Memorandum submitted by the UK Gender
and Development Network
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The UK Gender and Development Network
(GADN) is the principal UK network of over 120 leading professionals,
academics, and consultants working in the field of gender and
development.
1.2 Our point of departure on the Department
for International Development's Departmental Report 2003 is, apart
from the expertise on gender and development already present in
the network, the valuable insights gained from research conducted
by the GAD Network during winter 2003 on gender equality and mainstreaming
in the policy and practice of DFID.[4]
1.3 The main purpose of the research was
to provide evidence to the Committee monitoring the UK's implementation
of its commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The research used a variety
of methods including desk review of DFID documents and parliamentary
reports, survey of GADN members' experience of working with DFID,
focus group meeting with GADN members, and interviews with DFID
staff members and consultants who work with DFID.
2. DFID'S APPROACH
IN POLICY
AND STRATEGY
2.1 Rights-based approach to development
versus efficiency-based approach.
In paragraph 3.42 DFID stresses its rights-based
approach to development and the importance of empowering poor
people, and particularly women, by ensuring their rights and inclusion
in decision-making processes. The GADN believes that the rights-based
approach to development is one of DFID's greatest strengths.
However, DFID's Annual Report quickly moves
on to stressing the importance of gender equality in respect to
the overall purpose of poverty reduction (paragraph 3.44). The
tendency to subsume the policy objective of gender equality under
that of poverty reduction can favour an instrumental approach
to equality, in which gender equality is desirable, not because
it is a right, but because it is good for economic growth. In
other words, equality between men and women is pursued because
it promotes poverty reduction rather than because women have a
right to equality. The result is that women become the means,
rather than the ends of development work. GADN is very concerned
about this vacillation between a rights-based approach to development
and one based on efficiency, which our research demonstrated pervades
DFID. This lack of clarity about women's role in development gives
the GADN the impression that DFID does not have a common gender
analysis or a shared understanding of gender mainstreaming.
DFID must make sure that it develops further
a broader analytical approach to the power relations between men
and women and applies this in all sectors.
2.2 Disaggregation of Data
A key problem in DFID's work is disaggregation
of data. This is reflected in the Departmental Report. Throughout
the report, sex-disaggregated data are only used a few times in
broad and general statements such as "70% of the poor are
women and people in their households." (paragraph 3.44).
Otherwise, the report, like most of DFID's policy and strategy
documents, does not disaggregate the category of "the poor"
either by sex or by other variables and thus fails to recognise
that poor people across the world are not an undifferentiated
bloc but a diverse population whose needs and interests require
different responses from donors. In the same way, the report makes
references to the "poorest countries" but fails to simultaneously
address the issue of inequality within the "poorest countries".
The lack of sex-disaggregated data impedes the development of
a thorough and coherent gender analysis, which has serious consequences
for DFID's ability to develop strong and efficient policies targeted
at empowering women and ensuring gender equality.
2.3 The International Goals and Targets
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and
the related International Development Targets (IDTs) govern DFID's
policy as stated in the Departmental Report. The interpretations
and use of the MDGs and IDTs therefore become crucial to the character
and quality of DFID's work. One of the Millennium Development
Goals, namely MDG 3, is to promote gender equality and empower
women (as per Annex 4 in the Departmental Report). Where the Departmental
Report takes poor women's particular problems into account it
focuses strongly on health and education (paragraphs 3.12 to 3.22).
