australia–United Kingdom Strategic Dialogue on Gender Equality (Opens in new window) contains an assumption it never quite acknowledges: that coordination between willing governments, supplemented by “innovative and blended finance” can compensate for the donor that has walked out of the room. Its commitments to deepen cooperation and mobilise new finance depend on that assumption.
That donor is the United States – though the statement does not name it. In January 2026, the US withdrew from dozens of international and United Nations (UN) bodies (Opens in new window), including UN Women and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), having already cut sexual and reproductive health funding by around 94% (Opens in new window) over the preceding year. Before the cuts, US money accounted for more than half of global spending in the field (Opens in new window). The statement calls this a “challenging global environment”.
The effects are already visible. In July 2026,UN Women reported that at least one million women and girls had lost access to critical support (Opens in new window) since January 2025. Nearly nine in 10 women’s organisations surveyed could no longer meet existing needs, while 40% expected to close temporarily or permanently within a year (Opens in new window).
Contraception, maternal healthcare, violence-prevention programs and grassroots organisations require expenditure regardless of whether they produce a financial return.
Against a shortfall of that scale, the financing proposed is limited. Blended finance uses public or philanthropic capital to attract private investment (Opens in new window) and works best where projects can generate returns. Much of the gender agenda does not meet that test. Contraception, maternal healthcare, violence-prevention programs and grassroots organisations require expenditure regardless of whether they produce a financial return. Private capital can supplement that work; it cannot replace a donor willing to fund it as a public good.
Where the joint statement has more force is not financial but institutional. Its pledge to protect UN mandates and support reform that “reinforces – rather than dilutes” existing commitments comes as the UN80 process considers a possible merger of the UNFPA, the UN’s sexual and reproductive health agency, and UN Women (Opens in new window). With these separate, there are clear mandates for reproductive health and women's rights. However, merging them risks concentrating all three. Efficiency and retrenchment can look remarkably similar when budgets are shrinking.
In a similar consolidation, the statement labels Women, Peace and Security (WPS) as a “cornerstone” of foreign and defence policy. UN80 reforms propose (Opens in new window)bringing (Opens in new window) existing WPS capacitie (Opens in new window)s (Opens in new window) into a single centre of excellence. Here, Australia and the UK have leverage that is not principally financial. Coalitions, votes and diplomatic pressure can preserve mandates even when they cannot replace the money that sustained them.
The statement also recognises the impact of gender-based violence on “social cohesion, stability and national security”. This definition is useful because aid and rights arguments are losing political ground. Security budgets are harder to cut, and governments that resist spending on gender equality can still be persuaded to spend on instability or conflict prevention. However, there is a trade-off. If gender programs survive because governments recognise them as security interests, the programs’ claim on public money no longer rests primarily on the rights of those they serve.
In Australia, the contradiction between pledge and funding is most immediate in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. The Australian government’s 2026–27 development budget increases the dedicated Gender Equality Fund by $5 million to $71 million. DFAT acknowledges a “triple shock (Opens in new window)” (Opens in new window)including major aid cuts (Opens in new window), while promising Australia will remain a “reliable partner”. However, an inflation adjustment is not a fiscal response on the scale of that contraction.
If Canberra and London cannot replace US spending, they can be clearer about what private capital can replace. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) treats blended and private finance as a complement to ODA (Opens in new window), not a substitute for it. Blended finance should be directed towards projects capable of attracting investment; services and organisations without a plausible commercial return will still require public money.
That leaves a simpler test of the partnership. Australia and the UK can use diplomatic leverage to defend UN mandates and institutions. However, someone still must pay for the clinics, maternal care, violence-prevention programs and organisations that give those commitments practical effect. Leadership on gender will ultimately be measured by whether they can do both – defend and pay.
