Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694859386351.pdf (Australia)
AccAccAccAccAccountability Upside Down Gender equality in a partnership for poverty eradication Eurostep Social Watch Acknowledgement & Disclaimer All rights reserved; no part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission in writing from the publishers.

To the publisher’s knowledge all details concerning organisations and publications are correct as given.
However, the publishers would be glad to hear of any inaccuracies so that they may be put right in subsequent impressions.

We would like to thank UNIFEM for its support for the production of this report.

The report is a contribution to the review of the effective implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action.

Statements of fact and opinion appearing in this publication are the responsibility of the author alone and do not imply the endorsement of UNIFEM.
UNIFEM is the women’s fund at the United Nations.

It provides financial and technical assistance to innovative programmes and strategies that promote women’s human rights, political participation and economic security.

UNIFEM works in partnership with UN organisations, governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and networks to promote gender equality.
It links women’s issues and concerns to national, regional and global agendas by fostering collaboration and providing technical expertise on gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment strategies Impressum: Author: Mirjam van Reisen (EEPA) with the assistance of Maxi Ussar Project Co-ordination: Camilo Tovar (EEPA) Karina Batthyány (Social Watch) Research: Barbara Ann Delcourt Ben Moore Camilo Tovar Karina Batthyány Maxi Ussar Cover & Page Design: Benny Gommers Copyrights: Eurostep & Social Watch Copyrights of images on cover: European Commission - Europe Aid Published by: Eurostep & Social Watch First Edition: 1500 copies, 22 February 2005 Produced by: Toc Table of contents List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 6 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 7 About the organisatons ................................................................................................ 8 Foreword ........................................................................................................................ 9 Note from the author ................................................................................................... 10 Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 12 I.
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 15 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 15 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 16 The Beijing Platform for Action and Goal 8: where do they meet?
........................ 17 Linking gender equality and poverty eradication ................................................... 18 II.

Closing the “implementation gap” ........................................................................ 20 Overall legal and policy framework: the policy of gender mainstreaming ............. 20 Objective: gender equality, strategy: gender mainstreaming ........................ 20 Gender equality as an end in itself or as a means to other ends?
................ 21 Gender mainstreaming ................................................................................. 22 Budget Allocation .................................................................................................. 22 Women-specific activities ............................................................................. 22 Gender Equality Marker ............................................................................... 23 Programming and implementation of gender mainstreaming ................................ 24 Country Strategies ........................................................................................ 24 Institutional Structures .................................................................................. 26 Evaluation and Impact .......................................................................................... 27 Guidelines for Evaluations ............................................................................ 27 Evaluations ................................................................................................... 28 Key Findings ......................................................................................................... 29 III.
Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities....................................................... 31 Towards new aid modalities .................................................................................. 31 Policy conditionality and structural adjustment ............................................. 32 The new aid architecture .............................................................................. 33 Sector programmes ...................................................................................... 33 Ownership and the PRSPs ........................................................................... 35 Key Findings ......................................................................................................... 37 IV.
Accountability Upside Down ................................................................................. 39 Participation of women in decision-making ........................................................... 39 Formal accountability ............................................................................................ 39 Informal accountability .......................................................................................... 40 Indicators to measure progress on gender equality .............................................. 41 Key Findings ......................................................................................................... 42 4 Table of content Toc Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 43 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 46 Endnotes ...................................................................................................................... 48 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 51 Annexes: Annex 1: Social Watch - Legend and Methodology ....................................................... 57 Annex 2: Social Watch - Gender Equality Ranking ....................................................... 60 Annex 3: Millenium Development Goals ........................................................................ 71 Annex 4: DAC List of Aid Recipients ............................................................................. 72 Annex 5: Documents researched for section II .............................................................. 74 Tables & Graphs: Table 1: 2015 Watch Methodology ................................................................................ 16 Table 2: Commitments to WID as a percentage of total ODA ........................................ 22 Table 3: Selected donors policies towards budget support and their main concerns .... 35 Graph 1: Commitments to WID as a percentage of total ODA ...................................... 21 Graph 2: Trend in commitments to WID as a percentage of total ODA ........................ 23 5 Abb List of abbrevations BPfA CIDA CDF CEDAW CSO CSP DFID DAC EC EU GBS GAD GEM GEI GDI GE HDI HIPC IDGs IFI IMF MD MDG MDG 8 OECD PRSP SWAP SIDA UNIFEM UNAIDS USAID WAD WID WSSD Beijing Platform for Action Canadian International Development Agency Comprehensive Development Framework Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Civil Society Organisation Country Strategy Papers UK Department for International Development Development Assistance Committee European Community European Union General Budget Support Gender and Development Gender Empowerment Measurement Gender Equality Index Gender-Related Development Index Gender equality Human Development Index Highly Indebted Poor Countries International Development Goals International Financial Institutions International Monetary Fund Millennium Declaration Millennium Development Goals Millennium Development Goal 8 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Sector Wide Approaches Swedish International Development Agency United Nations Development Fund for Women The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS United States Agency for International Development Women and Development Women in Development World Summit for Social Development 6 Acknowledgements Ack This report reflects on the effectiveness of strategies for gender equality in the context of the new architecture of aid.
It concludes that in order to realise the new aid modalities’ positive potential for the promotion of gender equality, it is vital that they are accountable to national constituencies, including to women’s rights advocates.

This should be reflected in the Millennium Development Goals, and in particular in Goal 8 – the goal which promotes partnership between the North and the South.
Eurostep advocates that gender equality is seen as a key element of Goal 8, and hopes that this report is a contribution to the realisation of gender equality in the context of a global partnership for the eradication of poverty.

Simon Stocker Director, Eurostep his report is the joint effort of many who have invested time and effort in its realisation.
T The report has benefited profoundly from the experience, contributions and analysis provided by Social Watch, under the leadership of Ms Karina Batthyány and the social research team, based in Montevideo, Uruguay.

They provided the gender indicators and the analysis derived from them that are used in the report.
The Alliance 2015 and its members HIVOS (Netherlands), Concern (Ireland), German Agro Action (DWHH), Cesvi (Italiy) and IBIS (Denmark) have kindly permitted the methodology of 2015 Watch to be used as a framework for the approach developed in this report.

Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

We thank the Development Cooperation Department of the DAC for their helpful comments and input, in particular Patty O’Neil, Julia Benn and Brian Hammond.
Europe External Policy Advisors (EEPA) has been in charge of the production of this report.

Research was carried out under the co-ordination of Camilo Tovar by Barbara Ann Delcourt, Ben Moore, Ana Stefanovic and Maxi Ussar.

Ben Moore edited the report.

The cover, lay-out, maps and pictures were produced by Benny Gommers.
I also thank all Eurostep members and partners who supported the realisation of this report in many different ways, in particular Paddy Maguinness and Olive Towey (Concern), Sylvia Borren (Novib/Oxfam Netherlands), Gunta Berzina (Latvian NGO Platform) and Irene Dubel (Hivos).

I would like to express my thanks to Olive Towey (Concern) for editing the final version of this report.

This report has been realised with the support of UNIFEM.
We are particularly grateful to Barbara Adams for her motivating encouragement that has helped drive this process.

7 Org About the organisations About Eurostep Eurostep is a network of 16 major non- governmental development organizations from 12 European countries that work in approximately 100 countries and have a combined annual budget of over Euro 650 million Euro.

Eurostep was established in 1990 to co-ordinate activities of its members at the European level.
Its two principal aims are to influence official development co-operation policies of multilateral institution, in particular those of the European Union, and to improve the quality and effectiveness of initiatives taken by NGOs in support of people-centred development.

About EEPA Europe External Policy Advisors (EEPA) is a Brussels-based centre of expertise on the EU’s external policies.
EEPA’s objective is to strengthen the participation of actors that can contribute to a responsible social Europe in EU policy dialogue.

EEPA liaises on behalf of NGOs and international organisations with EU institutions, implements research, provides analyses, offers advice to campaigns and disseminates information on EU development and humanitarian assistance, provides training and event organisation related to EU external relations.
More information on Eurostep can be found on its website: http://www.eurostep.org More information on EEPA can be found on its website: http://www.eepa.be About Social Watch Social Watch is an international network informed by national citizens’ groups aiming at following up the fulfilment of the internationally agreed commitments on poverty eradication and equality.
These national groups report, through the national Social Watch report, on the progress towards - or regression from – these commitments and goals.
The Social Watch groups, organized on an ad hoc basis, have a focal point in each country that is responsible for promoting the initiative; submitting a national report for the yearly publication; undertaking lobbying initiatives before the national authorities to hold them accountable for the policies in place regarding the agreed commitments; promoting a dialogue on the national social development priorities and developing an active inclusive strategy to include other groups in the national group.
The international secretariat of Social Watch is hosted by the Third World Institute in Montevideo, Uruguay.

More information on Social Watch can be found on its website: http://www.socialwatch.org 8 Foreword F Sylvia Borren Board Eurostep Director Novib/Oxfam Netherlands “ There is no time to lose if we are to reach the Millennium Development Goals by the target date of 2015.

Only by investing in the world’s women can we expect to get there.
(1) ” EEEEE urostep and Social Watch share a common understanding of the vital importance of gender equality and the empowerment of women for the achievement of sustainable human development.

They strongly advocate that the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA) must inform the strategies pursued to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The objective of gender equality is not only a Millennium Development Goal but also an essential condition for achieving all of the MDGs.
Roberto Bissio Coordinator Social Watch This report sets this political agenda in the context of a “global partnership for development”, which is called for by the Millennium Declaration (MD).

It considers to what extent donors of development aid implement their commitments to promote gender equality in their external development assistance.
It is our strong desire that the comprehensive political commitments made in the Millennium Declaration and the Beijing Platform for Action are effectively implemented and that the dual responsibility for this, lying with both donors and recipients of aid, is clearly recognized.

9 N Note from the author govern their lives, from protection against abuse and violence?

Unless women are equal participants in society the eradication of poverty will not happen.
As long as gender apartheid is a reality – in soft or hard forms - poverty can not be eradicated.

So what resources are devoted to addressing the inequalities women face?

What mechanisms are in place to make sure women are heard, their problems identified, and programmes designed to ensure they are fully Included In development actions intended eradicating poverty?

This report seeks to track how women are involved in development assistance.

During our research we found some blatant contradictions.
Ownership is the new paradigm and who would argue against the idea that poor countries should be in control of their own future?

However, for women, we find that the concept of ‘ownership’ now provides leaders with new excuses not to act for women.

“The partner country does not find gender equality a priority” we were told.

So under the disguise of ‘ownership’, all responsibility of aid-giving countries is abandoned in one stroke.
This report makes the crucial link between ownership and internal accountability.

On what kind of ownership is this new principle of development assistance based?

Surely, ownership can only be achieved when those in charge are clearly accountable – and, yes, accountable to women.

Clearly this is not new.


For decades women’s advocates have pressed on issues of decision making, on the role of women in Parliaments, on the role of women in administration and governance, on the role of women in local government and in civil society organizations.

What is new, however, is that this knowledge is getting a new significance within the new aid architecture, with its emphasis on ‘ownership’ of policies.
The question as to who ‘owns’ the policies, is now an unavoidable question that can no longer be avoided.

aking poverty history requires gender equality!

M The Global Call to Action Against Poverty wants World leaders to take the eradication of poverty more seriously.

The Global Call aims to make sure that in 2005, World leaders take concrete actions to make this happen.

We already have plenty of commitments and, with the Millennium Development Goals, a very concrete set of achievable objectives.
World leaders only need to put their money where their mouth is, and do it now.

Pressure to act does have impact.

The new Con- stitution for Europe puts the eradication of pov- erty as an overarching objective for the European Union’s actions towards the rest of the world.

In preparations for the 2005 G8 Summit, the financ- ing of development – particularly in Africa – is prominent on the agenda.

And Russia’s Finance Minister has already indicated that aid will be an issue for 2006 when it acts as host.
President Bush, on a charm visit to Europe made concessions to his hosts’ conviction that global security strategies required poverty to be addressed.

However, unless words and commitments are translated into effective action little will change for people living in poverty.

No doubt those involved in the EU-US summit were mindful of the impact of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and the massive public reaction that pushed leaders world wide to take responsive action to help those affected.
The Tsunami was illustrative, because people did exactly what many leaders fail to do: responded instantly by giving money.

People act on common sense: if you want to achieve something, you have to act.

This report tracks to what extent women are addressed within global efforts to eradicate poverty.
How can poverty be eradicated if women are systematically excluded from decision- making, from participating in processes that 10 Note from the author N increasingly Accountability applies both to donors and to partner countries.

This report shows that the new less aid architecture has mechanisms for accountability.
Despite all the rhetoric of ‘ownership’, accountibility is still essentially geared towards the International Financial Institutions, rather than to the women and men who are fighting for their daily survival - or to those in donor countries who also urge world leaders to make poverty history.

The Global Call to Action Against Poverty is a movement that confronts national leaders with these critical questions.

Questions that need to be answered: What are you doing to eradicate poverty?
What are you doing to ensure gender equality becomes a reality?

 Where are the resources to make it all happen?

 What actions are you taking to remove the obstacles that perpetuate poverty and inequality?

2005 will be an interesting year.

Let us hope some real progress will be made.


Mirjam van Reisen Brussels, 21 February 2005 11 ES Executive Summary T he World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) held in 1995 marked the first time that the goal to eradicate poverty was endorsed.

This goal is also the first of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The WSSD also established a clear and inextricable link between poverty eradication and gender equality.
In the same year, 189 governments gathered together and adopted the Beijing Platform for Action.

The Platform also recognises the crucial link between gender equality and poverty eradication.

In 2000, governments signed the Millennium Declaration, a document that also considers gender equality in the context of eradicating poverty and as a fundamental aim in itself.

The implementation of both sets of commitments - the Beijing Platform and the MDGs - is being reviewed in 2005.
As they each have a different focus - the Beijing Platform for Action being firmly rooted in women’s rights, while the Millennium Declaration specifically concentrates on eradicating poverty, there is a considerable risk that these review processes will be irrevocably separated.

This report argues that the two processes must be linked as the ten-year review of the Beijing Platform for Action provides a major input into the review of the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals.
The report specifically makes the link with MDG 8 – advocating a global partnership to eradicate poverty - and highlights the need to bring the well-established connection between poverty eradication and gender equality to the centre of that partnership.

The report then assesses to what extent the commitments and obligations to gender equality have been concretely implemented within the context of international efforts for poverty eradication.
The report takes a sample of nine bilateral donors - Canada, the European Community, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

These were selected on the basis of their size and their expected position in relation to gender.

The report examines how these donors have operationalised their commitments in their development policies over the last five years and assesses the implementation of their aid programmes in 2003.
The analysis is based on a methodology that has been developed within 2015 Watch, a publication that assesses the EU’s implementation of the MDGs.

The 2015 Watch methodology divides the development policy process into four phases: 1) the overall legal and policy framework; 2) budgetary allocations; 3) programming and implementation and 4) evaluation and measurement of impact.
The methodology is useful as it is both evaluative and diagnostic, helping to identify where, in the policy process, the implementation of commitments derails.

The analysis shows that ‘policy evaporation’ occurs, which makes it is increasingly difficult to track resources for gender equality.

