inter-agency gender marker training report - co-hosted by undp and un women geneva (101-11 june...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Inter-‐agency Gender Marker Training
Co-‐hosted by UNDP and UN Women -‐ Geneva – 10-‐11 June 2014
Report
Background
A UN System-‐Wide Policy on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-‐SWAP) was endorsed by the Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB) in October 2006, as a means of furthering the goal of gender equality and women’s empowerment within the policies and programmes of the UN system, and implementing the ECOSOC agreed conclusions 1997/2. The CEB policy notes: “A United Nations system-‐wide action plan that includes indicators and timetables, allocation of responsibilities and accountability mechanisms and resources is essential to make the strategy of gender mainstreaming operational.” The UN-‐SWAP, developed through extensive consultation across the UN system between July 2011 and March 2012 to implement the above 2006 CEB policy, was endorsed by the CEB in April 2012. Results of UN-‐SWAP annual reporting are included in the Secretary-‐General’s Report on mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes in the United Nations system.
Among its indicators, the UN-‐SWAP includes criteria focused on tracking and allocation of resources for gender equality and the empowerment of women. Tracking the use and allocation of resources for work on gender equality and women’s empowerment is crucial to improve the overall performance of the UN system. UN-‐SWAP reporting has demonstrated that resource tracking and allocation is an area of weakness across the system: only 23% of entities meet the requirements for UN-‐SWAP performance on establishing a resource tracking system, and only 8% meet the requirement for UN-‐SWAP performance on establishing and meeting a financial benchmark for resource allocation. Nevertheless, the system demonstrates a groundswell of activity: along with the 11 entities that had a gender marker system in place in 2013, up from 7 in 2012, 14 reported their intention to develop such a system in 2014. With the intention to strengthen capacities for UN-‐SWAP reporting, UN Women and partner UN entities have convened a series of workshops between 2013 and 2014. In response to a substantial number of requests for support on implementing gender marker systems, in particular from European and Africa based entities, UNDP and UN Women co-‐facilitated and co-‐hosted a two-‐day training workshop on gender equality markers on the 10th and 11th June 2014 in Geneva. The workshop was facilitated by Raquel Lagunas (UNDP, Gender Team) and Tony Beck (UN Women, consultant). It built on the half-‐day session co-‐hosted by WHO and UN Women in January 2014. A list of entities attending the training workshop is included in the annexes1.
Objectives and methodology of the Gender Marker Training
The Gender Marker Training was designed to offer:
§ An introduction to gender equality markers (GEMs), and the state of the art within and outside the UN system.
§ Hands on experience on how to develop a GEM, including overcoming institutional and technical challenges. § Examples from across the UN system of gender equality markers that have or are being implemented.
The training was structured around the steps that make up the gender marker cycle, from determining the purpose of gender markers to reporting and use of data, as follows:
1. Determining the rationale for a gender marker
1 In order to offer a comprehensive overview of entities’ experiences with the GEM, and in view to make the report a reference document in the current phase, references to FAO’s and IFAD’s GEMs were included in the report despite the two entities being unable to attend the workshop.
2
2. Setting up the gender marker team and its responsibilities 3. Reviewing past experience in your agency 4. Adapting the gender marker methodology and determining the coding system 5. Piloting 6. Rolling out the gender marker system – guidance, capacity and resources 7. Quality assurance 8. Reporting and financial benchmarks 9. Feeding the data back into strategic planning
This training report follows this same structure. It should be noted that the steps indicated above differ slightly from the eight steps as presented in the UNDG power point presentation “Steps to develop a gender marker”2, which can be found here. Differences relate to the emphasis and the order with which actions corresponding to each step are presented, on a basis of substantial alignment. Furthermore, for the benefit of the training, an additional step (step 1 “Determining the rationale for a gender marker”) was added. It is envisaged that the steps will increasingly align to the point of convergence.
A repository of examples and lessons learnt stemming from the current and past experience of different entities is presented in this report. These are meant to guide entities to find the solutions and adaptations of the GEM that are most effective and efficient within their organizational structures, while firmly complying with the UNDG GEM Guidance Note in the interest of the inter-‐agency comparability of the tool. The UNDG Guidance Note “[…] sets out […] common principles and standards for gender equality marker systems that track and report on allocations and expenditures for gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment. It […] guides the development of an effective and coherent approach for tracking resources that support gender equality results with agreed upon parameters and standards inside the UN system. This will allow UN system-‐wide reporting with regard to funds contributing to promoting gender equality. The Guidance Note is intended to provide direction for individual entities instituting or improving their gender equality marker systems.” The Guidance Note is based on five Principles and eleven Common Standards. A presentation on the UNDG Guidance Note can be found here.