The target which has been set to meet the MDG
of gender equality is to "Eliminate gender disparity in primary
and secondary education preferably by 2005 and to all levels of
education no later than 2015" (IDT 4). Both GADN members
and some DFID staff interviewed for our research project agreed
that the choice of education as an MDG proxy indicator for gender
equality as a whole is problematic. The target was chosen because
some research has shown that education for girls is the single
most effective way of reducing poverty. In practice, however,
the use of girls' education as a proxy indicator, together with
the set of IDTs on health and reproduction, frequently results
in a narrow equation of girls' education and women's reproductive
health with progress towards gender equality. Four indicators
for monitoring progress apply to the MDG of gender equality (as
per Annex 4 in the Departmental Report). Two of them are to do
with education. The two other indicators of gender equality, referring
to women's participation in the waged labour force and in political
life, are practically ignored in the Departmental Report. Although
the report includes a section on effective government, it does
not pay serious attention to the problem of including women in
decision-making processes and political life as such but merely
mentions that DFID has supported a research centre in investigating
why "the poor, women, and particular regional, ethnic or
linguistic groups are politically excluded." (paragraph 3.33).
In the section "Improving livelihoods" DFID mentions
the importance of improving income-earning opportunities for poor
people but fails to address the particular barriers and circumstances
that affect women's possibilities to take advantage of these opportunities
or be included in them at all.
This sectoral focus on women's education and
health is, unfortunately, a general feature of DFID's work and
not specific to the Departmental Report. While some parts of DFID
are using the MDGs and IDTs as an opportunity for promoting gender
equality widely, others are applying them with a narrow focus
on education and health, complying with the letter rather than
the spirit of the goals and targets.
DFID should interpret the gender-related MDGs/IDTs
as broadly as possible and look beyond the narrow focus on education
and health.
2.4 Poverty Reduction Strategies
Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) are key in
DFID's work and to the global objective of poverty elimination.
It is, given the well-documented evidence about women's poverty,
crucial that DFID uses Poverty Reduction Strategies to promote
gender equality and the empowerment of women, if it hopes that
this process will have any meaningful impact on poverty. It is
very disappointing to observe the complete lack of inclusion of
a gender analysis in DFID's reflections on PRS in the Departmental
Report (paragraph 2.47 to 2.49). GADN is also concerned that the
Joint Staff Review of PRS (as per Box 2.1. in the Departmental
Report) did not identify monitoring (potential) disproportionate
gender effects of PRS and the gathering of sex-disaggregated data
as one of the "key remaining challenges" of PRS. Research[5]
conducted by the GAD Network on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
(PRSP) demonstrated that the poverty analysis in the PRSPs is
very limited. In the PRSPs reviewed, the description of poverty
does not extend to analysis of why people are poor, so gender
relations cannot be advanced as an explanation of women's poverty.
There is insufficient sex disaggregation of data. Women's incomes,
livelihoods and resource constraints are poorly captured. Gender
issues are not mainstreamed into the PRSPs and appear only in
a very fragmented and arbitrary way.
2.5 Policy Evaporation in Planning Documents
and Policies
The Departmental Report mentions (paragraph
2.56 and 2.57) that DFID has reformed its planning of bilateral
programmes of assistance to overcome previous weaknesses. GADN
welcomes this reform. Our research demonstrates that serious problems
remain. There appears to be significant evaporation of policies
on gender equality and gender mainstreaming in policy documents
and instruments used in planning.
A recent DFID-commissioned review[6]
of gender in Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) and Country Assistance
Plans (CAPs) shows significant policy evaporation. Policy objectives
disappear early on in the project planning process and never reach
the implementation stage. Moreover, evaporation seems greater
in the newer generation of CSPs and CAPs than in the first generation
of CSPs. Again, sex-disaggregated data is a problem. These papers
use insufficient sex-disaggregated data to enable gender planning.
Gender issues may be identified in situation analyses but receive
little or no attention in the stages of project-design, implementation
and monitoring. Meaningful connections between the identification
of gender-related problems and the definition of strategies and
actions for dealing with them are not routinely or systematically
drawn. The CAPs and recent CSPs are not coherent with the Target
Strategy Papers on Women's Empowerment, although they postdate
it.
The Directors' Delivery Plans are internal divisional
planning documents. They either do not mention gender or focus
narrowly on the health- and education-related MDGs/IDTs. Since
the DDPs set out most directly what will actually be done in DFID
programmes, if gender is not incorporated in the DDP it is unlikely
to be ensured in projects or programmes. An exception is the Asia
DDP, which uses the MDGs more creatively as a framework within
which gender is treated as a key issue.