It also demonstrates how inadequately gender is included in country programming and that there is an almost total absence of mechanisms for monitoring results or for evaluating if there has been any impact.
The deficiencies point to the need for a closer look at the new aid modalities, and these have been examined in the following section.

The new aid architecture places greater emphasis on policy orientation, but lacks mechanisms to track resources and to measure impact.

On the one hand it has the potential to enhance gender equality in the context of poverty eradication, while on the other hand, it shows that the mechanisms necessary to realise this potential are not in place.
12 The report has further identified that the potential for gender equality in the new aid architecture lies in the principles that underlie the new aid modalities.

These are harmonisation, partnership, ownership, internal accountability and coherence.

These underlying principles are considered in greater detail, in particular those of ownership and internal accountability.

The analysis shows that, if understood from a gender perspective, these principles take on new complexities.
Both have great potential to benefit the promotion of gender equality in the context of development co- operation.

However, if ownership and internal accountability are to be realised in equal measure by both women and men, women and their interests must be equally represented at all levels of decision-making and within civil society consultation processes.
The report argues that genuine ownership and accountability require information sharing as well as adequate evaluation and impact assessment of development aid.

The gender index, developed by Social Watch, which measures progress or regression on gender quality indicators linked to the MDGs, is proposed as an instrument that can be used to measure actual impact.
Finally, the report identifies key areas where gender strategies can be strengthened in international efforts to eradicate poverty and notes the following: Gender mainstreaming has emerged as the most prominent strategy for promoting gender equality in development co- operation.

However, this strategy appears to be frequently misunderstood.

Rather than being presented as a strategy to achieve gender equality, at times it is presented as an objective in itself.
Tracking financial resources allocated to the promotion of gender equality in Executive Summary ES development cooperation is difficult.

While the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate Gender Equality Marker is a good step forward, it is clear that other mechanisms are needed to track how gender equality strategies are implemented throughout the entire policy process.
There is “policy evaporation”: strong political commitments to gender equality in development co-operation often do not translate into any effective visibility at other stages of the policy process – budgetary allocation, programming, implementation and evaluation.

New aid mechanisms, that provide the mechanisms for the new aid architecture, such as Sector Wide Approaches (SWAPs) and budget support, offer an important opportunity to strengthen gender perspectives in development co- operation.
However, both SWAPs and budget support can lead to a further de- prioritization of gender equality.

This then compounds with other weaknesses in its implementation in the context of development assistance, particularly when: • there are inadequate means to track resources for gender equality; • gender equality objectives are not in aid included adequately programming; • there are insufficient mechanisms for measuring its progress.
The principles of ownership and internal accountability are identified as key principles of the underling aims of the new aid modalities.

The correct and comprehensive understanding of these, as well as their application, is crucial if 13 ES Executive Summary The report concludes that the new aid architecture has few, if any, mechanisms for accountability and even less mechanisms for the implementation of national obligations to gender equality.

This is creating a gender-apartheid in the aid architecture.
Without adequate authority for ensuring institutional accountability inside donor agencies, commitments to gender equality will not be realised.

Additionally, without financial resources dedicated to support an adequate gender architecture which has political authority, the implementation gap will not be closed.

High-level action is required to ensure that an effective gender architecture is established.

The MD+5 Review will provide an important opportunity to address these vital issues.
14 Introduction I.

“We have to celebrate because over the last ten years we have taken these struggles and repositioned them at the centres of power at national, regional and international levels.
By placing women’s concerns and aspiration within a human rights paradigm, we have made an undeniable proposition: that women are human and that on that basis, they claim and are entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms inherent in all humanity.” Florence Butegwa, Former member of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, ’Women 2000: A Symposision on Future Directions for Women’s Human Rights’, New York, 4 June 2000, qouted in: Unifem, Not a Minute More, Ending Violence Against Women, 2003, p. 16.
T h e y e a r 2 0 0 5 p r e s e n t s b o t h a challenge and an opportunity.

At a time when increasing inequalities, religious extremism and shifting donor priorities threaten to halt or even reverse many of the gains of the four World Conferences on Women, 2005 presents an important opportunity to revitalise efforts to move forward concurrently the women’s rights and development agendas.
Both the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA) and the Millennium Declaration (MD) will be reviewed in 2005.

Their common ambition with regard to gender equality should be recognised.

Furthermore, the two agendas can benefit if the outcome of the Beijing +10 assessment (focused on gender equality and women’s rights) is seen in relation to the Millennium Declaration + 5 Review with its priority goal of eradicating poverty.
There are many crucial linkages between the two agendas, all of which merit exploration.

This report, however, focuses on one particular aspect, which is of vital importance to both: the administration and allocation of development aid for poverty eradication.

The primary responsibility for the implementation of both the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the Millennium Declaration lies with national governments.
However, donors, be they bilateral or multilateral, can have great impact on the effectiveness of national strategies for the promotion of gender equality in the context of poverty eradication.

To live up to the commitments made at the Millennium Summit, in Beijing, and in various other international agreements, states must promote equality between men and women and the empowerment of women in all their actions, including in their efforts to eradicate poverty.
Objectives The purpose of this report is to identify to what extent gender equality is being promoted within the context of international efforts to eradicate poverty.

The report also aims to identify whether the emerging new aid modalities offer potential for advancing gender equality, and, if so, how this 15 I.

Introduction potential can be more fully embraced.

Finally the report assesses how results can be measured more effectively.
Methodology Nine countries were selected for the principal part of the research undertaken.

The donors included were chosen on the basis of their size and relevance as an aid donor – and in the light of a particular policy on gender equality, such as is the case of the Netherlands.

Research for this report is based on desk studies of primary and secondary documents and on interviews with policy officers in relevant aid departments.
The Development Cooperation Directorate of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) provided information on budgetary allocations.

The analysis of the bilateral donors’ development policy processes is based on a methodology, developed by 2015 Watch and produced by the Alliance 2015(1).

The policy process is split into four distinct phases, which are each analysed in more detail.
The purpose of this methodology is to track the extent to which political commitments have been realised and to identify where problems arise if this is not the case.

In that sense the methodology is both evaluative and diagnostic at the same time.

The methodology, with its rigorous definition of analysis according to defined criteria, is well designed for a comparative analysis, and can, if desired, be used to rank donors in order of their success or failure in implementing policy commitments.
The latter possibility has not been implemented in the context of this report, which rather more focuses on identifying unused potential for strengthening gender equality in development assistance.
At each stage of the policy process, specific documents have been identified as relevant for a :1elbaT ygolodohteMhctaW5102 esahpyciloP ycilopdnalagelllarevO krowemarf noitacollayrategduB stnemucoD tsetal(dehcraeser )elbaliava ,)gnitsixefi(seitaerT lanoitanretninoswal etihwdna,ecnatsissa srepap lacitsitatsCAD/DCEO esabatad dnagnimmargorP noitatnemelpmi yrtnuoCrofsenilediuG srepaPygetartS srepaPygetartSyrtnuoC erehw,ronodrep4( )elbaliava tcapmidnanoitaulavE tnemssessa rofsenilediuG noitaulavE ,stropernoitaulavE 4002-0002 erehw,ronodrep4( )elbaliava particular phase.
Depending on the way a donor has organised its policy process, there might be slight changes between various donors in the nature of documents used.

However, overall comparability is a key principle that guided the identification of documents selected at this stage.

Subsequently these documents were collected and then analysed according to a specific set of defined criteria.
In some instances documents were not publicly available and separate arrangements were made with the respective administration to allow the researchers to analyse the documents for the purpose of this report.

Additional interviews were made, when necessary, to strengthen the sense of interpretation of the documents where there was some ambiguity.

For this research the following sets of documents have been included: 16 Introduction I.
The selection of Country Strategy Papers was made according to defined criteria, such as: the size and relevance of the donor ’s 1. programme in that country; 2. regional variation, one CSP per continent: (i) Latin America, (ii) Africa, (iii) Asia and (iv) Central/ Eastern Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States.
The selection of evaluations was mainly determined by their availability given that, in general, the numbers of evaluations carried out in the last four years (2000-2004), has been extremely limited.

Where a choice could be made, a spread of geographic distribution was sought.

Evaluations specifically focusing on gender were also included.
In some countries other mechanisms such as annual country reports were used, as they were more directly related to the CSPs, exclusively or in addition to evaluation reports (Sweden, Netherlands).

Additional source material, notably from the DAC, was also included in the research.

A list of documents considered for each donor is provided in the annex.

This report draws from extensive source data, extracting facts, figures, trends and illustrative examples as required.
The report does not provide comprehensive detail of all data analysed, but rather to extract the most helpful information, which is indicative of, or exceptional to, overall trends and conclusions.

From this it has been possible to identify where the potential for gender equality in the context of international efforts for poverty eradication can be enhanced.

The Beijing Platform for Action and Goal 8: where do they meet?
At the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, 117 heads of state or government set themselves the goal of eradicating poverty and recognised gender equality as an essential condition to achieve this aim.

A recent UN assessment of the implementation of the “The advancement of women and the achievement of equality between women and men are a matter of human rights and a condition for social justice and should not be seen in isolation as a women’s issue.
They are the only way to build a sustainable, just and developed society.
Empowerment of women and gender equality are prerequisites for achieving political, social, economic, cultural and environmental security among all peoples.”(2) 1995 Beijing Platform of Action “We acknowledge that social and economic development cannot be secured in a sustainable way without the full participation of women and that equality and equity between women and men is a priority for the international community and as such must be at the centre of economic and social development.”(3) 1995 Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development “We resolve therefore… to combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women”(4) the Convention on 2000 Millennium Declaration… Copenhagen Platform of Action states that the Copenhagen Declaration explicitly emphasized that “equality and equity between women and men is a priority for the international community and as such must be at the centre of economic and social development”.
The report clearly states that the “vision of the development process implies that it is not acceptable to exclude women 17 I.

Introduction from equal opportunities, conditions and treatment before the law.”(5) In September of the same year, the Fourth World Conference on Women took place in Beijing.
It was there that the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA), a comprehensive agenda for promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment, was adopted (6), and, governments committed themselves to ensuring that a comprehensive gender perspective would be reflected in all of their internal and external policies and programmes.
Since 1995 progress has been made with 118 countries, 2 observers and 5 interregional, regional and sub regional organizations having submitted plans of action in response to the Beijing Platform for Action.

Moreover 27 additional countries have become party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,(7) bringing the total to a 179 as of October 2004.
The commitments to poverty eradication and to the promotion of gender equality through governments’ external assistance were re- affirmed in the 2000 Millennium Declaration.

In this document, 189 governments acknowledged that sustainable development could only be achieved through a strong partnership between all development actors.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been developed in parallel with the Millennium Declaration and include specific targets and indicators to be achieved by 2015.
These goals cover a range of issues, including the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women.

With reviews in 2005 of both the implementation of both the Beijing Platform for Action and the Millennium Declaration this report is intended as a contribution to the debates surrounding these reviews by considering the crucial, but often overlooked, overlap between the two agendas.
Linking gender equality and poverty eradication The recent study Pathway to Gender Equality: CEDAW, Beijing and the MDGs, published by UNIFEM highlights various linkages between the MDGs and the twelve critical areas of concern outlined in the BPfA.

(8) It establishes numerous connections between gender inequality, and poverty, illiteracy and lack of education, maternal and child mortality, HIV/AIDS and environmental degradation.
It clearly concludes that the Millennium Development Goals cannot be achieved without an adequate focus on gender equality and the empowerment of women.

The study also concludes that the Millennium Development Goals, particularly if they are understood within the spirit of the Millennium Declaration, provide a crucial space for the advancement of gender equality in the context of poverty eradication.

(9) This report explores the connections between the two processes in more detail.
It does so by focussing on the concept enshrined in MDG 8 - a global partnership for development - and explores its linkages with and importance for the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action.

A particular focus is given to one aspect of goal 8: the allocation and administration of development aid.
It is also stressed that the various components of MDG 8, such as policies on trade and debt cancellation are inextricably interlinked and they must all coherently strive to achieve the objectives of poverty eradication and gender equality.

The call for a global partnership for development in MDG 8 implies that there is shared responsibility and mutual accountability for development between development actors.
It is a response to the criticisms made of the International Development Goals (IDGs), as presented in 2000 at the 5-year Review of the World Summit for Social Development in Geneva.

The IDGs were based on the 1996 OECD report, Shaping the 21st Century: the Contribution of Development Co-operation and preceded the MDGs.
(10) The strong reaction of civil society against the omission of donor country obligations contributed to the inclusion of Goal 8 in the framework for the implementation of the Millennium Declaration.

The significance of Goal 8 is in the recognition that wealthy nations also have a responsibility to 18 Introduction I.

Definition: the new aid architecture The new aid architecture is characterized by moves towards new aid modalities such as budget support, sectoral budget support and SWAPs.
It is guided by the principles of ownership, partnership, harmonization and internal accountability.

The new aid architecture’s operationalisation focuses on country-level programming through instruments such as country strategy papers, poverty reduction strategy papers and national development plans.
the agreed target of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product of developed countries for overall official development assistance as soon as possible, as well as increasing the share of funding for activities designed to implement the PFA.”(12) Similar commitments have also been made in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
(13) In conclusion, the 1995 World Summit for Social Development established the crucial link between poverty eradication and gender equality.

The Beijing Platform for Action elaborated this connection, and so did the Millennium Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals.

Goal 8 specifically captures the notion set out in these earlier Declarations that poverty eradication needs to be promoted in a compact between wealthy and poor countries.
The inextricable connection between poverty eradication and gender equality needs to be fully embraced within the context of this partnership.

participate and act as partners in the development of poorer nations.

It also acknowledges that there is an urgent need for real empowerment and increasing ownership of development policies by the recipients of development aid.

The concept of a global partnership is clearly enshrined in the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action.
The UN Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development, as well as the Johannesburg ten-year review of the 1992 Earth Summit, also reiterated the necessity of a global compact for poverty eradication identifying specific responsibilities of industrialised and high income countries.

The notion of partnership is increasingly broadened to include larger players in the South itself.
The UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change recommended that developed countries aspiring to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council should commit themselves to the realisation of the target of providing 0.7% of GNP for ODA by 2015.

Newly emerging donors include New Member States of the European Union, India, China, Brazil and South Africa.
The introduction of Goal 8 to the international development framework provides a new opportunity for the promotion of gender equality in developing countries within the context of strategies aimed at the eradication of poverty.

This is particularly so, considering the specific commitments for the promotion of gender equality in external actions, undertaken by states in the BPfA and CEDAW.
Notably, the BPfA includes the strategic objective to: “Review, adopt and maintain macroeconomic policies and development strategies that address the needs and efforts of women in poverty.”(11) Furthermore, the BPfA clearly states that, “Adequate financial resources should be committed at the international level for the implementation of the PFA in the developing countries, particularly in Africa and the least developed countries.
Strengthening national capacities in developing countries to implement the PFA will require striving for the fulfilment of 19 II.