Gender Equality Markers: state of the art, general challenges and possible solutions and Step 1: Determining the rationale for a gender marker
Among the UN entities attending the training, 9 agencies declared not to have started the implementation of the GEM, 3 to be in the initial stages, 3 to be in the piloting phase and 2 to have completed a full reporting cycle.
Entities affirmed that the GEM is a useful tool to:
§ Increase accountability § Support fundraising § Raise awareness with partners, donors and staff § Improve communication § Detect project-‐related problems at an early stage, i.e. at the design phase § Detect whether and which gender-‐related goals were achieved, therefore supporting measurement and
reporting. § Improve gender mainstreaming within the work programme of the organization § Promote integration of gender equality in the work planning process
Entities also indicated that the most challenging UNDG standards are/will be:
§ 5 – setting financial benchmarks
2 The UNDG eight steps are: 1) Establish a gender marker support team; 2) Review lessons learnt in existing documents; 3) Adapt the gender marker methodology: 4) Develop technical resources; 5) Pilot the proposed marker; 6) Design gender equality marker reports; 7) System-‐wide roll-‐out of the gender marker; 8) Review of the applications of the marker.
3
§ 4 – integrating the GEM into the financial reporting system § 6 – consistency of coding § 7 – oversight and responsibility § 8 – quality assurance processes § 10 – reporting
In particular, standard 5 is considered to be the most complex standard to achieve because of its political implications.
Entities also reported to have encountered a series of challenges while designing, piloting and implementing the GEM. Challenges can be clustered as follows:
Buy-‐in:
§ Obtaining buy-‐in on why gender equality considerations, and therefore the gender marker, are relevant to the work/mandate of the specific entity, in particular technical entities.
§ Negative perceptions about increasing the management burden on responsible officers. § Misconception that the responsibility of inserting gender codes lies with the entity’s gender unit, rather than
responsible officers across the organization themselves § Crosscutting fatigue due to the presence of many markers, among which the GEM risks being just one among
others. § Building ownership, in order for GEM to be seen as an opportunity and not as a constraint. § Lack of entity-‐specific policies for adoption and implementation of the GEM. § Advocacy with Governing Bodies on the opportunity to integrate gender equality elements into
programming. § The GEM is used as “a stick rather than a carrot”, with little incentives and explanations on how GEMs will
help improve entity and staff’s ongoing work.
Technical aspects:
§ Finding the right balance between the uniformed Principles and Standards of the GEM and the specificities of each entity.
§ How to include the GEM into existing financial systems, such as UMOJA, Oracle, ATLAS, etc. § Unsatisfactory planning resulting in an unclear timetable for implementation. § Aligning with and adapting to budgeting and accounting processes. § Lack of awareness of the software modifications needed to adapt the GEM to establish an informed dialogue
with the IT department. § Linking the GEM with achieved results. § Establishing an adequate description and benchmark for each code. § Finding the right balance between simplicity and comprehensiveness to ensure both sustainability and quality
of data. § Guaranteeing steady quality of inputs so that data outputs enjoy the same quality level. § Assuring a quality control mechanism. § The role of entities’ internal oversight in relations to GEM performance. § Lack of feedback mechanisms. § Ensuring the consistency in selecting the correct codes throughout various products/services/activities
Capacities:
§ Insufficient expertise and experience in gender mainstreaming that can reflect negatively on quality assurance.
§ Insufficient gender equality and mainstreaming capacities at the decentralized level (e.g., country level) to manage the GEM.
§ Insufficient understanding of the GEM’s objectives, limitations, and structure.
Possible solutions to the challenges above include:
4
§ Share the responsibility for the implementation and oversight of the GEM with departments other than the entity’s gender unit. In particular, involve both the budget and finance unit and the oversight bodies.
§ Ensure that the entity’s gender equality strategy includes references and objectives linked to the GEM. § Develop a clear rationale as to the uses of the GEM in specific situations. § Integrate the GEM into results-‐based management. § Advocate with donors to request the application of the GEM, and sensitize them to request and interpret
data emerging from the GEM. § Apply the assurance system during implementation. § In the case of technical agencies, a feasibility analysis might be useful.
Take-‐away points:
-‐ The GEM measures organizational processes. In order to measure the achievement of results, the GEM needs to be complemented by entity-‐specific RBM systems.
-‐ For the GEM to be successful, there is a need to secure buy-‐in across the whole organization. Efforts to gain support should not be limited to the highest management/head of entity or the gender unit alone.
The solutions indicated above can be clustered in (i) agency-‐specific solutions (i.e. at the individual level) and (ii) interagency solutions (i.e. broadly applicable solutions in which coordinated efforts by entities can be convened by UN Women).