The most recent Public Service Agreements and
Service Delivery Agreements include gender only through a narrow
focus on health- and education-related MDGs/IDTs, apart from general
and inclusive statements of intent (eg "tackle inequality").
This is particularly worrying since staff reportedly use these
documents rather than the strategy papers as practical points
of reference for planning and accountability.
In future Country Strategy Papers, Country Assistance
Plans, Director's Delivery Plans, Public Service Agreements, and
Service Delivery Agreements, DFID should ensure thorough recognition
of gender equality issues and include actions that go beyond health
and education.
A number of the existing instruments and tools
providing guidance for project design and implementation have
good potential for mainstreaming gender equality and should be
strengthened so as to embed gender considerations more securely
in all stages of the project cycle. This is true for DFID's twin-track
approach, social appraisal, the logical framework, and gender-disaggregated
data.
DFID should integrate gender analysis into planning
tools for all sectors. Gender specialists should monitor this
particularly at key points where there is risk of gender policy
evaporation, eg project planning, monitoring and evaluation, as
well as policy formulation.
2.6 Resource Commitments on Gender Equality
and Gender Mainstreaming Statistics[7]
show that work related to gender equality has accounted for a
declining proportion of the overall aid budget in recent years,
falling from 39.2% in FY 1998-99 to 16.2% in 2001-02.
This seems to suggest a steadily declining commitment
to gender equality as reflected in the commitment of resources
to it. However, the system for measuring expenditure on gender-related
work may not accurately represent the spend, particularly on mainstreaming.
The proportion is calculated using the Policy
Information Marker System (PIMS), which classifies budget commitments
according to their principal or significant project objectives.
The PIMS marker for gender is "removal of gender discrimination".
The statistics show that many more projects have this as a significant
rather than a principal objective. However, the system cannot
be used to gauge the extent of gender mainstreaming in projects,
which are not given a marker for gender. It is possible, therefore,
that the proportion marked for gender underestimates the actual
extent of mainstreaming.
DFID should publish more detailed information
about its expenditure on gender equality. This could be part of
an annual statistical publication in the form of an accessible
booklet relating aid expenditure to PIMS markers. DFID should,
moreover, annually publish sex-disaggregated statistics relating
both to programmes and to internal organisation, in an accessible
form.
3. BUDGET SUPPORT
PROCESSES
3.1 Budget Support Processes
As stated in the Departmental Report in paragraph
5.12 an increasing proportion of DFID's expenditure is being directed
towards non-project assistance in the form of sector-wide approaches
(SWAPs) or other forms of direct support to national governments
connected to Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.
The GADN and some DFID staff members interviewed
for our research felt that the move to direct budgetary support
provides both opportunities and threats for effective gender mainstreaming.
It makes it harder to monitor the impact of DFID spending on promoting
gender equality because expenditure is highly aggregated. But
direct budgetary support does offer DFID the opportunity to engage
in policy dialogue with governments, including dialogue on gender
equality. Support to gender budgeting processes (as mentioned
in paragraph 3.45 of the Departmental Report) is a good practice
example in this field and should be applied more widely.
DFID should consider applying a gender budgeting
analysis to development assistance channelled through direct budgetary
support.
4. DIALOGUE ON
GENDER IN
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
4.1 Dialogue with Partner Governments
As mentioned, the shift to non-project development
assistance increases the importance of effective policy dialogue
between donors and partner governments. The trend has the potential
for enabling discussions of gender equality to be introduced at
a high political level. However, no examples of such dialogues
are cited in the Departmental Report. Only in the case of a regional
body, namely the Pacific Forum Secretariat, does DFID mention
that it helped it "take account of social and gender issues
in its policy advice to Pacific Island countries and other regional
organisations."(paragraph 4.53).
DFID should maximise opportunities for raising
gender equality issues in dialogue with governments. DFID can
also play an important role in strengthening women's or gender
machineries in national governments and organisations working
for gender equality in civil society and should strive to do so.