Closing the “implementation gap”: Promoting gender equality in development assistance “Indicators in the various aspects of gender equality and women’s empowerment show that a gap exists between the commitment to legal equal rights for women and actual implementation of policies and measures to ensure the realization of such rights.
The overall slow progress in raising female participation in political and economic life and the possibility of failing to reach internationally agreed goals in gender equality if current trends continue clash sharply with commitments made at the Summit, at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and in the Millennium Declaration.
Closing the “implementation gap” will require persistent actions at both the national and international levels.” Review of the Further Implementation of the World Summit for Social Development and the outcome of the twenty-fourth Special Session of the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, 1 December 2004, E/CN.5/ 2005/6, p. 45 encompass both women’s and men’s their roles, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , needs, access to and resources decision-making as well as the social relations between women and men.”(1) The following section how analysises main- gender streaming is opera- tionalized in the nine donors’ development policy processes.
Firstly, the legal and policy framework is considered.

In order to determine if gender mainstreaming is adequately presented, the analysis centres on the following guiding questions: D o political commitments and legal in actual translate obligations implementation?
Looking at the four policy phases (legal and policy framework, budget allocation, programming and implementation and evaluation and impact), the way in which gender equality is integrated as an objective and operationalized in concrete instruments for its promotion, is examined.

1.

Overall legal and policy framework: the policy of gender mainstreaming In 1998, the OECD/DAC adopted the DAC Guidelines for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Co-operation.
These guidelines clearly recognise that there has been a shift in focus from “women as a target group to gender equality as a development objective” and that there is a new emphasis on “mainstreaming gender equality issues into policy formulation, planning and evaluation, and decision-making procedures.” Furthermore, they acknowledge that, “specific efforts to enhance the role of women in development remain as necessary as ever, but the focus must widen to 1.
Is gender equality included as an objective alongside the strategy of gender mainstreaming?

2.

Is gender equality seen as an end in itself or as a means to achieve other ends?

3.

How is gender mainstreaming presented ?

1.1.


Objective: gender equality, strategy: gender mainstreaming The strategy of gender mainstreaming is incorporated into the overall development policies of eight out of the nine donors considered for this report1, although the terms used to refer to it vary, including references to gender as a cross-cutting or as a cross-sectoral issue.
In seven of the development policies definitions of gender mainstreaming are coupled with a clear reference to gender equality as its objective.

For 20 Closing the “implementation gap”: Promoting gender equality in development assistance II.
example Japan’s Thematic Guidelines on Gender Mainstreaming state, “Gender mainstreaming means that women’s participation is promoted, and all persons concerned critically appraise the existing organisational and institutional frameworks, and reconstruct them for the further advancement of gender equality.”(2) Also the European Union (EU) recognizes gender equality as the overall objective of gender mainstreaming.
It has to be mentioned, however, that this has only been the case since 2004, when the regulation on promoting gender equality in development cooperation was adopted.

(3) The 2001 EC Programme for Action for the mainstreaming gender equality in development cooperation merely states that, “the main objective of EC Development Policy is to foster sustainable development designed to eradicate poverty in developing countries.
Gender mainstreaming is an essential part of this.”(4) It is important to note that specific references to gender equality as the main aim of gender mainstreaming generally appear to be included in gender policies but not necessarily in development policy statements.

The overall development policy for the EU enshrined in the 2000 Joint Statement on the EC Development Policy is a case in point.
Although it refers to gender as a cross-cutting issue, it does not include gender equality as an objective of EC Development Cooperation.

1.2.

Gender equality as an end in itself or as a means to other ends?

Even if gender equality is recognised as an objective in a donor’s development policy, this does not necessarily mean that equality between men and women is perceived as an objective in its own right.
It is true that the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women are important for the achievement of many other goals, such as the eradication of poverty.

However, this should not obscure the fact that discrimination on the basis of sex or gender is a violation of fundamental human rights and a social injustice in itself.

21 II.
21 II.

Closing the “implementation gap”: Promoting gender equality in development assistance Only half of the countries analysed refer to gender equality as an objective in itself, while the other half view gender equality as an important means for achieving the end of poverty eradication.
This can be illustrated with reference to the European Commission Programme of Action for the mainstreaming of gender equality in Community Development Cooperation COM(2001) 295, 2001: “Gender equality is crucial for development in general and the link between gender and poverty has made the relevance of gender mainstreaming in development co-operation more critical than ever before.
(…) The main objective of the European Community Development Policy is to foster sustainable development designed to eradicate poverty in developing countries.

Gender mainstreaming is an essential part of this.”(5) 1.3.

Gender mainstreaming The BPfA states very clearly that the strategy of gender mainstreaming is intended to be used alongside women-specific actions, and must not be seen as replacing them.
Research for this report clearly shows that, on the policy level, almost all donors recognise this and support a in which gender twin-track approach mainstreaming and women-specific actions are combined to achieve gender equality.

However this does not necessarily mean that donors have put structures in place to ensure that this is more than lip-service.

In the following section the implementation of the aims expressed in the policy documents will be examined.

2.
2.

Budget Allocation This section identifies how gender equality policies are reflected in decisions on budgetary allocations of ODA.

The translation of gender policy into budget allocations is a complex matter.
Mainstreaming suggests a two-track approach with one track focussing on support for mechanisms that directly target women and the :2elbaT DIWotstnemtimmoC ADOlatotfoegatnecrepasa 0002 1002 2002 3002 adanaC ecnarF %380.0 %251.0 %502.0 %420.0 - - - %140.0 ynamreG %352.0 %051.0 %242.0 %031.0 napaJ - - - %200.0 sdnalrehteN %355.0 %974.0 %214.0 %805.0 nedewS - %180.0 - - modgniKdetinU %911.0 %740.0 %700.0 %700.0 setatSdetinU %601.0 %411.0 %361.0 %580.0 CE %200.0 - - %630.0 seirtnuoCCAD %871.0 %961.0 %032.0 %631.0 other ensuring that development programming includes a gender dimension.
time.

Through 2.1.

Women-specific activities The OECD DAC developed the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) as a mechanism to collect data on development aid, which can be comparable between donors and allows for an analysis over the DAC Questionnaire and guided by the DAC Statistical Reporting Directives donors are encouraged to report on the source, destination and purpose of their Official Development Assistance (ODA).
One of the most important features of the DAC reporting system is the sectoral breakdown of ODA.

Donors are required to report on each aid activity (project or programme) according to its purpose in relation to a defined set of sectors known as the DAC sectors.
Within these, the DAC has defined a sector entitled women in development (WID) that “includes multi-sectoral WID projects and programmes, promotion and support to WID groups and networks, conferences, seminars, 22 Closing the “implementation gap”: Promoting gender equality in development assistance II.
etc.” (6) WID covers aid activities concerned with the advancement of women in development which do not fall within any other sector that is measured by the OECD/DAC such as health, education, transport, etc.

It is important to note that the WID sector does not capture the whole range of donors’ aid activities benefiting women or promoting gender equality.
Aid activities that have a primary purpose in a given sector but that benefit women or promote gender equality would be reported by donors in the purpose sector and not in WID.

For example, a project to build a water supply system in rural areas, which will naturally benefit women and girls who traditionally had to walk long distances to collect water, will be reported by donors as an activity in the water and sanitation sector and not as a WID project.
Having this in mind, table 2 illustrates the share of ODA committed to WID in the years 2000 – 2003 by the chosen sample of donors.

The decline in UK allocations to the WID sector is particularly noticeable.

Japan, despite having insisted on the maintenance of WID as a category in the CRS system, does not report in three out of four years.

In 2003 it reports only a total of commitments of 0.02%.

France’s WID reporting is equally poor.


This puts in question these donors’ commitments to mainstreaming as a twin-track approach.

As indicated above, this analysis of allocations to WID should not be seen as an accurate proxy to measure donors’ contribution to the promotion of gender equality through their development assistance.

WID only covers aid activities directly targeting women or supporting women organisations that have not been allocated to other sectors.
It also covers expenditure on conferences and seminars, some of which are intended to train staff of donors’ agencies or the strategy of gender ministries mainstreaming.

Therefore, WID does not give a complete picture of the contribution of donors to promote gender equality.

in 2.2.

Gender Equality Marker In view of the weakness in committing to activities specifically focusing at promoting women’s 23 II.
Closing the “implementation gap”: promoting gender equality in development assistance empowerment, and in order to improve the measuring of all ODA directed to advance gender equality in the context of mainstreaming the objective of gender equality, the DAC developed the Gender Equality Marker in 1995.

This is an instrument for donors to measure to what extent their aid activities promote gender equality.
Donors are required to mark each aid activity, regardless of its purpose (sector), to indicate whether gender equality is seen as: i) a principal objective, ii) a significant objective; or iii) not as an objective of the project.

A limitation of the marker is that it is oriented towards the programming of development assistance, not the actual implementation.

However, some donors have made an attempt to use the marker in the implementation and monitoring of activities.
The use of the Gender Equality Marker has been gradually incorporated into the donors reporting systems and the majority of DAC members are now beginning to use this instrument.

(7) However, the DAC has acknowledged some problems in the application of the marker and identified donors that are not reporting consistently on the utilisation of the Gender Equality Marker.
The general development in aid modalities from Sector Wide Approaches (SWAPs) towards direct budget support complicates the measurement of budget allocations to the promotion of gender equality further.

3.

Programming and implementation of gender mainstreaming After general policies have been drawn up and money has been allocated, most donors draw up more detailed country programming, often referred to as “Country Strategy Paper”(8) (CSP) documents in order to implement policy commitments.
Although this is only the first stage of the implementation process, it is crucial and forms therefore the core of the analysis which follows.

(9) Secondly, in order to examine whether theory is being translated into practice, this chapter will also consider whether the programming documents are matched with appropriate institutional structures for their implementation.

3.1 Country Strategies CSPs, or their equivalent, are used by all donors analysed.
These documents outline the overall situation in any given recipient country and, based on this, define the key priorities for the donor’s development co-operation with that country.

CSPs cover periods of varying lengths but are multi- annual.

The majority of donors analysed have specific guidelines which outline the general objectives and priorities on the basis of which CSPs are drafted.
Firstly these guidelines will be examined and secondly the translation of these guidelines into actual CSPs is analysed.

Guidelines for Country Strategy Papers The scope of the Country Strategy Papers is determined by the way in which they are initially defined.

Examining the Guidelines to the Country Strategy Papers makes it possible to determine whether gender equality is included in the framework agreed for the Country Strategy Papers.

In a number of countries such guidelines are, however, lacking.
For instance, the Netherlands does not have a set of specific guidelines for the Country Strategy Papers, but instead its White Paper is regarded as the basis.

This allows for broad interpretation, and does not encourage the inclusion of gender equality – which is not included as a specific area of attention.

In the Netherlands, as well as in France, the CSPs are confidential documents and guidelines or criteria of what they should consider do not exist, or are not publicly available.
24 Closing the “implementation gap”: promoting gender equality in development assistance II.

Country Strategy Papers The majority of CSPs analysed for this report include references to gender mainstreaming.

However, these are, on the whole, very general, often stating that gender mainstreaming should be, “taken into account”, without giving any further guidance of how this should be done.

The UK’s 2003 CSP for Bangladesh is a notable example.
It explicitly recognises that gender inequality is a serious issue in that country.

It states that “our conclusion is that without a specific focus on women and girls, the achievement of the gender-related MDGs will be missed and that a specific focus on women and girls is likely to be one of the most effective development interventions.”(13) The document does not go on to outline any specific strategies of how the situation can be improved.
Japan does not include any analysis regarding gender equality in the Country Strategy Papers that were examined (Sri Lanka and Vietnam).

This again leaves doubt on how the intention to mainstream gender, is implemented through programming.

Canada’s CSP for Burkina Faso, is a good example of how more guidance on the implementation of gender mainstreaming can be given.
It states that “given the gravity of the problems faced by women in Burkina Faso and their particularly disadvantaged, poverty-stricken situation, greater efforts will be made to include the WID/GE approach in new programming.

Each programme will analyse the particular strategic interests of women and their status in particular areas.

When the detailed programme planning is done, specific results and indicators will be targeted to reduce the gender gap.
These will be discussed with the affected partners, and policy dialogue will be maintained with authorities in Burkina Faso in terms of the PRSPs.”(14) The majority of the available guidelines for CSPs include some reference to gender equality, mostly as an issue to be mainstreamed, but do not require it as a matter of obligation.

isolation.

For example, the US Automated Directives System (ADS) Functional Series 2001: Planning states that “Strategic Plans must reflect attention to gender concerns.
Unlike other technical analyses described in this section, gender is not a separate topic to be analysed and reported on Instead, USAID’s gender in that mainstreaming approach appropriate gender analysis be applied to the range of technical issues that are considered in the development of a given Strategic Plan.”(10) It continues, “analytical work performed in the planning and development of (..) [CSPs] must in the very least address the following two questions: requires a.
How will gender relations affect the achievement of sustainable results and b.

How will proposed results affect the relative status of men and women?”(11) Others, such as the European Commission Guidelines for CSPs, present the inclusion of gender issues in CSPs as optional.
They state that “where the country analysis indicates a major disparity of treatment between men and women, the CSP should demonstrate how further progress can be made towards gender.” (12) This is problematic as the country analyses themselves are not required to assess the state of gender equality in any given country as a matter of obligation.
Taking these cases, in conjunction with other country data, it can be concluded that specific references or guidelines on how gender should be mainstreamed in CSPs are very limited, and that generally the scope of the Country Strategy Papers is not well defined – and in some cases not publicly available.

25 II.
25 II.

Closing the “implementation gap”: promoting gender equality in development assistance Together, these specialists and the focal points provide technical advice on policy, strategies, as well as on programme and project monitoring and evaluation.

(17) Reference has already been made to the poor performance of France in gender equality.
This poor performance is also an indicator of the importance of strong institutional structures, given that a vacancy in the last two years of the one single post for a gender equality expert seems to be a contribution to the situation.

This is also illustrated by the situation in the European Commission.

In some departments, in particular the desks relating to the countries of the Central and Eastern Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States, the Commission has no gender expertise.
This reality coincides with the almost complete absence of measures promoting gender equality in their programmes.

(18) This could suggest that the availability of gender expertise in donor administrations appears to be somehow linked to measures ensuring that gender equality is promoted.

It could also be concluded that the lack of gender experts, in this instance, is indicative of the limited institutional buy-in that promoting gender equality is an essential part of the institutions agenda.
Gender experts in the field – attached to the embassies for instance - can be well-situated to promote the integration of gender equality at country level, through the programming process.

Gender experts in the field report that the support from the centre and from gender networks is often crucial, particularly when they feel isolated and are working under difficult circumstances.
Whether or not gender experts are effective, depends on the level of institutional accountability of the development agency to promote gender approach The Dutch White Paper does not articulate gender equality as a specific objective of Dutch Development Co-operation, but the Dutch Ministry formally maintains that gender equality has been “fully mainstreamed”, The Dutch CSPs examined differ in approach.

(15) Some CSPs have a comprehensive gender mainstreaming.
However, in other countries none or few references were found.

The differences could result from variance in the institutional structure.

The lack of specific reference in the White Paper could contribute to this uneven response and points to the importance of including the commitments to gender equality in the legal and policy framework for development co- operation, since, without these, a lack of internal accountability to gender equality can be the result.

to 3.2 .
to 3.2 .

Institutional Structures Are the priorities outlined in the CSPs matched by adequate institutional structures in order to ensure their effective implementation?