Examples by entities:
§ WFP set up a pool of business owners that use and are responsible for the GEM across the organization. This results in shared responsibilities concerning data inputs and quality of data across the entity.
§ UNOPS plans to apply an assurance system also during implementation. This will result in a dynamic coding that changes quarterly. UNOPS’s assurance mechanism is based on a color code (please see UNOPS presentation hyperlinked below for further references).
§ IFAD applies the GEM to three phases of the project cycle, i.e. design, implementation, and completion and evaluation. The coding is thus dynamic and subject to changes during the project cycle.
§ The Rome-‐based entities (WFP, IFAD and FAO) have set up a UN-‐SWAP peer review system to maximise inter-‐agency exchange and learning, including sharing experiences on the GEM. In addition to this, WFP also opened up to peer review with other entities such as UNICEF.
§ Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR) indicators are used by the Funds and Programmes to advocate with and encourage management to support the implementation of the GEM.
Lessons learnt: § Make use of frameworks – the CEB endorsement of the UN-‐SWAP for example, and the CEDAW – to build
leverage for the GEM within entities. UNESCO and OHCHR, for example, used the roll-‐out of the UN-‐SWAP framework to successfully push the GEM forward.
Suggestions for possible future GEM developments: Some entities (IASC, UNOPS and WFP) observed that gender equality markers as they are currently designed according to the UNDG Guidance Note, can be viewed as a “predictor of action” but do not track whether what is planned is implemented or what results are achieved. In this sense, GEMs are currently “a horizontal marker that looks across multiple organizations and projects” but focus only on one specific point in time, i.e. the design stage, without measuring the effectiveness of the proposed project. The lack of follow up monitoring of implementation, furthermore, could potentially lead GEMs to become a cosmetic tool, since no consequences derive from the potential discrepancy between design and achievements. On the other hand, it was felt that if GEMs are able to demonstrate the results and impact of mainstreaming gender equality considerations, this will
5
“provide impetus for greater integration of gender equality considerations”, thus generating a virtuous effect. It was then suggested that gender equality markers be applied also during the project implementation cycle as a specific monitoring tool, so that data can be collected, analyzed and compared in at least two points in time within the project cycle. During the discussions, a stronger link between the application of the GEM and the evaluation function was also suggested. It was proposed that the GEM could potentially be integrated into the UN-‐SWAP evaluation scorecard for evaluation (UN-‐SWAP indicator 5).
How can ownership, including dissemination, of the Principles and Standards be generated both across the system and within entities? Examples and arguments:
-‐ Engagement and constant information on the GEM is important to build ownership. Creating a community of practice related to the GEM can be effective in engaging staff at different levels.
-‐ WFP introduced a newsletter and lunch sessions to promote discussions and information exchanges about the Marker. Information is packaged as “messages”, which can easily be passed on to managers. WFP also integrated the GEM into its corporate management framework.
-‐ UNESCO worked to ensure that the design and definition phases were highly participatory, engaging staff beyond Gender Focal Points from all major programmes and central planning departments.
-‐ In order to engage the Governing Bodies, embedding the GEM data and results into Executive Board reports could help to win support from Member States.
-‐ FAO incorporated the system of gender markers in the work planning process to formulate activities for the current Strategic Framework, involving its strategic and planning management unit. The concept was also introduced and discussed in meetings with the core members who were in charge of formulating Strategic Objectives.
Advocating for the gender equality marker
It is important to remember that the GEM is a pilot tool within the UN system. It is expected that similar tracking systems will be adopted – for example for initiatives targeting the youth – and will be based on the experience and lessons learnt of the GEM. In this sense, each entity should capitalize on the GEM to build future tracking mechanisms. This argument can be used for advocacy with the Senior Management.
The Gender Marker Process: what are the steps?
The UNDG steps to set up a Gender Marker are presented here.
When starting designing the GEM, the guiding questions below should be kept in mind:
-‐ Where should the GEM be positioned to guarantee efficiency and effectiveness? -‐ How should responsible officers be engaged? -‐ How can the GEM help innovate? -‐ What type of data should be produced?
Take away point: Think ahead in terms of data needs: make sure the GEM can produce comprehensive data for both current and future needs of your organization.
6
Experience from entities (for example, UNESCO) shows that GEMs can be designed, rolled out and monitored using in-‐house capacities exclusively, provided that an adequate level of expertise is present and available.