4.2 Dialogue with International and Multilateral
Agencies
As stated in the report (paragraph 2.28), nearly
half of DFID's funds were channelled through multilateral agencies
in 2001-02. Consequently, the policy and practice of these agencies
are decisive for the impact of DFID funding. In the sections "Working
with other development agencies", "The European Community",
"Working with other multilateral partners" and "Working
with other bilateral donors" (paragraphs 2.28 to 2.44) DFID
mentions the ways in which it has influenced other donors. Gender
is mentioned just once (Box 2.i) and only in connection with one
example of a Policy and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA) in Uganda.
Similarly, the International Strategy Papers outlining DFID's
formal relationships with multilateral agencies do not refer much
to gender. DFID has a good reputation in the donor community and
should use that position to advocate gender equality with the
European Community, international financial institutions, and
international relief agencies.
5. INSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES IN
GENDER MAINSTREAMING
5.1. Institutionalising Gender in DFID
In paragraph 6.1 it is stated that "During
the last year DFID has initiated a programme of organisational
and management change that will enhance the way we carry out our
business. The programme, `Going from Strength to Strength', recognises
that we have to ensure a tighter fit between our mission, structures,
systems and staff in order to deliver on our highly challenging
objectives". GADN is pleased to observe this acknowledgment
but we are simultaneously concerned that DFID is not making all
the necessary changes in its structure.
Many participants in the GADN research identified
lack of institutionalisation as the main challenge to gender mainstreaming
in DFID. Currently, all staff are supposed to contribute to the
implementation of DFID's gender policy, but this diffused responsibility
too often results in gender equality being not mainstreamed but
invisible. Gender mainstreaming is perceived as being dependent
on committed individuals.
At present, DFID has no centralised gender unit.
Responsibility for gender is incorporated into all work units
by means of the network of Social Development Advisers (SDAs),
who have gender expertise as a core element of their job description.
While inserting gender expertise at strategic points in this way
should, theoretically, ensure mainstreaming, experience has shown
that this does not necessarily happen. Strategically-placed gender
experts need a central, dedicated resource to support them, creating
a twin structure (gender-specific and gender mainstreamed) corresponding
to the twin-track approach to implementing DFID's gender equality
policy. Before the restructuring of the policy division took place,
the Social Development Department itself substituted for a gender
unit, but suffered from many constraints: small size, concentration
of expertise and under-resourcing.
Both a specialised gender unit and mainstreaming
are necessary, as experience from NGOs and other institutions
have shown. DFID should consider forming a cross-cutting thematic
team on gender in the current organisational restructuring exercise.
5.2 Capacity and Training
Since gender is defined as everyone's responsibility,
DFID needs to provide capacity-building and learning resources
to ensure a critical mass of staff with adequate gender knowledge.
This seems to fall naturally within DFID's new management objectives
as stated in Box 6.a in the Departmental Report: "Ensure
we attract the right staff, and encourage and support them to
work effectively". Our research found numerous problems with
the ways in which DFID trains its staff in gender issues. DFID
no longer conducts specific gender training courses. It seeks
instead to incorporate gender elements into training courses "where
relevant". However, it is not clear that the current training
succeeds in mainstreaming gender concerns, and the trainers do
not always have gender expertise. A DFID-commisioned consultancy
looking at the ways gender is addressed in DFID's core training
courses has found that the level at which gender is integrated
into them does not match DFID's policy statements on the relation
between gender inequality and poverty. None of the current courses
contain specific modules on gender, except for poverty training,
where it is optional. However, there are many points where gender
issues could be raised in the training and gender-related case
studies more widely used.
DFID should:
— monitor staff capacity and performance
on gender in appraisals and develop incentives for improving performance
— mainstream gender in all training
courses, and make gender expertise a requirement for all training
consultancy teams.
— provide young professional staff
with specific technical training in gender analysis, methodologies
and practical tools as well as, or rather than, introductory gender
training.