Of all the donors analysed for this report, the Netherlands and Canada have particularly extensive institutional structures for the promotion of gender equality in development cooperation.

In the case of the Netherlands, there is a specific group of gender experts involved in development co- operation.
This group consists of a gender- specific unit, comprising 8 experts in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and approximately 20 gender advisors and “gender focal points” who are attached to Dutch embassies in the partner countries.

(16) Canada has a “Gender Equality Network”.


This brings together the Gender Equality Division, mainly working on the integration of a gender perspective in Canada’s development policy, and gender equality specialists and focal points, one of which exists in each of CIDA’s programme branches (Africa, the Middle East, Americas, Asia, Canadian Partnership, Central and Eastern Europe, Multilateral, and Performance Review).
26 Closing the “implementation gap”: promoting gender equality in development assistance II.

equality.

Where political will is lacking to close the gap between formal commitments to gender equality and their implementation, adding a gender expert provides only a technical solution which cannot solve an essentially political problem.

4.

Evaluation and Impact The final part of the policy process relates to the measurement of real impact and mechanisms for evaluating the donor’s activities.
Evaluating the effectiveness of donors’ actions aimed at achieving equality between men and women in development cooperation requires the existence of specific objectives, targets and indicators.

However, some donors, notably Germany, do not provide access to the criteria used for evaluation as the relevant guidelines are classified as internal government documents.

In other countries, such as the Netherlands, country evaluations hardly take place – or are thematically focused.
In this case, the annual country reports are the best assessment of whether CSPs have been implemented, and these are, as is the case in Germany, not publicly available.

The Netherlands annual country reports are not independent evaluations but are carried out by the embassies in respective partner countries, while an independent service assesses the overall effectiveness of the Dutch development assistance programme.
4.1 Guidelines for Evaluations All of the donors analysed for this report have specific guidelines for the evaluation of their development assistance.

These guidelines tend to be enshrined in separate documents or in the guidelines for formulating CSPs and provide a framework for the drafting of evaluations, including a list of principle objectives and priorities.

All of the evaluation guidelines analysed include references to gender.
Some are very general and mention that ‘attention should be given to cross- cutting issues such as gender equality’ without giving further guidance on how this should be done.

Others consider the inclusion of a gender perspective in evaluations of development activities and programmes as an option, rather than an obligation.
The EC’s guidelines for evaluations for example state that “gender aspects should be taken very carefully into consideration when carrying out an evaluation of any project in which they could be of significance.”(19) The evaluation guidelines for Sweden and Germany are good illustrations of how better guidance on evaluating gender equality in development activities can be given.

In the case of Sweden, the SIDA Evaluation Manual contains a specific chapter on gender mainstreaming.
It states that evaluation questions should be defined in gender terms and that specific questions on gender inequalities should be considered at all stages of the evaluation process.

The Evaluation Manual also includes specific questions related to gender issues that must be taken into account in any evaluation of Sweden’s development activities and gives concrete advice on how gender-sensitive indicators should be devised.
(20) The German evaluation guidelines also include detailed indications of how activities and programmes should be analysed in terms of gender equality.

The analysis of the aims of activities, of their implementation procedures and of their effects must include a gender perspective.

Consideration is required as to whether the aims of the activities imply that women or men are the main beneficiaries and whether they address the specific needs of both women and men.
It also requires examination of whether the implementation procedure includes women as actors and whether the activities have specific 27 II.

Closing the “implementation gap”: promoting gender equality in development assistance in women’s position in relation to men.

Both evaluations found that documentary evidence and project monitoring data was neither reliable nor sufficient to demonstrate impact and had to be supplemented by direct work with project participants and primary stakeholders.
The main findings of the evaluations were that the impact and benefits of gender mainstreaming are at best ‘embryonic’ and at worst still to become visible: with some evidence that interventions had had impacts on practical gender needs but with little evidence of changes in gender roles or control of resources.”(24) It can be concluded that information on impact of development assistance on gender equality is lacking.
It would also appear that the implementation of Country Strategy Papers is insufficiently monitored, or, if it is, often insufficiently accessible to the public.

This is problematic in that the achievement of actual impact needs to be established in order to ascertain whether commitments to gender equality are achieved in the context of international assistance policies.

economic, social, socio-cultural and institutional effects on women and men.
4.2 Evaluations An overall problem appears to be that, generally speaking, systematic country evaluations are often not carried out.

In the EU for instance, the number of country specific evaluations has rapidly diminished in recent years.

(21) The evaluations considered show that gender issues are only sporadically included and no coherent pattern is detectable for any donor.
Even in cases where the donor’s evaluation guidelines specifically require a mandatory evaluation of gender aspects, there is no consistent consideration of these issues in the available evaluations.

(22) The evaluations that do include gender aspects tend to be based on the assumption that gender mainstreaming leads to gender equality outcomes.

As a result, they tend to focus exclusively on institutional mainstreaming practices rather than on actual results.
Some donors have conducted specific evaluations on gender equality in development co-operation in the last five years.

Although a recent DAC-commissioned review of gender and evaluations concluded that, similarly to general evaluations, specific gender evaluations also tend to focus more on institutional mainstreaming procedures rather than on outcomes, two recent evaluations by the EC and by SIDA have attempted to focus on actual impact.
(23) According to Francis Watkins, “the SIDA evaluation particularly considered the changes in gender equality that could reasonably be expected to result from interventions, using the distinction between practical gender needs, such as improvements in living conditions; and strategic gender needs, such as improvements 28 Closing the “implementation gap”: promoting gender equality in development assistance II.
Tracking gender policy in development assistance: Key Findings Many development cooperation policies include references to gender mainstreaming.

However, often they do not include gender equality as an explicit objective.

This suggests a mis- interpretation of gender mainstreaming as an objective rather than a strategy.

Gender equality is often presented as an essential means to achieve other ends, such as poverty reduction, but not as an end in itself.
Gender mainstreaming is usually presented as a complementary measure to specific women- targeted activities rather than as an alternative to the latter and there is, in principle, a clear understanding of the two-track approach to ‘engendering’ development promoted by the Beijing Platform for Action.

However this often does not lead to supportive structure being put in place to promoting gender equality through development co-operation.
The OECD/DAC sector on Women in Development attempts to measure how much of a donor’s ODA is spent on activities that promote gender equality.

An analysis of figures over recent years indicates that only around 0.1% of ODA is specifically dedicated to this aim.
However, it has to be noted that the reason for this low figure is also related to the fact that some donors do not adequately report their activities and do not record whether a project that primarily focuses on a different sector also impacts on the promotion of gender equality.
The need to measure gender mainstreaming has led to the introduction of a Gender Equality Marker by the OECD/DAC, enabling donors to report gender equality as a significant objective, even if activities have a primary target in another sector.

There is an increase in the use of the marker and this allows interesting analysis of how gender mainstreaming is working.
29 Preliminary analysis by the OECD/DAC in the use of the Gender Equality Marker suggests that at present gender equality is more frequent in the context of social sectors, and less so in productive sectors, transport, agriculture and private sector development.

The latter needs more attention to ensure that gender equality is considered a goal in these sectors as well.
The Gender Equality Marker has limitations in that it is an indication for the inclusion of gender equality in development programmes, but it does not give an indication of the actual implementation or achievements in terms of impact.

Some donors are beginning to examine how the Gender Equality Marker can be extended to measure the realisation of gender equality, which will give a more realistic perspective on what is being achieved.
There is generally a lack of guidance or strategies on how gender aspects should be included in the CSPs.

Institutional structures for ensuring gender mainstreaming and the empowerment of women II.

Closing the “implementation gap”: promoting gender equality in development assistance in development cooperation have improved considerably over recent years, although not all donors put sufficient emphasis on this aspect.
The institutional structure, particularly when it strengthens the capacity of gender expertise in partner countries, can be a key aspect in defining the successes or failures of gender mainstreaming.

The institutional capacity on the ground is the key enabler, in translating words into deeds.

Addressing this specific capacity requirement can help translate the rhetoric and make the mainstreaming of gender a reality.
Where guidelines for evaluations exists, these contain often references to gender equality and in gender mainstreaming.

Some of these are mandatory, and include detailed descriptions of how gender issues should be evaluated.

They do not always clearly distinguish between gender equality as an objective and gender mainstreaming as an approach.

Overall, few evaluations of donors’ development assistance are carried out.
The focus of evaluations is different across donors and gender is not consistently included.

When gender issues are evaluated, attention is given to institutional procedures rather than to actual results on the ground.

is This Other mechanisms beyond evaluations might need to be developed as a means of linking ODA with actual results.

especially so in the context of new aid mechanisms such as support.

This will be examined in f o l l o w i n g chapters.
budget 30 Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities III.

W hile there is clearly a lack of translation of political commitments and legal obligations to gender equality in the context of development assistance, it is important to see what scope there is for improvement – within a comprehensive understanding of the trends towards new and different aid modalities for the future.

This section looks at donor’s accountability to promoting gender equality in the new aid architecture.
It considers the objectives of the new aid modalities, and the principles in which these are framed, particularly those of ownership and accountability.

The chapter goes on to discuss where gender equality is placed within the new aid architecture – if at all.

In this section the term ‘internal accountability’ is introduced.
The new aid architecture rests upon the notion that aid programming should respect national governments in partner countries to drive the development process in their countries, and hence donors should not only be accountable to their own parliaments but should also align themselves with the accountability of partner governments with national mechanisms.

1.
1.

Towards new aid modalities So far projects have been the principal mechanism through which aid donors provide development assistance to developing countries.

Evaluations carried out during the 1980s and 1990s revealed a variety of problems with the traditional project support mechanism.
Four of the most often recognised issues are: Need for harmonisation By focussing on very specific and often different issues across donors in any given recipient country, project support was not conducive to a coordinated provision of aid across donors.

It often also led to inefficiency of recipients’ reporting to donors, as it involved numerous different reporting procedures and led to duplication of work.
For instance in only one year (2002) 925 different activities were undertaken by various donors in Mozambique and 602 in Nicaragua.

(1) Ownership and partnership The processes for the approval and review of projects were conducted almost exclusively by donors, thus making it difficult for government priorities to be reflected in project identification.

The general view was that donors were imposing their priorities on developing countries as well as conditioning the provision of aid to donor intrests.
This provided clear evidence of the absence of partnership as an underlying principle of development aid.

Moreover, projects as “aid instruments” did not allow for the use of the recipient country government’s systems and structures for the implementation of development assistance.

This had the effect of undermining the credibility and effectiveness of national governments to deal with domestic issues.
It also raised questions of democratic accountability in the sense that it forced governments to be accountable to donors rather than to their national parliaments and citizens.

Internal accountability Ownership is closely related to accountability, and refers to the need for donors to be prepared to be answerable to partner governments for actions in partner countries.

The principle of internal accountability refers to the need of national governments to be internally accountable.
This relates both to donors and to their partner governments.

It is essentially a lack of internal accountability – both ways, which excludes women from the new aid architecture.

With a greater emphasis on ownership, the question as to who ‘owns’ becomes fundamentally important.

Where women are situated in the ownership, and where women’s rights advocates are included in 31 III.
Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities the new aid architecture is a key question for the validity of processes of internal accountability – both among donors and in partner countries.

Coherence Project support often took place in a vacuum, with its achievements undermined by a broader policy framework which was not conducive to the aid objectives.

Recently donors, and recipients alike, have become more open to accepting the idea that all policies need to be aligned.
The new architecture of aid is the collective response to address these issues by promoting the principles of harmonisation, ownership, partnership, internal accountabillity and coherence.

The main instruments of the new aid architecture are Sector Wide Approaches (SWAPs) and Budget Support, both increasingly administered through country level planning with Country Strategy Papers and Poverty Reduction Strategies.
(2) It is important to note that these new aid modalities are, however, being built upon development assistance policies promoted in the 1980s and 1990s which were heavily based on external aid conditionality from the International Financial Institutions (IFIs).

As a consequence contra- dictions have arisen between the principles underlying the new aid modalities and their practical implementation.

The principle of ownership is the most crucial concept in the new aid architecture.
It leads to a transfer of responsibility to partner countries.

2.

Policy conditionality and structural adjustment The current emphasis on ownership and internal accountability is a response to the policy conditionalities imposed by donors in the structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s.

Introduced through the IMF and World Bank its purpose was to support the balance of payments and promote policy reform in partner countries, often with additional financial support from bilateral donors.
Extensive research has shown that policy conditionality has been consistently ineffective in improving economic policies in recipient countries.

(3) Two issues have emerged: 1.

Domestic political dynamics are the key factor in determining economic and political reforms.

In general, these domestic considerations have not given way to pressure from donors.

This does not imply that donors have no influence on reform.
There are examples of policies that have been implemented only at the insistence of donors, particularly regarding the privatisation of state enterprises.

There is also evidence that the use of channels for policy dialogue has helped to tip the balance of domestic interests towards economic liberalisation.

However, this type of influence is based on the establishment of particular relationships with the recipient country government, often where informal channels of influence have been developed.
which bypass or even corrupt the process of accountability, in donor and partner countries alike.

2.

Conditionality has also proved cumbersome for operational reasons, since, in certain cases, numerous and unrealistic conditions were set out.

Conditionality by donors undermine ownership and internal accountability, both by imposing external priorities and by requiring the acceptance of budgetary and legislative initiatives even before these were subject to a debate in a recipient country’s parliament.
Moreover, structural adjustment programmes have had serious negative impacts on social development and on the status of women in many developing countries.

(4) 32 Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities III.

3.3.

The new aid architecture Towards the end of the 1990s, certain donors made the decision to begin implementing development assistance, as far as possible, through the structures established by recipient governments.
For example, in 1997, the UK Government’s Department for International Development stated that “where we have confidence in the policies and budgetary allocation process and in the capacity for effective implementation in the partner government, we will consider moving away from supporting specific projects to providing resources more strategically in support of sector-wide programmes or the economy as a whole”.

(5) Gender equality is sometimes promoted within the proposition of aid conditionality.
However, it has become increasingly clear that a lack of ownership and failure of internal accountability create serious obstacles to the promotion of gender equality.

It also denies the reality that promotion of gender equality is of necessity a two- way stream.

In the context of development cooperation progress on gender equality is only made if both donors and partner countries are committed and determined to move into the same direction.
The key question is therefore how donors and partner countries can be made accountable to promoting the obligation to promote gender equality in development cooperation.

3.4.

Sector programmes During the 1990s, sector programme aid came to be regarded as a desirable mechanism for delivering development assistance to specific sectors.
In particular Sector-Wide Approach Programmes (SWAPs) emerged as a result of donors’ growing recognition of the fundamental problems associated with project-based aid, especially in terms of their effectiveness and sustainability.

A sector-wide approach involves donor support to the development of an entire sector in a recipient country.
Ideally, they are developed by the recipient country government in consultation with stakeholders, including donors, and thus aim to harmonize allocation of development aid and increase ownership on the part of the recipient government.

Direct budget support refers to the channelling of donor funds to a partner government using the latter’s own allocation, procurement and accounting systems.
The transfer is direct in the sense that it is provided as foreign exchange to a government (or more specifically to the Central Bank, who then credit the Central Government or Treasury account), with no controls over the process of conversion into local currency.