Entities have opted for different approaches when embedding the GEM in their systems. OHCHR, for example, opted for working on strengthening gender-‐responsive budgeting as a preliminary measure between 2014 and 2017, in order to build capacities first. This phased approach is also applied to the integration of the GEM in the OHCHR’s RBM system – which at the moment only has a binary code (Yes/No). UNOPS, on the other hand, integrated the GEM within a wider marker system that monitors 20 different variables. To ensure a smoother interface between the responsible officer and the marker system, the system is color-‐coded. The system later transforms the color-‐coded data into data comparable with the GEM 4-‐scale codes. Similarly to UNOPS, IFAD has for several years integrated a gender marker in a scoring system that also rates 22 other variables associated with project design and implementation. IFAD’s GEM is based on a six-‐point scale that rates project design and performance from highly unsatisfactory/gender blind (1) to highly satisfactory/gender transformative (6). These six levels can be aggregated to coincide with the UNDG four-‐level system.
GEM presentations by IASC, WFP, UNOPS, UNESCO and OHCHR are available here.
Step 2: Setting up the GEM team and its responsibilities
Examples and good practices reported by entities:
§ UNDP established a gender implementation steering committee, which included the senior management and is chaired by the Associated Administrator.
§ As previously mentioned, in the case of WFP, responsibilities for the GEM are distributed around the house. The Gender Unit promoted the establishment of the GEM, and ensures coherence as well as conducts quality assurance. However, the overall responsibility is shared across different departments that work on different aspects of the GEM. WFP opted to create a Task Force, which was formed in 2014. Membership is still being defined, with new members being accepted, and including the resource management and accountability department. The Task Force meets on an ad-‐hoc basis when milestones are to be validated. It reports regularly to the Executive Board. Furthermore, a special team in the budget office (interdivisional task force) supports the Gender Unit to select the right terminology and to build buy-‐in with the budget department. Twenty per cent of the work time of the programme manager in the Performance Management Department is devoted to the GEM: therefore 20% of her salary is budgeted under the gender equality financial endowment.
§ Within UNOPS, the GEM is managed by a core management team, which includes a project manager on gender (full time), a UNOPS sustainability marker manager (full time), a communication expert (part time), ICT support (internal) and external consultants (contracted), and reports to the Sustainablility Programme Manager, who reports to the Executive Director’s Office (the highest level within the organisation). Gender Focal Points (GFPs) – 39 in 25 countries – create the supporting environment for the GEM and offer support at the field office level for roll out.
§ UNESCO established a GEM team coordinated and promoted by the gender equality division, which included the strategic planning and performance department, the IT department and the RBM software users’ group.
§ WHO set up a multidisciplinary team together with the IT, and planning and finance departments. Currently, no staff is working on the GEM fulltime. The team is expected to draw together focal points from all regions, offices and levels. The Gender Equity and Human Rights Team reports to the Assistant Director General, and therefore has access to the highest level of decision making within the organization.
§ OHCHR based the GEM team on the tripartite cooperation between (i) the gender unit -‐ which includes two full time staff who work on gender mainstreaming out of the total 8 of the unit -‐ (ii) the monitoring and programming office, and (iii) administration.
§ UNCDF set up a gender working group chaired by the Deputy Executive Secretary, which includes all heads of Divisions including finance and budget.
7
§ In the case of FAO, the gender team involved the strategy, planning and resource management unit and gender focal points.
Challenges reported by entities:
§ While establishing the GEM team is relatively easy, ensuring constant contributions, in particular from technical departments, poses some challenges.
§ In order not to create “gender fatigue” in the members of the GEM team, there is a need to find a sustainable balance between requests for inputs and support.
Lessons learnt:
§ A multidisciplinary team, including both operations and programming and HQ and decentralized offices, has proven effective for a number of entities, as it contributes to facilitate the circulation of relevant knowledge provided by different units.
§ Obtaining support from the highest levels of leadership within the entity is crucial to get traction and commitment to take the GEM forward.
§ Involving communication staff has proven effective to facilitate the relationship with different departments, to package information effectively and gain internal support.
§ Investing in training to raise awareness of gender equality consideration in programming has a direct positive correlation with the quality of data inputted in the GEM. Take-‐away points
-‐ In order to be effective, the GEM needs decentralization within the organization because it needs a wide range of skills and capacities. The gender unit should have primarily a coordination and facilitation function.
-‐ The composition of the GEM team depends very much on the circumstances of the organization. -‐ Having an established GFP network is important to take the GEM forward, but not crucial. -‐ Different names can help change perceptions within certain entities. In the case of WFP, for example, the
use of the name “business owners” has facilitated the work across departments.