5.3 Information and Knowledge Management
DFID states in the Departmental Report that
"The overall impact of our work is closely linked to how
we share knowledge and expertise among our staff and partners,
and learn lessons from our experience." (paragraph 6.6).
GADN agrees with this statement and is, consequently, concerned
about the fact that the information and knowledge management of
existing gender resources in DFID is rather weak. DFID is valued
in the donor community for its intellectual rigour, research capacity,
and its production of information and analysis of high quality.
This applies to certain key documents specifically on women and
gender. However, the sporadic and inconsistent gender analysis
found in many documents suggests that the existing work on gender
is not sufficiently disseminated. There is a need for more systematic
management of the existing gender information, particularly gender-disaggregated
statistical information. There is also a need for a centralised
record of what is being done on gender in different parts of DFID
in the UK and overseas, to facilitate institutional memory and
learning through good practice.
This also applies to evaluations. It is not
clear to what extent and in what way evaluations, reviews, and
consultation processes are followed up and fed into subsequent
policy or project design. A general DFID gender evaluation has
been in the pipeline since 1998-99, but has been stalled first
by staff changes and more recently by shortage of human resources
and political commitment. Preparatory work is being done, and
the GADN hopes and strongly recommends that resources are committed
to ensure that the evaluation is conducted.
QUESTIONS
1. Policy Strategies and Policy Implementation
— Will DFID take action against the
evaporation of policy in practice by integrating gender analysis
into planning tools for all sectors, and by monitoring (using
gender specialists) key points for inclusion of gender equality
in the project cycle (eg project planning, monitoring and evaluation,
as well as policy formulation)?
— What steps will DFID take to include
actions on gender equality that go beyond a narrow focus on health
and education in its development work?
— Will DFID seek to ensure that sex-disaggregated
data are made available on DFID's work in general?
2. Direct Budgetary Support
— What evidence is there that direct
budgetary support has an impact on promoting gender equality?
— What evidence can DFID provide that
gender is being mainstreamed in its aid funded through direct
budgetary support? If none, how is this justifiable given DFID's
obligations under international agreements to promote gender equality
and the empowerment of women?
— Will DFID consider applying a gender
budgeting analysis to development assistance channelled through
direct budgetary support?
— How will DFID use the opportunity
that direct budgetary support provides for advocating gender equality
in dialogue with partner governments?
3. PRSPs
— What action will DFID take to promote
the mainstreaming of gender in PRSPs?
— Given the linkage between PRSPs and
DFID's programme of work at a country level, what steps has DFID
taken or will DFID take to ensure that the lack of gender in a
country's PRSP does not result in the absence of gender in DFID's
programme of work in that country?
4. Capacity and Training
— Will DFID work to overcome the lack
of institutionalisation of gender and the shortcomings in the
staff's gender capacity by
— forming a cross-cutting thematic
team on gender
— mainstreaming gender in all training
courses
— providing young professional staff
with specific technical training in gender analysis, methodologies
and practical tools?
— What steps is DFID taking to devise,
implement and resource an institutional strategy to manage knowledge
on gender?
5. Gender Evaluation
— When can we expect to see the completion
of DFID's planned gender evaluation? Have sufficient resources
been allocated?
— If the gender evaluation is not scheduled/likely,
how does DFID plan to monitor its progress on gender mainstreaming
and ensure that it fulfils its international commitments on gender
equality?
9 June 2003
4 Macdonald, Mandy (2003): Gender equality and
mainstreaming in policy and practice of the UK Department for
International Development, London: The GAD Network, May. Back
5
Whitehead, Ann (2002): Failing women, sustaining poverty:
Gender in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, London: The UK
Gender and Development Network and Christian Aid, May. Back
6
Watkins, Francis (2003). A Review of Gender Mainstreaming
in DFID's Country Assistance Plans, January. Back
7
Based on figures from DFID (2002), Statistics on International
Development, London: DFID. Back
| 