General budget support1 covers financial assistance as a contribution to the overall budget with any type of conditionality focused on policy measures related to overall budget priorities.
Within this category, funds may be nominally accounted for against certain sectors but there is no formal limitation on where funds may actually be spent.

Sector budget support covers financial aid earmarked to a distinct sector or sectors, with any kind of conditionality relating to these sectors.

Additional sector reporting may augment normal government accounting, although the means of disbursement is also based upon government procedures.
(Source: DFID, Terms of Reference for Evaluation of General Budget Support, London, Oct 2001.)

33 III.

Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities The application of a sector-wide approach can be done in such a way as to facilitate the implementation of a twin-track approach to the promotion of gender equality.
This would necessitate an allocation of resources to a specific sector dedicated to gender equality issues as well as a clear and consistent implementation of gender mainstreaming in each of the supported sectors.

In practice, however, the difficulty is that gender is not generally identified as a priority sector for intervention.
(6) Indeed, the move towards SWAPs and the need to limit its focus on very few sectors, has led to an overall de-prioritization of gender equality as a separate objective and its replacement with gender mainstreaming.

In this context gender mainstreaming is often a ‘box to be ticked’ with no objectives, strategies and success criteria attached.

Similar problems have been found with mainstreaming in other areas, notably child rights issues.
(7) There are also complications with the mainstreaming of gender into chosen sectors of co-operation.

A study conducted by the OECD/ DAC on Gender Equality in Sector-Wide Approaches, with a focus on SWAPs in health, education and agriculture, concludes that gender is usually mainstreamed in these sectors.
It also finds that these SWAPs tend to focus on “narrowly defined investments in women or girls rather than addressing the underlying conditions that produce unequal access for males and females.”(8) By doing so, the SWAPs do not adequately consider the root causes of women’s limited access to goods and services; nor do they recognise their inability to take advantage of these 34 Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities III.
:3elbaT snrecnocniamriehtdnatroppustegdubdrawotseicilopsronoddetceleS troppustegdubsdrawotyciloP snrecnocniaM adanaC CE troppustegdublanoitidnoC troppusediWrotceS troppuslarotceS diAyrategduBtceriD teyycilopdenifedoN ;tneiciffeeromsadedragersitroppustegduB sweivertnemssessa-sdeendnagnirotinomrofdeeN ecnarF noitacollalarotces,feileRtbeD gnikramraelarotcesdnafeilertbedotdekniL ynamreG 5102noitcArofemmargorPniecnereferoN napaJ troppuStnemyaPfoecnalaBlanoitidartylniaM - - sdnalrehteN fitroppuStegduBsdrawotgnivommretgnolnI thgirerasnoitidnoc nedewS troppustegdublarotcesrolareneG KU ASU smroferediwrotceS troppustegdubtcerid:mretgnoL smroferediwrotceS )ecnatsissaemmargorpdellac( sisrentrapybsdnuffotnemeganametairporppA .noitidnocerp ,ssecorpPSRPehtotsegakniL noyrtnuoctneipicerehthtiweugolaidevitceffE ,ecnanrevoggnivorpmi derusaemstlusernodesabsignidnuftahteetnarauga lanoitutitsnirofsrotacidnissergorpdenifedylraelcyb .smroferycilopdna .snalptnempolevedlanoitannodesaB yticapacnehwtroppustegdublarenegsdrawotgnivoM .sesaercnirentrapfo noecnamrofreplaicnanifrofytilibisnopsertnednepednI .yrtnuoctneipicerehtfotrapeht ylraelcebtsumsnaemdnaslaog,seitilibisnopseR .denifed ytilibissopehtdnasnoitagilboevitcepser'seitrapehT gnidnepsusrognitanimret,gnignahc,gniunitnocfo .deificepsylraelceboslatsumnoitarepooc stcejorpenola-dnatsecuderotdeeN otyticapactnemnrevogrentrapfotnemevorpmI seicilopnoitcuderytrevoptnemelpmi t secruoserllafoesulanoitidnoC noitanidroocronodstroppuS Statistically, there is little evidence, so far, of a move towards direct budget support.
What data actually show is that programme aid, (mainly of the structural adjustment type), has declined sharply since the 1990s.

(9) Ownership and the PRSPs?

Regardless of the differences in donors’ to delivering development approaches assistance, there is a general trend in administration of aid through country-level planning with CSPs and PRSPs as the main tools.

An analysis of CSPs has already been provided above.
In theory, at least, national poverty reduction strategies would be providing the basis for assistance and donor co-ordination.

These strategies are meant to inform, for example, the drafting of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).

35 III.

Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities A PRSP outlines a national programme for poverty reduction which is the foundation for lending programmes with the IMF and the World Bank and for debt relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries.
PRSPs were introduced by the IMF and the World Bank with a view to bringing together concerns and debates on poverty reduction, debt relief, lending to low-income countries and aid effectiveness, and providing answers, (or at least partial solutions), to the issues that needed to be addressed.

The development and implementation of PRSPs is governed by five core principles.
The poverty reduction strategies should be country-driven, results-oriented, comprehensive, partnership- oriented and based on a long-term perspective for poverty reduction.

However, it is questionable to what extent these principles have been operationalized in the actual procedures surrounding the PRSP process.
The most contested issue is whether the process does in fact enhance ownership on the part of the recipient country government and civil society, and the related question of macroeconomic conditionality.

A key problem is that the PRSP has to be formally approved by a committee of World Bank and IMF staff.
If the committee rejects the draft, the country does not qualify for World Bank Three scenarios for PRSP Consultative groups Consultative group led by the World Bank, IMF, UNDP and DAC Consultative group led by a bilateral aid donor or IMF support and is unlikely to receive bilateral funding.
This process has lead various experts and practitioners to express concern that recipient governments, if asked about priorities, might opt for programmes that they think will be accepted even if they conflict with priorities identified through a consultative process.

Indeed, a Finance Minister from one of the HIPCs stated that, “We do not want to second-guess the Fund.

We prefer to pre-empt them by giving them what they want before they start lecturing us about this and that.
By so doing, we send a clear message that we know what we are doing, i.e., we believe in structural adjustment.”(10) Furthermore, it has been suggested that, “direct parallels exist between the PRSP process of qualifying for debt relief and earlier forms of conditionality.”(11) In fact, the Bretton Woods Project points out that, “each loan (given by the World Bank) supports a specific programme and reforms which form the basis of a policy matrix negotiated between the Bank and the borrower.
This matrix spells out the specific priority actions (conditionality) considered critical to the success of the programme…Loan negotiations are still conducted behind closed doors within Ministries of Finance and Central Banks, and lack of disclosure, public involvement and oversight.”(12) Many of these conditions refer to macroeconomic policies.
Although the PRSP process should officially include a poverty and social impact analysis of required macroeconomic reforms in recipient countries, progress has been very slow.

Moreover, the fact that all of the impact analysis would be conducted by the World Bank, puts the purpose of greater ownership into question.

Consultative group chaired by recipient country and PRSP is based on the national development strategy Overall, the introduction of PRSPs may have a potential for the advancement of the MDGs.
However, research indicates that the PRSPs do 36 Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities III.

not adequately take account of gender equality and the empowerment of women.

(13) This is despite the fact that the World Bank has – at the level of policy formulation, taken an interest in the integration of gender into the PRSP process and has outlined a number of specific guidelines to improve the participation of women in the consultation process.
This includes assessments of the integration of women in existing consultative mechanisms, an assessment of the barriers to women’s participation and experimentation with different mechanisms to improve the strength of their contribution.

While the new aid modalities could potentially enhance gender equality within a framework of greater ownership and internal accountability, the PRSP process does not, at present, constitute this new aid architecture.
In many ways, it seems to reflect an approach based on ‘old’ aid conditionality, crucially lacking genuine ownership and internal accountability in partner countries.

The conclusions that can be drawn in relation to a potential for gender equality in PRSPs have to be appraised in that context.

Programming In theory, the application of country level programming could have positive effects on the promotion of gender equality through development assistance.
By providing an overview of the poverty situation at the country level, this approach offers an important opportunity to assess the overall status of gender equality in any given country.

Moreover, the PRSP and CSP processes provide a vital space for the formulation of commitments to gender equality and gender mainstreaming at the country level.
In the case of CSPs and PRSPs it is crucial that the donor responsible for drafting has consistent and comprehensive guidelines on the inclusion of gender equality in the documents.
Furthermore, it must be ensured that gender advocates are “The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries advocate establishing common funds, providing direct budget support and reinforcing joint monitoring systems, and accordingly revising the procedures of all donor countries in order to strengthen ownership by recipient countries and enhance aid effectiveness.
Japan, the United States, France, Germany, and others, meanwhile, basically agree on aid co-ordination to improve aid effectiveness but maintain that the project- based approach is valid and that it is important to combine various aid modalities, such as projects and common funds, while enhancing consistency between individual projects and overall plans in accordance with each recipient country’s needs and capacities.” Japan’s 2002 ODA White Paper adequately consulted throughout the drafting process.
Moreover, it is vital that the CSPs and PRSPs are strongly related to national development plans by the partner government in order to ensure ownership.

The value of these national development plans depends greatly on the level of internal accountability that supports the establishment of the plan.

This is further explored in the following section.


3.6 Key Findings The new architecture of aid promotes the principles of ownership and internal accountability, partnership between donor and recipient countries and greater harmonisation of donor’s support with national plans.

External conditionalities work against ownership and internal accountability.

Much of the framework for donor country development assistance continues to put emphasis on external conditionalities, and 37 III.
Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities sensitive policies.

This, however, depends on how and by whom these papers are drafted – and by whom they are approved.

If drafted or influenced by the IFIs, these must have strong guidelines on the inclusion of a gender perspective and must have adequate gender expertise amongst their preparation and approval.

involved those in this is particularly the case for PRSPs.
There is a need to ensure that programming is lead with partner countries in the driver’s seat.

Donors are still hesitant in implementing budget support, with the stated concern that preconditions are not yet met in many partner countries.

A crucial question is how internal accountability can be strengthened.

Sector Wide Approaches are currently preferred over General Budget Support, as donors have a greater possibility to exercise influence and control through SWAPs.
The question of how gender equality can be achieved through these types of programmes is crucially important.

The new aid modalities all assign a central role to the process of programming through Country Strategy Programmes.

Identifying gender in the context of national based planning is therefore a crucial aspect of gender equality strategies.

SWAPs could provide crucial space for the advancement of gender equality through a women specific sector and mainstreaming of gender throughout other sectors.
However, in practice, gender equality and the empowerment of women are hardly ever identified as a specific sector and gender is poorly mainstreamed throughout most other sectors.

Country programming through CSPs and PRSPs could provide an important opportunity to analyse the status of women and to define country-wide gender 38 Accountability Upside Down IV.
T he underlying principles of the new architecture of aid – in particular ownership and accountability – are increasingly recognised as crucial for the promotion of poverty eradication.

However, the concept of “ownership” takes on new complexities if seen from a gender perspective as mere inclusion of recipient governments and some representatives of civil society are not enough to ensure the adequate representation of women’s concerns.
The key question is, therefore, how can donors achieve ownership, with a genuine accountability to women in partner countries?

1.

Participation of women in decision-making The trend towards (direct) budget and sectoral support predominantly involves government structures.

National administrations are primarily involved in, and relate to, the drawing up of national development programmes, Country Strategy Papers and PRSPs.
National governments are in charge of the budget implementation – albeit with conditions if such are imposed.

Government programmes determine the implementation of policies.

The participation of women in government and in the administration is therefore a key factor in ensuring that ownership involves women as decision-makers and in the implementation of policies.

Rooting gender equality for long-term sustainability requires that women in partner countries are empowered to be part of all these stages.
This aspect is increasingly recognised, expressed by the Ambassador of Mozambique as follows: “African leaders are translating their commitment to gender equality through practical decisions.
For instance within the framework of the African Union structures, African leaders have allocated 50% of Commissioners to women, besides ensuring that the leadership of important African Union bodies such as the Pan-African Parliament, the Chairperson of the NEPAD Peer Review mechanism and the first President of the AU “Africans are conscious that gender empowerment must be based on the respect of the fundamental principles of democracy, human rights and good governance.
(..) In Africa the political empowerment of women appears to be making huge strides.” The Ambassador of Mozambique, H.E.

Maria Manuela dos Santos Lucas - Presentation given at the Member States Gender Experts Meeting, Brussels, January 18, 2005.
Peace and Security Council are indeed women.”(1) In order to ensure that women participate as decision-makers in the new aid modalities specific attention needs to be given to ensure women’s empowerment through greater involvement of women in government and administrative structures.
It is important that this not only takes place at national level, but also at the level of regional and local administration, as the importance of local governance to achieve sustainable development is increasingly being recognized.

(2) Furthermore it is important that women living in poverty are organised and consulted, brought into structures of decision-making, and take full part in the implementation of programmes that are intended to lift their communities out of poverty.
Ensuring this, is a responsibility of donors and partner governments alike.

2.

Formal accountability Real ownership can not be obtained unless there is clear formal accountability of national government to national parliaments.

It is equally important that the new aid mechanisms are accompanied by specific measures that strengthen the role of national parliaments in the adoption of national development plans and that new aid programmes are based upon these 39 IV.
Accountability Upside Down “ Poverty alone does not cause women to die in greater numbers than men… When there is scarcity, custom and political arrangement frequently decree who gets to eat the little there is, and who gets taken to the doctor… Customs and political agreements, in short, are important causes of women’s misery and death Nussbaum, M. in Baghramian, M. and Ingram, A., Pluralism: The Philosophy and Politics of Diversity, Routledge, 2000.

” national plans.
” national plans.

Equal participation of women in representative roles, as in parliaments, is fundamental to ensure the gender dimension is effectively integrated in processes of formal accountability to elected representatives.

This should be seen as a integral aspect of any new aid strategy aiming for greater ownership and internal accountability.
For example in Southern Africa the representation of women has significantly increased in recent years – and there is evidence that this has benefited the influence that women’s advocates can exercise over the content and prioritisation in national development plans.

Donors must respect processes of formal accountability to national parliaments in partner countries.
Equally donors must respect an adequate degree of accountability with their own parliaments, so as to ensure that their constituencies are not excluded from the new aid architecture.

It was surprising to find in this study that a number of donors for instance do not make Country Strategy Papers public, or do not give public access to evaluations.

This does not allow for adequate scrutiny to ensure that commitments are actually implemented.
3 Informal accountability As national development strategies increasingly become the basis for a donor’s strategy in a given country, civil society and existing societal perceptions of gender take on increased importance.

It is, therefore, increasingly important that civil society takes on a strong and active role in determining plans for development at all levels.
In addition, in countries where internal accountability is lacking – or where women are not well represented within the political context, women’s organisations can play a key role in ensuring that some degree of informal accountability is realised.

Consultation with civil society organisations provides an important check on the process of formal accountability and helps to ensure that formal accountability processes do represent the interests of the citizens of a given country.
For this to be effective, however, the role that women play in civil society is an important factor to consider.

In reality, women are usually highly under-represented in civil society organisations (CSOs) and are often excluded from consultation processes on development plans and programmes.

In a recent study, the World Bank recognised that “experience has shown that socially and economically weak and voiceless groups will frequently be excluded from the consultation process.
In societies where community councils and local political bodies are largely run by men, or where men are considered to speak for the whole family, it will frequently be the case that most women will have little involvement in the selection, design or management of projects”.