Step 4: Adapting the gender marker methodology and determining the coding system Examples and good practices reported by entities:
§ Technical resources – such as guidance on the use of the marker – must be developed. UNDP developed guidance notes on the GEM and promoted existing tools that raise awareness about gender equality issues, such as the inter-‐agency e-‐learning course “Gender Equality, UN Coherence and You”.
§ Within UNDP, UNESCO, UNOPS and OHCHR, coding is performed by the responsible officer in charge of the project. Additional coding by a gender expert may or may not be required.
§ WFP opted for a gradual approach to rollout coding. Coding is currently still centralized within the programme review committee. In a second phase, when capacities on coding within the organization will be strengthened, the process will be decentralized.
Challenges reported by the entities:
§ The feasibility of coding non-‐project or operational costs – such as building infrastructure – has not yet been considered.
§ Many entities conduct significant normative work as their core business. However, the feasibility of applying the GEM to this kind of expenditure has not yet been addressed
8
Lessons learnt:
§ WFP’s programme review committee used to review and mark projects when they were already in the final stages of planning. It was observed that engaging with country offices before the actual marking would improve the quality of the coding.
§ Criteria for coding need to be made specific and explicit to facilitate coding by staff with little or no expertise in gender mainstreaming. Explicit examples given for each criterion can facilitate in determining which code to be selected.
Take away points: -‐ Each unit of analysis (i.e. project) is coded at the planning stage. -‐ Coding must be explicit and not assumed. Evidence that the unit of analysis will contribute to a positive
change related to gender equality and women’s empowerment must be present. Simply mentioning “women”, “boys”, “men” or “girls” is not sufficient to support the attribution of a certain code.
-‐ The GEM can become a forum for improvement, negotiation, and persuasion. It can increase capacity to conduct gender analysis and gender mainstreaming within the entity. Coding can also help detect opportunities to further mainstream gender equality considerations within specific project proposals. Once detected, these entry points can be negotiated with the Responsible Officers.
-‐ The GEM can help advance the RBM culture within the entity. -‐ Coding must be linked to the UNDG GEM Guidance Note. -‐ Guidance notes are needed to support staff fill in the GEM and reduce coding subjectivity. This might
include also specific examples of best practices in code 3/2a/2b. -‐ Humanitarian agencies or those that have humanitarian activities might be in need of adopting two
different markers (the IASC one and the entity’s one). The European Commission’s Directorate-‐General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (ECHO), for example, is now developing its own GEM on humanitarian interventions and UN entities will need to comply with that new requirement.
Step 5: piloting
Examples reported by entities:
§ UNOPS arranged a face-‐to-‐face piloting of the sustainability marker, which involved engagement of around 10% of the countries in which it operates. This direct exchange is judged to have greatly helped the successful implementation of the marker. The piloting first focused on countries with a higher expected level of resistance to the new tool, rather than those that were expected to be less resistant. Changes to the marker had to be introduced as a result of the piloting. Therefore, flexibility to potential changes is very important.
§ UNDP piloted the GEM in 17 countries during a period of one year, while the IASC piloted the GEM in two countries before implementation.
§ Other entities (WFP, UNESCO) did not conduct any piloting but instead decided on a more gradual rollout.
§ ECHO conducted piloting during one year and combined this with a soft launch of the GEM, which became compulsory only six months after implementation, after a six-‐month grace period.
Lessons learnt:
§ Prepare piloting by building or strengthening capacities in gender mainstreaming, analysis and awareness within the entity.
9
§ Test the GEM with those (departments, field offices, etc.) that are displaying most resistance to it, as opposed to those that are already supporting the tool. If the criticisms received will not undermine the GEM, there is a high chance that it will work effectively across the organization.
§ Establishing a help desk during piloting helps to address potential coding issues and eases the process of delivering support.
Take away points: -‐ Piloting helps discover weak or breaking points before the roll-‐out phase. It is a good practice that makes
the GEM more robust. -‐ It is also an opportunity for internal learning, revision, and further assessment of the GEM’s environment.
Piloting also offers time for the entity to adapt to the new tool. -‐ The length and breadth of piloting varies according to the specific circumstances of each entity, in relation to
variables such as field presence, available time and resources, etc.
Step 6: roll out
Examples and good practices reported by the entities:
As part of the roll out plan, entities developed technical resources to accompany responsible officers during roll out. These resources include:
-‐ Guidance notes drawing from new and existing resources, such as the e-‐learning course “Gender Equality, UN Coherence and You” (UNDP)
-‐ Guidance notes, FAQ’s, tip sheets, one-‐page coding scale, list of resource people, generic talking points, IASC Lessons learned (IASC)
-‐ “Gender mainstreaming Toolkit”, fact sheets for every specific cross cutting theme and an activity library for gender equality, that accompanied face-‐to-‐face roll-‐out workshops (UNOPS).