(3) In order to ensure that women will contribute to 40 Accountability Upside Down IV.
the development plans of their country’s government, as well as to those of donors, it will be vital to increase resources that directly target the strengthening of women’s involvement in civil society organisations and women’s participation in the policy processes related to development plans and programmes.

It is also crucial that women are supported to build and sustain their own organisations, particularly organisations that help organise women living in poverty.
A women’s union, such as SEWA in India, is just one example showing how organisation and empowerment help to direct national and international interventions for women living in poverty in more effective and useful ways.

It is important that civil society organisations are sustained independent from government pressure.
While budget support and sector wide to support government support aim administrations, the strengthening of civil society should be promoted through separate instruments that are directly aimed at strengthening women’s organisations and the participation of women in interest groups.

This will, in turn, help to strengthen the social fabric – and will empower women in society, and, as such, will strengthen the informal accountability of development processes.

4.
4.

Indicators to measure progress on gender equality The introduction of the new aid mechanisms, particularly direct budget support, limits donors’ possibilities to influence the way in which recipient countries allocate money, including the resources given to the promotion of gender equality whether through women-targeted activities and gender mainstreaming.
Although certain conditions can be placed on the spending of resources, the primary responsibility for determining how these funds should be used lies with the recipient government.

The combination of the new aid mechanisms and the strategy of mainstreaming make it increasingly difficult to evaluate how much attention and money is given to the promotion of gender equality in any given country.
Therefore, traditional mechanisms for evaluations focussing mainly on programmes themselves and the extent to which they support activities intended to advance gender equality, are becoming increasingly ineffective.

The recent strategic changes in the allocation of development aid and the promotion of gender equality require more results-based evaluation, which can clearly determine their effectiveness.
This is not only necessary for assuring that objectives are being achieved, but also to give greater public confidence in the new mechanisms and crucially allow for adequate accountability.

The growing need for evaluations applies to all aspects involved, including gender equality.

However, the task of measuring the impact of development aid on gender equality and the empowerment of women is particularly difficult, as at present there is no agreed set of indicators for its measurement.
Numerous institutions have developed sets of indicators to measure gender equality, but these are all different.

The most widely used index on gender equality is the UNDP Gender-Related Development Index (GDI).

The GDI index uses the same variables as the human development index (HDI): life expectancy, educational attainment and income.

The difference between the two is that the GDI adjusts the average achievement of each country to account for inequalities between men and women.
Together with the GDI, a GDI-rank worldwide country ranking is also presented.

By producing other indexes, such as the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), and other indicators the UNDP system is extremely comprehensive and looks at many different aspects of gender inequality in 41 IV.

Accountability Upside Down considerable detail.

It does, therefore, provide an important indication of the level of gender equality in any given country.
However, as it is based on the latest available data, the UNDP index does not consider progression or regression in gender equality over specific periods of time.

Considering the changes in aid mechanisms highlighted in this report, particularly within the context of measuring their contribution to the MDGs, this indication of regression/progression is of particular importance.
Social Watch has devised a specific gender equality index which analyses progress and regression through a defined set of indicators over time.

The Social Watch Gender Equality Index produces a gender ranking that is constructed by combining the internal ranking of each of the three dimensions of the index: education; economic activity; and empowerment (participation in political and economic decision-making).
Social Watch’s gender equality ranking can be consulted in the annexes.

5.

Key Findings The new aid architecture is only ‘new’ if it shifts from conditionality to genuine ownership and internal accountability in partner countries.

This will also include a major challenge, and potential, for the inclusion of gender equality in that context.

Within the overall conception of a new aid architecture women need to be adequately include as political actors and involved in the definition of these frameworks.
The role of women as elected representatives in national parliament is an increasingly important aspect for ensuring that gender equality is ensured in national development plans – and hence in Country Strategy Papers or PRSPs – as thus in strategies of external donors.

 National governments play a key role in the development of national development plans and with national administrations in their implementation.
National govern- ments and administrations are both key actors in negotiations with external donors.

In order to ensure that gender equality objectives are effectively reflected in such negotiations, it is essential that women play a fully represented role in decision-making and implementation, in government and in administrations.

Measures to ensure that women are effectively represented at these levels are therefore crucially important.
It is crucial that women living in poverty are actively engaged in the determination of development plans, are consulted, and are involved in the implementation of programmes aiming at poverty eradication.

Internal accountability requires an active and vibrant civil society, to ensure that elected representatives are genuinely reflecting the priorities of citizens.
Particulary in countries where women are playing subordinate roles in government, in the administration and in national parliaments it is essential that their role through civil society organisations is strengthened.

This should be done independently from any government pressure and ideally through independent channels.

Accountability also requires adequate data that can reflect on whether progress has been made in key priority areas and identify if real impact is being achieved.
This report presents a Gender Equality Index developed by Social Watch, which allows measurement of progress or regression in gender equality in any one country.

42 Conclusions V. T he year 2005 will be important for the international agendas of poverty eradication and gender equality.

Progress towards the implementation of both the BPfA and the Millennium Declaration will be reviewed.
These review processes will facilitate the identification of the most crucial shortcomings and challenges as well as best practices for the realisation of both agendas.

Numerous discussions surrounding these processes will focus on progress towards achieving the BPfA and the MDGs in developing countries.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women also obliges parties to pursue gender equality in the context of international cooperation.
This report has attempted to contribute to these debates by highlighting the linkages between the Beijing agenda and the review of the Millennium Declaration.

The MDGs express a concrete agenda of goals derived from the Millennium Declaration, and this report focuses in particular on the connection between the “global partnership for development” called for in MDG 8 and various commitments in relation to development assistance made in the BPfA.
Recent years have seen considerable changes and emerging trends in donors’ mechanisms for external development assistance not least in the promotion of gender equality.

Therefore, this report has focused on these changes and trends, not only to highlight shortcomings and challenges but also to indicate windows of opportunity for the advancement of gender equality in the context of development cooperation.

and more country-level based ways of programming.


Gender equality and gender mainstreaming The conceptual evolution from Women in Development to Women and Development and then to Gender and Development has been matched by a shift in actual gender policy from an exclusive focus on women-specific activities to a combined strategy of the former with gender mainstreaming in all development policy areas.
By analysing the four stages of the policy process - overall legal and policy framework; sectoral budget allocation; programming and implementation; and evaluation and impact, it has been shown that at the level of the overall legal and policy framework, most donors make extensive commitments to the promotion of gender equality in their development assistance.
In the majority of gender policies in the context of development cooperation, gender mainstreaming is correctly understood as a complementary measure to women-specific activities and not simply as a replacement.

Furthermore, most policies on gender in development present gender mainstreaming as a strategy towards achieving the goal of gender equality and not as an aim in itself.
However, in contrast to these, looking more broadly at overall development policies, gender mainstreaming is regularly misunderstood.

This has led to a de-prioritization of the explicit objective of gender equality.

The difference between policy commitments and actual implementation of gender equality issues in external development assistance was further explored in the section on new aid modalities.
It exclusively focused on recent changes in the mechanisms through which development assistance is provided and established that project-based support and structural adjustment are being replaced by SWAPs, budget support Further, gender mainstreaming has made it increasingly difficult to track financial resources allocated to the promotion of gender equality in the context of development cooperation.
Additionally, in most cases, comprehensive commitments made at the policy level are often not adequately followed through to the budget and programming, and implementation and evaluation stages.

There is frequently a marked gap between 43 V. Conclusions rhetoric and actual action on the ground.
The analysis has also found that most development policies and some policies on gender in development are problematic as they view gender equality merely as a tool for achieving other ends, including poverty eradication, and do not see it as an objective in itself.

Tracking budget allocation The OECD/DAC have a separate category for recording how much of a donor’s ODA goes to the promotion of gender equality.

The figures for the sample of donors analysed were around 0.1%, thus alarmingly low.
It was pointed out that the reason for this is rather complex and partly to do with the fact that various activities that benefit women, also fall within other sectors, and hence are not recorded under the OECD/DAC “Women in Development” category.
The difficulty of measuring which activities or programmes benefit women or promote gender equality has led the OECD/DAC to develop a, Gender Equality Marker, which allows donors to record if activities have the achievement of gender equality as an explicit goal – even if this is not the main or only focus of the project or programme.

The increasing use of the Gender Equality Marker is to be welcomed.
Results from the OECD/DAC indicate that the marker is mostly used in social policy areas, and less so in productive areas, transport and private sector development.

At present, the Gender Equality Marker only measures the policy objectives of programmes, and does not give information about the actual impact of programmes on gender equality.
However, some donors are extending the use of the Gender Equality Marker to programme implementation and evaluation, Tracking budget allocation towards gender equality in Sector Wide Approaches and budget support is almost impossible.

For this reason new mechanisms for measuring whether results are being achieved need to be developed.

This report presents the Social Watch gender index as one specific tool that measures progress or regression in gender equality through a set of indicators.
Programming and implementation The assessment of the implementation stage of the policy process has focused on country strategy papers and institutional structures and has shown that there is a lot of room for improvement in these areas.

Although guidelines for CSPs generally include references to gender issues, they are often optional and do not give much guidance on how gender should be mainstreamed in the drafting of CSPs.

This weakness is reflected in a number of CSPs which were analysed.
Most donors’ CSPs do not include gender in a consistent and adequate manner.

Evaluations and real impact The guidelines for donors’ evaluations of their development assistance programmes rarely include criteria on gender equality as a compulsory matter.

Guidelines generally fail to give any explanation of how gender issues should be evaluated.
The infrequency of evaluations, particularly of country evaluations, makes it difficult to establish whether programmes have been implemented according to plan and whether objectives have been achieved.

In evaluations available and looked at in the framework of this study, it was clear that gender is hardly ever considered in any detail and where it is evaluated, attention is given to institutional procedures rather than to actual results on the ground.
While many donors currently give less emphasis to budget allocation, and more to real impact, it was difficult to see what evidence is available to trace the real impact of the programmes.

This 44 Conclusions V. raises questions about the transparency and accountability of donors.
Gender in the new Aid Architecture Sector Wide Approaches and gender mainstreaming could be an effective combination as SWAPs provide space for a specific women’s sector as well as mainstreaming of gender across all other sectors.
However, the current situation suggests that this potential is not being realised as gender equality is not recognized as a sector in itself, and gender mainstreaming across sectors is usually poorly implemented – even if there are also some very good results in a number of the countries studied.

Furthermore, budget support could have a positive impact on the promotion of gender equality, being an important means for recipient countries to pursue the effective achievement of the MDGs and the BPfA.
However, effectiveness of this depends on how strategies for achieving the MDGs and the BPfA are implemented and if the currently limited inclusion of gender equality concerns will be improved and included in all the MDGs.

Programming at the country level could enhance the promotion of gender equality.
The holistic and comprehensive nature of country programming allows for an assessment of the overall status of gender equality in a country and provides an important space for the formulation of commitments to gender equality and gender mainstreaming at the country level.

The realisation of this, however, clearly depends on the content of these strategies, which is, in turn, influenced by those who are responsible for drafting them.
Accountability upside down New aid modalities looking at a new partnership between donor and recipient countries, are based on the principles of promoting ownership and internal accountability.

The concept of “ownership” takes on new complexities if seen from a gender perspective.

Mere inclusion of recipient governments and some representatives of civil society are not enough to ensure the adequate representation of women’s concerns.
To achieve ownership in the true sense of the word, efforts must be made to strengthen the inclusion of women at governmental level and at the level of civil society, as well as in parliaments.

It is crucial that processes of ownership are genuinely embedded in accountability to the people concerned, with formal accountability to parliaments and informal accountability through serious dialogue and cooperation with civil society organizations.
Such accountability requires the inclusion and participation of women at all these levels, within formal decision-making and administration of policies in government, as elected representatives in parliaments and within civil society organizations.
The strengthening of government accountability and administrative capacity for implementation requires a strong cohesive social structure and the fabric of civil society can be strengthened through direct support to groups and organizations representing and working with people living in poverty.

Direct support needs to be given to strengthen the participation and involvement of women through civil society organizations.
The measurement of progress or regression is an important tool to ensure that internal accountability can take place.

The Social Watch Gender Equality Index is a tool developed for this purpose and measures whether or not progress has been made to achieve gender equality, through a set of specific indicators.

45 VI.

Recommendations VI.


T owards a gender architecture for 1 Aid architecture has few, if any, mechanisms for accountability and even fewer mechanisms the implementation of national obligations to gender equality.

This is clearly shown in the absence of any investment in measures to advance gender equality and the lack of visible results on women’s empowerment in the context of development co-operation.
2 Increasing gender expertise or other technical measures cannot in themselves replace a lack of political will to close the implementation gap.

Therefore the establishment of a strong gender architecture for development co- operation should focus on two key aspects.

First, making sure that necessary authority and accountability exists within institutions to ensure gender equality is effectively and consistently promoted.
Secondly, the allocation of dedicated financial resources to support a gender architecture in which the political authority, political commitment and legal obligations exist for the implementation of gender equality.

Ensuring adequate levels of political authority and financial resources are the only way in which the negative cycle of de-prioritising gender can be reversed.
3 A Ministerial group should be gathered as a follow up to Beijing + 10 and in preparation of the Millennium Summit (MS) +5 to identify how the obligation to promote gender equality can be for advanced within the context of new aid modalities and advanced within MDG8.
Specifically, the meeting should set out a gender architecture the implementation of Goal 8 – in recognition of the failure of past and present strategies for inclusion of gender in development co-operation and the danger of further de-prioritisation of gender emerging from new aid modalities.

Promoting a gender architecture in the MD+5 Review 4 Poverty eradication requires the empowerment of women.
The MS +5 review must set a target for a compact between donors and their partners to allocate 10% of resources specifically dedicated to promoting gender equality and in support of specific activities to promote women’s empowerment.

This is absolutely essential in order to ensure involvement of women in the new aid modalities, such as sector wide approaches and budget support – an involvement which is currently lacking.
5 The MS +5 review should specifically address the crucial linkages between poverty eradication and gender equality as established at the Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development, the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Millennium Summit.

In his report the UN Secretary General should explicitly address how gender equality can be achieved within the new aid architecture and in the context of MDG 8.

46 AX Recommendations VI.


6 The new aid architecture focuses on governments almost to exclusion of all others.

Civil Society Organisations are often excluded from the aid modalities – even though they are crucial actors in eradicating poverty and in enabling the implementation of the MDGs at local level.

The MS+5 Review must address the question of how civil society organisations, including women’s organisations, are supported in their actions to eradicate poverty.
Overcoming the implementation gap 7 Gender mainstreaming is a twin-track approach, including specific activities focusing on promoting women’s empowerment and ensuring all other actions contribute to gender equality.

More emphasis needs to be given to specific actions taken to promote gender equality, and to tracking these through instruments (in particular the OECD/ DAC, CRS WID tracking).
In addition instruments need to be developed to monitor whether mainstreaming is implemented through the programming process (programming, PRSPs, Country Strategy Papers) 8 When a strong gender architecture is in place, and gender equality is pursued with an adequate level of political authority, human resources can be an important element to ensure that the new aid architecture adequately addresses gender equality.
The gender expertise of donors and their partners should be enhanced, and gender capacities in development need to be strengthened and supported at all levels.

9 Strengthening local gender advocates is essential for ensuring that gender equality issues are addressed in the new aid architecture.

This should also promote greater use of local gender expertise, with a view to strengthening the visibility and power of the constituency promoting gender equality in partner countries.
10 A DAC checklist should be developed to ensure that gender is mainstreamed throughout the programming process.

This should include compulsory consultation of all donors with gender equality advocates in respective partner countries and the compulsory inclusion of an analysis regarding gender equality in programming documents.

The latter should also include information on women’s participation in decision- making structures.
11 A gender check should be developed to ensure the inclusion of gender equality in national development plans.

These should include criteria for the process and should look at the involvement of women in the design and approval of plans.

12 Budget Support and Sector Wide Approaches (SWAPs) must be related to impact assessment that includes a measure of progress or regression through a Gender Equality Index.
47 AX Endnotes Foreword 1 Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, message on International Women’s Day, March 8 2003. http://www.un.org/events/ women/iwd/2003/sgmessage.html.

Introduction 1 2 Alliance 2015 is a group of European NGOs which jointly produce 2015 Watch.

The members are: Cesvi (Italy), Concern (Ireland), German Agro Action (Germany), Hivos, (Netherlands), Ibis (Denmark) and People in Need (Czech Republic).
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Beijing, Fourth World Conference on Women, 15 September 1995, A/CONF.177/20 (1995) and A/CONF.177/20/Add.1, 1995.

(hereinafter BPfA) 3 World Summit for Social Development, For All, 2000.

For a more detailed analysis see: Reisen, M., van, The Millennium Development Goals, A reality check on their past, present and future, 29 October, 2004.

11 BPfA, Strategic Objective A.1.

12 Ibid., para.

353.


13 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted Dec. 18, 1979, G.A.

Res.

34/180, U.N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Supp.

No.

46, at 193, arts.

10(h), 12.1, 12.2, and 14.2(b), U.N. Doc.

A/34/46, 1249 U.N.T.S.

13 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1981), article 14.2.a.

Closing the “implementation gap” 1 DAC, Guidelines on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Co- operation, 1999.
Programme of Action, Copenhagen, 1995. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/.

2 Japan International Cooperation Agency, Thematic Guidelines on Gender Mainstreaming/WID, available at: http:// www.jica.go.jp/english/global/wid/pdf/ guidelines.pdf.

3 Regulation (EC) 806/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on promoting gender equality in development cooperation, 21 April 2004.
4 European Commission and the European Parliament Communication COM (2001) 295, Programme for Action for the mainstreaming gender equality in development cooperation, 2001.

5 Ibid.

6 OECD/DCD/DAC, Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System , DCD/DAC (2002) 21, 30 July, 2002.

7 OECD/DAC, Analysis of aid in support of gender equality 1999-2003, 2005.

8 The EU and Sweden use the term “Country Strategy Papers”.
Canada refers to them as “Country Development Programming Frameworks”, Japan as “Country Assistance 4 United Nations Millennium Declaration, GA RES 55/2, 8 September, 2000.

5 Review of the Further Implementation of the World Summit for Social Development and the outcome of the twenty-fourth Special Session of the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, E/CN.5/2005/6, 1 December 2004, p. 44.

6 BPfA.
6 BPfA.

7 Review of the Further Implementation of the World Summit for Social Development and the outcome of the twenty-fourth Special Session of the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, E/CN.5/2005/6, 1 December 2004, p. 45.

8 Waldorf, L., Pathway to Gender Equality: CEDAW, Beijing and the MDGs, UNIFEM, 2004.

9 Ibid.
9 Ibid.

10 The IDGs were initially presented collectively by the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD and the UN General Secretary in A Better World 48 Endnotes AX Programmes”, the UK as “Country Assistance Plans”, the USA as “Country Strategic Plans”, the Netherlands as “Annual Plans” (‘jaarplannen’) and Germany as “Laenderkonzepte und Schwerpunktstrategepapiere”.

9 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers will be examined in detail in section III.
10 Automated Directives System (ADS) Functional Series 201 Planning, http:// www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/ 11 Ibid.

12 European Commission, Guidelines for the implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers, Secretariat of the IQSG, D(2001), 2001.

13 UK Department for International Development, Bangladesh: Country Assistance Plan 2003-2006, Women and Girls First, 2003.
14 Canadian International Development Agency, Programming Profile for Burkina Faso 2001 - 2011 Sahel and Côte d’Ivoire Program, Africa and the Middle East Branch, October 2000.

15 With the exception of Serbia, that is dominated by economic cooperation, the Ministry allowed researchers to examine the CSPs that had been requested for the purpose of this report.

16 OECD/DAC Peer Review of the Netherlands, 2001. http://www.oecd.org/document/20/ 0,2340,en_2649_201185_1914388_1_1_1_1,00.html.
17 Canadian International Development Agency, see: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/index-e.htm.

18 Reisen, M.,To the Farthest Frontier: Women’s Empowerment and an Expanding Europe, Eurostep, Karat, Wide, Social Watch, 2005.

19 European Commission, Evaluation in the European Commission: A Guide to the Evaluation Procedures and Structures currently operational in the Commission’s External Co-operation Programmes, D(2001), 2001.
20 Manual for gender-focused evaluation on ICT projects, available at: http:// www.apcwomen.org/gem/gem_tool/phase1/ step4.htm.

21 Reisen, M, van, 2015 Watch: The EU’s contribution to the Millennium Development Goals, Alliance 2015, 2004.

22 A case in point is Germany, where the available summaries of evaluations on Indonesia, Madagascar, Bolivia and South Africa, do not include gender aspects.
23 Braithwaite, M., Thematic Evaluation of the Integration of Gender in EC Development Co- operation with Third Countries, evaluation carried out for EuropeAid, Evaluation Department, March 2003.; Hunt, J.; Brouwers, R. Review on Gender and Evaluation, May 2003.

24 Watkins, F., Evaluation of DFID Development Assistance: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, 2004.

3.

Gender Equality and the New Aid Modalities 1 2 3 European Commission, EU Donor Atlas, May 2004.

Lawson, A.
Lawson, A.

& Booth, D., Evaluation Framework for General Budget Support: Report to the Management Group for the Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support, London: ODI, 2004.

Tarp; Hjertholm, (ed), Foreign Aid and Development: Lessons learnt and directions for the future, Development Economic Research Group (DERG), Denmark, 2000.; Killick, T., Gunatilaka, R.; Marr, A., Aid and the Political Economy of Policy Change London: Routeledge, 1998.; Dollar, D.; Svensson, J.
What Explains the Success or Failure of Structural Adjustment Porgrammes?, The Economic Journal, Vol.

110, October 2000.

49 AX Endnotes 4 Sparr, P., Mortgaging Women’ s Lives: Feminist Critiques of Structural Adjustment, (London: Zed Books, 1994).

5 UK Department for International Development,”Eliminating World poverty: a challenge for the 21st century”, White Paper on International Development, 1997. p.38.

1 2 The Ambassador of Mozambique, H.E.


Maria Manuela dos Santos Lucas, Presentation given at the Member States Gender Experts Meeting, Brussels, January 18, 2005.

Satterthwaite, D. The Millennium Development Goals and Local Process, International Institute for Environment and Development: London, 2003.

3 World Bank, A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies, Volume 1 Core Techniques and Cross-cutting issues, 2002.
6 Did the Beijing Platform for Action Accelerate Progress?, Beijing +10 NGO report, the Netherlands, 2005.

7 Reisen.

M., van, Invisible Children?

Towards Integration of Children’ s Rights in EU and Members States Development Co-operation Policies, Save the Children, 2002.

8 Development Assistance Committee, Gender Equality in Sector Wide Approaches, a reference guide, 2002.

9.

Interview with Brian Hammond (OECD-DAC) on 6 December 2004.
This does not imply that statistical evidence necessarily suggests that policies are not being implemented but rather that donor reporting systems have yet to be modified so as to capture this relatively new aid modality.

The DAC will be working to resolve this in 2005, but it will not yield the evidence until 2006 at the earliest.

10 Labonte, R.; Schrecker, T.; Sanders, D.; Meeus, W.; Fatal Indifference: The G 8, Africa, and Global Health, University of Cape Town Press/IDRC, 2004.

11 Ibid.
11 Ibid.

12 Bretton Woods Projects, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers PRSPs: a Rough Guide, April, 2003.

13 Sachs, J. Millennium Project, Task Force 3, Interim Report on Gender Equality, 1 February 2004. http:// www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/ tf3genderinterim.pdf; Zuckerman, E., Garrett, A., Do Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers Address Gender?, 2003.

4.

Accountability upside down 50 Bibliography AX A.I.D.
Policy Paper, U.S. Agency for International Development, Women in Development, Washington, D.C. 20523, 1982.

Automated Directives System (ADS) Functional Series 201 Planning, available at: http:// www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/.

Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Beijing, Fourth World Conference on Women, 15 September 1995, A/CONF.177/20 (1995) and A/ CONF.177/20/Add.1, 1995.
Braithwaite, M.,Thematic Evaluation of the Integration of Gender in EC Development Co- operation with Third Countries, EuropeAid Evaluation Department, March 2003.

Bretton Woods Projects, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers PRSPs: a Rough Guide, April 2003.

Budesministerium fuer Wirtschafliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Evaluierungsraster, 2002.

Guinea: Verwatung staerken - Armut bekaempfen.


Budesministerium fuer wirtschafliche Zusuammenarbeit und Entwicklung Evaluierung Indonesien, Dezentralisierung und Armutsbekaempfung - eine sinnvolle Kombination.

Budesministerium fuer wirtschafliche Zusuammenarbeit und Entwicklung Evaluierung Suedafrika: Kampf gegen Jugendarmut in Kapstadt.

Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act, 1985.
Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Institutional Trade Act, 1995.

Canadian International Development Agency, Annex 4 Guide for Preparing a Country Development Programming Framework: The Performance Measurement Framework, 2002.

Canadian International Development Agency, Bangladesh Country Development Programming Framework 2003-2008, 2003.
Bundesministerium fuer Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Koalitionsvertag zur Entwicklungspolitik der deutschen Bundesregierung in der 15.Legislaturperiode, 2002.

Canadian International Development Agency, Bolivia Country Development Programming Framework2003-2007, 2003.

Bundesministerium fuer Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Konzept für die Förderung der gleichberechtigten Beteiligungvon Frauen und Männern am EntwicklungsprozeßGleichberechtigungskonzept, 2001.
Budesministerium fuer wirtschafliche Zusuammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Poverty Reduction – a Global Responsibility Program of Action 2015 The German Government’s Contribution Towards Halving Extreme Poverty Worldwide, 2001.

Budesministerium fuer wirtschafliche Zusuammenarbeit und Entwicklung Evaluierung Bolivien: Beteiligung der Armen sichern- verantwortungsvolle Regierungsfuehrung staerken.
Budesministerium fuer wirtschafliche Zusuammenarbeit und Entwicklung Evaluierung Canadian International Development Agency, China Country Development Programming Framework 2004-2009, 2004.

Canadian International Development Agency, Corporate evaluation of the Caribbean Regional Program, 2004.

Canadian International Development Agency, Country Development Programming Framework: 2001-11, 2001.

Canadian International Development Agency, Evaluation of the CIDA Technology Transfer Program in Brazil, 2004.
Canadian International Development Agency, Frequently Asked Questions on CIDA’s Policy on Gender Equality, http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/ cida_ind.nsf/0/ CD6FE0A0282D1B228525672B007AB6B6?OpenDocument.

51 AX Bibliography Canadian International Development Agency, Guide for Preparing a Country Development Programming Framework (Draft), 2002.

Canadian International Development Agency, Joint Review of the CIDA-South Africa Program, 2004.
Canadian International Development Agency, Making a Difference in the World, 2002.

Canadian International Development Agency, Programming Profile for Burkina Faso 2001 - 2011 Sahel and Côte d’Ivoire Program, Africa and the Middle East Branch, 2000.

Christiansen, K.,The PRSP initiative: Multilateral Policy Change and the Role of Research, ODI Working Paper 216, June 2003.

Comité Interministériel de la Coopération Internationale et du Développement, Relevé de Conclusions, July 2004.
Commission of the European Communities, Guidelines for implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers, Secretariat of the IQSG, D (2002), 2001.

Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament, Programme of Action for the mainstreaming of gender equality in Community Development Cooperation COM(2001) 295, 2001.
Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament, Translating the Monterrey Consensus into practice: the contribution by the European Union, COM (2004) 150 final, 2004.

Commission of the European Communities, Guidelines for the use of Indicators in country performance assessment, 2002.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted Dec. 18, 1979, G.A.

Res.

34/180, U.N. GAOR, 34th Sess., Supp.

No.

46, at 193, arts.


10(h), 12.1, 12.2, and 14.2(b), U.N. Doc.

A/34/46, 1249 U.N.T.S.

13, entered into force Sept. 3, 1981.

DAC, Guidelines on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Co-operation, 1999.

Department for International Development, UK, Eliminating World poverty: a challenge for the 21st century”, White Paper on International Development, 1997.

Department for International Development, UK, Poverty Reduction Budget Support, a DFID Policy Paper, 2004.
Development Assistance Committee, Gender Equality in Sector Wide Approaches, a reference guide, 2002.

Did the Beijing Platform for Action Accelerate Progress?, Beijing +10 NGO report, the Netherlands, 2005.

Dollar, D.; Svensson, J.

What Explains the Success or Failure of Structural Adjustment Porgrammes?, The Economic Journal, Vol.

110, October 2000.
110, October 2000.

Dutch Ministry of Finance, Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaten van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (V) voor het jaar 2003, 2004, http://rijksbegroting.minfin.nl/.

European Commission, EU Donor Atlas, May 2004.

European Commission, Evaluation in the European Commission: A Guide to the Evaluation Procedures and Structures currently operational in the Commission’s External Co-operation Programmes, D(2001), 2001.
European Commission, Guidelines for the implementation of the Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers, Secretariat of the IQSG, D(2001), 2001.

European Commission, Programme for Action for the mainstreaming gender equality in development cooperation, COM (2001) 295, 2001.

European Community, Bangladesh- European Community Country Strategy Paper and Indicative Programme 2002-2006, 2002.

European Community, Malawi-European Community Country Strategy paper and Indicative Programme 2001-2007, 2002.
European Community, South Africa - European 52 Bibliography AX Community Country Strategy Paper and Multi- annual Indicative Programme 2003-2005, 2003.; Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development, (2001), Programme for Action 2015: The German Government’s Contribution To Halving Extreme Poverty Worldwide, (Bonn: BMZ),2001.

Forster, J.; Stokke, O.

(ed.

), Policy Coherence in Development Cooperation, Frank Cass: London, 1999.
Hunt, J.; Brouwers, R. Review on Gender and Evaluation, May 2003.

IDA and IMF, Review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Approach: Main Findings, 2002.

Japan International Cooperation Agency, ODA Charter, 2003.

Japan International Cooperation Agency, ODA Evaluation Guidelines, 2003.

Japan International Cooperation Agency, Mid-Term Objectives 2003-2007, 2003.