-‐ A table with progressive, specific and explicit requirements for the different codes (UNESCO) to facilitate coding by non-‐gender experts. Furthermore, UNESCO opted to integrate the GEM guidance notes directly into the RBM guidelines, thus not having a separate guidance document. This has helped reduce the perception of gender equality as being a “separate issue” and has reduced resistance.
-‐ A checklist with specific descriptions of the expected requirements for each code at project design, implementation and completion (IFAD).
Technical support and training on the use of the marker can be done through face-‐to-‐face workshops, but also through intranets, Sharepoints and webinars.
UNCDF opted to embrace a demand driven approach to communicate why the GEM is important as opposed to a supply driven (top down) approach. This helped increase buy-‐in for the GEM.
Lessons learnt:
-‐ Relevant guiding resources should be ready and available before roll-‐out, and should support gender mainstreaming and analysis that have already been built prior to roll-‐out. Capacities of gender focal points should in particular be targeted.
-‐ Invest in capacity building for gender mainstreaming, gender awareness, and coding. Based on its experience, UNDP reflected that it would have put in place a broader and stronger capacity building plan, with a regular cycle of capacity development initiatives targeting staff at different levels prior to rolling out their GEM.
-‐ Promoting understanding of gender mainstreaming within the organization supports the roll out of the GEM. -‐ Integrating the GEM guidance notes in existing RBM documents can help obtain buy-‐in and push the GEM
forward.
10
-‐ A strong communication strategy, which targets all relevant stakeholders, is crucial to help explain to the responsible officers why the GEM is important.
Take away points: -‐ The breaking point for full roll-‐out is to make the GEM mandatory.
-‐ A financial investment for communication and capacity building is necessary during the piloting and roll-‐out phases. The availability of information on experiences and resources within the UN-‐SWAP network can reduce costs.
Step 7: quality assurance
Entities affirmed that quality assurance is useful to:
§ Ensure reliability of data. § Ensure consistency in the application of codes and alignment with the corporate mandate. § Detect real impact/added value. § Ensure responsible officers are all on the same page, and quality of data is consistent. § Increase accountability, defining clearer lines of accountability within the entity. § Quality assurance is needed to deal with projects having a potential negative impact.
Examples and lessons learnt reported by entities:
§ UNDP is currently working on: (i) establishing a protocol with clear steps for quality assurance, (ii) guaranteeing oversight by senior management to ensure the overall quality, (iii) setting up a peer review system, (iv) monitoring and evaluation on coding, (v) reviewing how technical capacities are developed, (vi) recruiting an external advisor to conduct a random assessment of coding. These measures are being tested in five pilot countries.
§ Furthermore, UNDP is currently discussing: (i) whether a financial threshold should be fixed above which project should be mandatorily reviewed by a gender advisor/expert before being approved, and (ii) setting up an annual comprehensive review of an office’s portfolio to identify the areas of work where gender equality considerations can easily be integrated. This latter point implies the possibility of revising the coding after the assessment and mainstreaming are performed.
§ Quality assurance at UNESCO is centralized within the gender division, which reviewed coding for all entries. In the future, UNESCO envisages decentralising quality assurance engaging also GFPs.
§ UNOPS proposes to organise peer reviews between project managers. § In IFAD, the GEM scoring is conducted by external reviewers at project design during the quality assurance
process; by supervision missions and regional portfolio management teams during implementation; and by the project management unit, validated by the Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE), at project completion.
Who should be accountable for the gender marker?
-‐ The programme management team – which should be different from the gender unit and the responsible officer coding the project.
-‐ The units responsible for performance, accountability, and reporting within the organization. -‐ The strategic operational planning units, reporting to the highest senior management. -‐ Country offices, with different levels of accountability vis-‐à-‐vis HQ. -‐ The GFPs together with the gender unit.
11
The results are reported annually to the Executive Board in the Report on IFAD’s Development Effectiveness, the Annual Portfolio Performance Review (by project and region), and the Annual Report on Results and Impact by IOE.
§ FAO monitors and reviews the extent to which gender markers have been applied under different Strategic Objectives as part of the quality assurance mechanism to assess FAO’s results and performance on gender equality. The process is led by the gender unit and supported by the gender focal points.
Challenges reported by the entities:
§ Effectively and efficiently managing the amount of data that the GEM produces. § Creating a common and consistent understanding of coding. § Building adequate capacity. § Availability of time, financial and human resources to undertake quality assurance. § Resistance by the responsible officers to receive and integrate feedback. § Establishing effective communication mechanism to facilitate the circulation and understanding of new
policies and tools between HQ and the field.