Japan International Cooperation Agency, Mid-term Plan, 2003.
Killick, T., Gunatilaka, R.; Marr, A., Aid and the Political Economy of Policy Change, London: Routeledge, 1998.

Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, message on International Women’s Day, http://www.un.org/events/women/iwd/2003/ sgmessage.html, March 8, 2003.

Labonte, R.; Schrecker, T.; Sanders, D.; Meeus, W.; Fatal Indifference: The G 8, Africa, and Global Health, University of Cape Town Press/IDRC, 2004.

Lawson, A.
Lawson, A.

& Booth D., Evaluation Framework for General Budget Support: Report to the Management Group for the Joint Evaluation of General Budget Support, London: ODI, 2004.

Lister, S., The Relationship between Governments and Donors: Aid Instruments and Service Delivery, DFID Worksheet on Improving Service Delivery in developing Countries, 2002.

Manual for gender-focused evaluation on ICT projects, available at: http://www.apcwomen.org/ gem/gem_tool/phase1/step4.htm.
Millennium Project, Task Force 3, Interim Report on Gender Equality, 1 February (2004), available at: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/ tf3genderinterim.pdf.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France, L’évaluation rétrospective 2001-2002, 2003.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France, Stratégies due Minisére des Affairs étrangères pour la promotion des droits de la femme et de l‘égalité homme- femme, 2004.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France, Toward globalisation with solidarity: Social development in international cooperation programmers, 2004.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Millennium Development Goal 8: Developing a Global Partnership for Development, The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Government Bill 2002/03:122 Shared Responsibility: Sweden’s Global Development Policy, 2003. http:// www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/02/56/ 9a6ca06f.pdf.

MWH Consortium, Evaluation of the European Commission’s Country Strategy for Bangladesh, 2003.

MWH Consortium, Evaluation of the European Commission’s Country Strategy for Malawi, 2003.

MWH Consortium, Evaluation of the European Commission’s Country Strategy for Maroc, 2003.
MWH Consortium, Evaluation of the European Commission’s Country Strategy for South Africa, 2003.

Nussbaum, M. in Baghramian, M.; Ingram, A., Pluralism: The Philosophy and Politics of Diversity, Routledge, 2000.

53 AX Bibliography OECD/DAC, Analysis of aid in support of gender equality 1999-2003, 2005.

OECD/DAC, Gender Equality: Moving Towards Sustainable, People-Centered Development, Policy Statement, 1995.
OECD/DAC, Guidelines for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Co- operation, 1999.

OECD/DAC Peer Review of the Netherlands, 2001. http://www.oecd.org/document/20/ 0,2340,en_2649_201185_1914388_1_1_1_1,00.html.

OECD/DAC Peer Review of the United States of America, 2002. http://www.oecd.org/document/2/ 0,2340,en_2649_201185_2765954_1_1_1_1,00.html.

OECD/DAC, Progress towards gender equality in the perspective of Beijing +5, available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/9/2755262.pdf.
OECD/DAC, Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Co-operation, available at: http://www.eldis.org/static/ DOC1282.htm.

OECD/DCD/DAC, Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System , DCD/DAC (2002) 21, 30 July, 2002.

Maxwell, S., More aid?

Yes – and use it to reshape architecture, Overseas Development Institute, 2005.

Regulation (EC) 806/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of on promoting gender equality in development cooperation.

2004.
2004.

Reisen, M., van; Ussar, M., To the Farthest Frontier: Women’s Empowerment and an Expanding Europe, Eurostep, Karat, Wide, Social Watch, 2005.

Reisen.

M., van, Invisible Children?

Towards Integration of Children’s Rights in EU and Members States’ Development Co-operation Policies, Save the Children, 2002.

Reisen, M.,van, The Millennium Development Goals, A reality check on their past, present and future, 29 October, 2004.
Reisen, M., van, 2015 Watch, The EU’s Contribution to the Millennium Development goals, Special Focus: HIV/AIDS, published by Alliance2015 2004. Review of the Further Implementation of the World Summit for Social Development and the outcome of the twenty-fourth Special Session of the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, 1 December 2004, E/CN.5/2005/6.

Sachs, J., Investing in Development: A practical plan to achieve the MDGs, New York, 2005.
Satterthwaite, D. The Millennium Development Goals and Local Process, International Institute for Environment and Development: London, 2003.

Sector-Wide Approach support group, The sector wide approach: organising principle for development cooperation, 2004.

Sparr, P. Mortgaging Women’ s Lives: Feminist Critiques of Structural Adjustment, London: Zed Books, 1994.

Swedish International Development Agency, Action progamme for promoting Equality between men and women in partner countries, 1997.
Swedish International Development Agency, Country program for Swedish support 2003-2005, 2003.

Country Strategy for development cooperation Mozambique, 2002-2006, 2003.

Swedish International Development Agency , Country strategy for development cooperation with Bangladesh, 2002-2004, 2002.

Swedish International Development Agency, Country Strategy for Development Cooperation Mozambique, 2002-2006, 2003.

Swedish International Development Agency, Evaluation Plan, 2004.
Swedish International Development Agency, Evaluation Policy,1999.

54 Bibliography AX Swedish International Development Agency, Guidelines for Country Strategies in Swedish Development Co-operation, 2002.

Swedish International Development Agency, Looking back, moving forward: Evaluation Manual, 2004.

Swedish International Development Agency, Mainstreaming Gender Equality, SIDA’s support for the promotion of gender equality in partner countries, Country Report Bangladesh, 2002.
Swedish International Development Agency, Mainstreaming Gender Equality, SIDA’s support for the promotion of gender equality in partner countries, Country Report Nicaragua, 2002.

Swedish International Development Agency, Regional Strategy South America, 2003-2007, 2003.

Swedish International Development Agency, Sweden’s Policy for Global Development, 2002.
Tarp; Hjertholm (eds) Foreign Aid and Development: Lessons learnt and directions for the future, Development Economic Research Group (DERG), Denmark, 2000.

The Ambassador of Mozambique, H.E.

Maria Manuela dos Santos Lucas, Presentation given at the Member States Gender Experts Meeting, Brussels, January 18, 2005.

The Netherlands, Beijing +10 NGO report: Did the Beijing Platform for Action Accelerate Progress?, 2005.

Treaty Establishing the European Community, as amended by subsequent Treaties, 1957.
UK Department for International Development, International Development Act, 2002.

UK Department for International Development, Ghana: Country Assistance Plan 2003-2006, 2003.

UK Department for International Development, Malawi: Country Assistance Plan 2003-2005, 2003.

UK Department for International Development, Poverty Elimination and the Empowerment of Women-Strategies for achieving the international development targets, 2000.
UK Department for International Development, Statistics for International Development, 2003.

UK Department for International Development, Western Balkans - Regional Assistance Plan 2004/ 2005-2008/2009, 2004.

UK Department for International Development, White Paper on International Development, 1997 & 2000.

United Nations Millennium Declaration, GA Res 55/ 2, 8 September, 2000.

US Agency for International Development, Assistance Strategy for Central Asia 2001-2005, 2001.
US Agency for International Development, Cambodia Interim Strategic Plan 2002-2005, 2002.

US Agency for International Development, Foreign Assistance Act, 1961.

US Department of State, Strategic Plan 1997, revised: 2000.

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, 2004.

US Agency for International Development Nigeria Country Strategic Plan 2004 – 2009, 2004.

UK Department for International Development, Bangladesh: Country Assistance Plan 2003-2006, “Women and Girls First”, 2003.
US Agency for International Development, Paraguay Strategic Plan for 2001-2005, 2001.

UK Department for International Development, Comprehensive Spending Review, 2004.

US Agency for International Development, Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal year, 2003.

55 AX Bibliography Waldorf, L., Pathway to Gender Equality: CEDAW, Beijing and the MDGs, UNIFEM, 2004.

Watkins, F., Evaluation of DFID Development Assistance: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, 2004.
World Bank, A Sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies, Volume 1 Core Techniques and Cross- cutting issues, 2002.

World Bank, Engendering Development Through Gender Equality Rights, Resources and Voices: Summary, 2001.

World Bank, The Gender Dimension of Bank Assistance: an Evaluation of Results, 2002.

World Summit for Social Development, Programme of Action, Copenhagen, 1995. http://www.un.org/ esa/socdev/wssd/.

Zuckerman, E., Garrett, A., Do Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers Address Gender?, 2003.
Electronic Sources Alliance 2015: www.alliance2015.org Candadian International Development Agency: http:/ /www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/index- e.htm.
European Union: www.europa.eu.int International Development Statistics online database on aid and other resource flows, available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/17/ 5037721.htm Millennium Project: http:// www.unmillenniumproject.org Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: www.oecd.org Social Watch: www.socialwatch.org United Nations Development Fund for Women: www.unifem.org 56 Annex 2: Social Watch Legend & Methodology AX Sources: UNESCO Website Database, October 2004 (www.unesco.org); World Development Indicators 2004, World Bank and World Education Report, 1998 (UNESCO), UN Statistics Division, Human Development Report 2004 (UNDP), UNDP and IPU database (October 2005) HUMAN RIGHTS The right to non discrimination on the base of sex is enshrined in: UDHR - Art.
2 & 26 IESCR - Art.

3 & 7 CEDAW - Art.

7, 10 & 11 CRC - Art.
29 INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS Gender equity is considered in: Millennium Development Goals – Goal 3 World Summit for Social Development Fourth World Conference on Women - Beijing Platform for Action - Critical Areas of Concern LEGEND Progress or Regression: >>>> >> = << <<<< Significant progress Slight progress Stagnant Slight regression Significant regression Current situation and Current situation related to world context (for each indicator): 4 3 2 1 Countries in progress Countries above average Countries below average Countries in regression UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
CERD: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965.

IESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

CEDAW: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979.

CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.
Methodology and data management The use of electronic media has made it considerably easier to access available data and other information,1 but many of the deficiencies that Social Watch has signalled in previous years continue to make it difficult to carry out comparative analysis on the evolution of the indicators.2 The first choice continues to be the most recent source provided by any of the international institutions that are generally recognised as providing reliable data, even if some changes appear surprising and could be interpreted in different ways, or be seen to result from a variety of causes.
In those cases in which the most recent data were not available from these institutions, the choice made from among the alternatives on offer is a “secondary” source whose data for previous years most closely and consistently matched the data published by the acknowledged authority on the subject.

If several alternative sources are available, the source chosen is that which is best-known and regarded as being (or basing its information on)3 the best authority on the topic in question.
If none of the above criteria could be applied, the source chosen is that offering data from the largest number of countries.

In cases in which the data was related to a period (for instance, 1995-1997) rather than to a single year, the data is assigned to the year falling in the middle of the period (which in the above example would be 1996) in order to allow for the calculation of the rate of variation.
Measuring countries’ present situation and the rate of change In each of the thematic areas the information is displayed in relation to the chosen indicators.
In general, each indicator covers a number of columns: the first and second columns show the country’s initial situation (data from 1995 or the closest possible year), the third and fourth columns show the latest available data, the fifth column shows progress or regression, and the sixth column shows the current situation related to the world context.
57 AX Annex 1: Social Watch Legend & Methodology In order to assess the evolution of each indicator, two aspects have been taken into account: the initial and final levels, and the rate of change of progress or regression.

The situation of a country according to each indicator is given by the last available value for that indicator.

Each country is assigned a value from 1 to 4 (1 indicates the worst case and 4 indicates best case) according to the distribution of values for each indicator4.
The value for all of the indicators for that area is then given by the average of the values for each country.5 In this way, a self- referential ranking is obtained, independent of the distance from the goals or from specific conceptually defined levels.

This ranking was only applied to those countries with information for at least half the indicators that make up the overall thematic area.
To avoid giving a false impression of accuracy, the average values were rescaled6 to create four country categories: n Countries in progress n Countries above average n Countries below average n Countries in regression A fifth group is also presented showing information for those countries which lack sufficient data to be included in the ranking (Countries with insufficient data to summarise the area).

Within each group the countries are listed in alphabetical order.
The rate of change for each country is obtained by considering the variation in the values of the indicator over the time period within which the measurements are made.

The quotient between the variation in the indicator and the time period reflects the rate of change for the item in question.

The values for this rate of change have also been rescaled in sections (using a reference scale from 1 to 5), which are presented in the tables in the column entitled “Progress or regression”.
A series of symbols is used to illustrate the changes in order to make the information easier to read and to avoid the false impression of accuracy given by a numerical value.

The categories defined in this rescaling are as follows: >>>> >> = << <<<< Significant progress Slight progress Stagnant Slight regression Significant regression “Significant progress” applies to those countries which are progressing at rates above the average for all countries making progress.
“Slight progress” applies to those countries which are progressing at rates below the average for all countries making progress.

“Stagnant” refers to those countries where no changes (or quantitatively insignificant changes) have been recorded over the period in question.

“Slight regression” applies to those countries which are regressing at rates below the average for all countries regressing (i.e.

they are regressing more slowly).


“Significant regression” applies to those countries which are regressing at rates above the average for all countries regressing (i.e.

they are regressing more rapidly).

Gender Equality Ranking Gender equity is a complex concept involving multiple dimensions of both a quantitative and qualitative nature, for many of which there are no data records available.
(For more detailed information on each dimension of the ranking see Social Watch Report, 2004) The last Social Watch Report (2004) includes a ranking of those countries for which data is available in terms of the different dimensions selected as indicators in the thematic area relating to gender equity.

The dimensions chosen are: education, economic activity and participation in political and economic decision-making (“empowerment”).
The ranking was constructed by combining the internal ranking 58 Annex 1: Social Watch Legend & Methodology AX for each of the above-mentioned dimensions in a single final index of countries.

The challenge faced was how to unify the different dimensions along which gender equity has been measured, in order to obtain a more comprehensive ranking than that provided for each dimension separately or in traditional indexes.
The final index measuring gender equality constructed by Social Watch for the 2004 report, takes into account the three dimensions of education, economic activity and empowerment, sorting countries into groups on the basis of the average values of their indicators.

To construct the table ranking countries according to their performance in the dimensions relating to gender equity, use is made of the same method that Social Watch uses in other areas.
That is, the values shown relate to the average of each country’s performance in the different dimensions of analysis, which in this case are: education, economic activity and empowerment.

The unified index is calculated by combining each country’s values for the component dimensions in an unweighted average.

Each country is classified in one of four categories according to the distribution of each indicator.
The average for the area is calculated on the basis of the average of the values resulting from that classification.

This first scaling exercise eliminates the gaps between values and standardises their distribution.

The general ranking therefore provides no more than a basic indexing criterion referring to countries’ relative positions and not to the indicators’ conceptual levels.

When countries share the same relative position, they are listed in alphabetical order.
There follows an updating of the Gender Equality Ranking and its calculation as of November 2004 for the countries considered in this report.
59 AX Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking 60 Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking AX 61 AX Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking 62 Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking AX 63 AX Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking 64 Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking AX 65 AX Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking 66 Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking AX 67 AX Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking 68 Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking AX 69 AX Annex 2: Gender Equality Ranking 70 Annex 3: Millenium Development Goals AX 71 AX Annex 3: Millenium Development Goals 72 Annex 4: DAC List of Aid Recipients AX 73 AX Annex 5: Documents researched for section II 74 Annex 5: Documents researched for section II AX 75 AX Annex 6: Documents researched for section II AX 76