Possible solutions to the challenges identified above include:
§ Establish an internal peer review process. § Create and make available tailored tools. § Organize group exercises/training opportunities/hands-‐on learning opportunities. § Provide adequate information at all staff levels to “sell” the benefits of the GEM. Establish a two-‐way
dialogue mechanism and invest in knowledge management. § Conduct an evaluation a few years after the GEM has been established. § Embrace a preventive approach rather than a reactive approach, as the latter is more costly to manage.
Take away points:
-‐ There should not be a conflict of interest between the officers responsible for coding and the officers responsible for quality assurance.
-‐ It is useful to combine pre and post quality assurance, as they should be seen as two sides of the same coin.
Steps 8 and 9: reporting and strategic planning
Pros of public reporting: § It ensures comparability. § It increases transparency and accountability. § It offers consistency in data presentation. § It can assist with fundraising. § It guides strategic decision-‐making § It offers incentives to improve by creating positive competition among entities. § It helps raise awareness. § It offers to the entity’s Governing Bodies access to wider information. § It can help improve the organization’s image and communication.
Cons of public reporting:
§ It may lead to the reduction of funding. § It increases workload. § It exposes the entity to criticism (naming and shaming).
12
§ After a public report has been adopted, there is no going back to non-‐public reports. § It can generate micromanagement by Governing Bodies and can lead to an increased use of earmarked
funds. § It reinforces a “gender police reputation”. § It can cause demotivation and disincentive honest reporting by increasing over-‐rating. § It can cause data manipulation.
Entities also discussed the opportunity of adopting a phased approach towards publishing public results. To allow for adaptation and corrections, a grace period might be applied in which data is circulated only internally within the entity. This would allow an opportunity for learning and to amend codes before going public.
What makes a good gender marker report?
-‐ It is produced annually. -‐ It includes challenges, recommendations, and the way forward. -‐ Data and data analysis are accurate. -‐ It is also used horizontally to feed into fundraising and advocacy.
How can findings be used within the organization?
§ Support the design of projects at the planning stage, and the assessment of the levels of resources assigned to gender activities at the project formulation stage, at the internal budget review stage and to support justification of project expenditures at the budget approval stage.
§ They provide visibility within the entity to the departments/units/offices with the highest performance, thus establishing a reward system.
§ It therefore provides incentives for good performance, creating a positive competition.
§ Data is crucial for establishing benchmarks, and feeds into the internal process of budgeting, review, and planning.
§ Data can be easily linked to the post-‐2015 agenda and financing for gender equality.
Examples in benchmarking reported by entities:
-‐ UNESCO opted for a more gradual approach, working on building a solid baseline while revising indicative benchmarks at the end of 2015.
-‐ WFP has established a target of 75% of projects needing to be coded 2a. This benchmark has been included in the entity’s strategic plan.
-‐ FAO established a target in its Gender Equality Policy, that, by 2017, the share of the Technical Cooperation Programmes’ total portfolio allocated to programmes and projects related to gender equality is increased to 30 percent, corresponding to codes 2a and 2b.
Does the GEM influence where funding is directed?
UNDP found out that more investment (26%) is made in projects coded 2 (gender mainstreaming) rather than (5%) projects coded 3 (gender specific initiatives). UNDP has now set up a target that will gradually bring investment for projects coded 3 to 15%. While, on one side, the report to UNDP’s Executive Board aggregates figures and data for codes 2 and 3, there are programmatic implications in investing on one approach rather than the other.
13
Next steps
Possible next steps proposed by the facilitation team and attendees included:
-‐ Development of a community of practice moderated by UN Women, which holds regular meetings and congregates around an online platform with consolidated resources on the GEM for knowledge sharing and communication.
-‐ Creation of a Gender Marker Help Desk staffed with experts, offering support on common requests from entities via email. Support relevant to more than one entity will be also posted on the community of practice. For immediate requests, a contact email address to be set up and made visible on the Extranet.
-‐ Organization of annual regional check-‐ins/capacity building workshops, or more frequent webinars, to present experiences and lessons learnt on the implementation of GEM.
-‐ Creation of an inter-‐agency mechanism to provide overall coordination to the gender marker work, such as working group on GEM lead by the Finance and Budget Network of the HLCM.
-‐ A system-‐wide report specific to the gender marker. -‐ A system-‐wide evaluation of gender markers. -‐ A list of individuals/focal points that work on markers in each entity. -‐ A roster of experts on GEM, both internal and external to the UN system. -‐ Organization of trainings on gender awareness and gender analysis. -‐ Development of online trainings for implementers, middle managers, and those accountable for GEMs. -‐ Advocacy for the integration of the GEM in UMOJA.
14
Annexes
Participants’ agenda
Day 1 – 10 June
Time Training sessions
9:30 Welcome by Aparna Mehrotra, UN Women, and Raquel Lagunas, UNDP
9:45 Introductions and overview of the workshop
10:15 Gender Markers: Where are we at and what is your biggest challenge?
Purpose: develop a visual picture of where participants are at in the stages of development of gender marker systems, and put the big questions out for discussion
11:15 BREAK
11:30
Gender Markers: An Overview
Purpose: Provide a general overview/introduction to gender markers including UNDG principles and standards
12:30 LUNCH
1:30 The Gender Marker Process: What are the Steps?
Purpose: Provide an overview of the entire process/steps involved in setting up a gender marker
2:15 Developing and rolling out the gender marker
Purpose: Review the first stages (steps 2, 3 and 5) in setting up a gender marker system and hear information on how others have done this
3:30 BREAK
3:45 Adapting the Gender Marker to specific entities in the UN
Purpose: Explore gender marker systems in different organizations/departments
5:15 Wrap up of the day
Day 2 – 11 June
Time Training sessions
9:00 Workshop opening
9:15 Coding
Purpose: Cover Step 4 of the Gender Marker Process
11:00 BREAK
11:15 Quality control
Purpose: Cover step 7 of the Gender Marker Process
12:30 LUNCH
1:45 Reporting and using the information from the Gender Marker
Purpose: Cover steps 8 and 9 of the Gender Marker Process
3:00 BREAK
3:15 Other Challenges
15
Time Training sessions
Purpose: Deal with any major challenges that have not been dealt with so far
4:00 Next Steps
Purpose: Get feedback on needs and interests in collective next steps
5:00 Workshop Wrap-‐Up and Evaluation
List of participants
AGENCY/DEPT LAST NAME FIRST NAME Email address or comments 1 DPI Ferreira Mary [email protected] 2 DPKO Medas Beverley [email protected] (CONNECTING
REMOTELY) 3 ECA Gonzaque Rosalie [email protected] 4 ECE Koparanova Malinka [email protected] 5 IAEA Kim Jane [email protected] (CONNECTING
REMOTELY ON THE 10 June) 6 IOM Simon Philip [email protected] 7 ITC Shrestha Mona [email protected] 8 JIU Lee Jeanie [email protected] 9 OHCHR Terada Saori [email protected] 10 OLA Hicuburundi Alice [email protected]
(CONNECTING REMOTELY) 11 UN-‐Habitat Berg Jo [email protected] 12 UNAIDS David Abigail [email protected] 13 UNAIDS Ahumada Claudia [email protected] 14 UNCDF Abbadi Mohammad [email protected] 15 UNCDF Barrantes Javier [email protected] 16 UNDP Lagunas Raquel [email protected] 17 UNDP Robinson Stephen [email protected] 18 UNDP Sanchez Mugica Jesus [email protected] 19 UNEP Wingfield Susan [email protected]
(ATTENDING ON 2ND DAY) 20 UNEP Terekhova Tatiana [email protected] 21 UNHCR Gottfredsen Sara [email protected] 22 UNICEF Brun Delphine [email protected] 23 UNIDO Femundsenden Hedda [email protected] 24 UNIDO Scherney Andreas [email protected] -‐-‐
CONNECTING REMOTELY 25 UNISDR Zulqarnain Majeed [email protected] 26 UNOPS Pathiyanthara Sanitha [email protected] 27 UNRWA Jelassi Sana [email protected] 28 UN Women Mehrotra Aparna [email protected] 29 UN Women Grimwade Donna [email protected] 30 UN Women Arnò Ingrid [email protected] 31 UN Women Dyer Monica [email protected] 32 UN Women Ziffer Alicia [email protected] 33 WFP Pruscini Elvira [email protected]
16
AGENCY/DEPT LAST NAME FIRST NAME Email address or comments 34 WFP Hemling Michael [email protected] 35 WFP Teixeira Patrick [email protected] 36 WHO Vogel Joanna [email protected] 37 WHO Cuchi Paloma [email protected] 38 WHO Galazoula Georgia [email protected] 39 WHO Thomas Rebekah [email protected] 40 WHO Chen Dorothy [email protected] 41 WHO Cazacu Ofelia [email protected] 42 WIPO Saito Kaori [email protected] 43 WMO Alexieva Assia [email protected] 44 Consultant Beck Tony [email protected] 45 Consultant Callegari Sara [email protected] 46 Consultant Childerley Jonathan [email protected] 47 Consultant Perrin Brigitte [email protected]