INPUTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE ROUND TABLE 3: Harmonising and doing business differently at the country level - rationalising aid delivery, division of labour HIGH LEVEL FORUM 3 – ACCRA 2008 BRIEF ISSUE PAPER ON HARMONISATION AND GENDER EQUALITY 1. Introduction The 3rd High Level Forum that will take place in Accra in September 2008 will have 9 Round Tables (RT), providing space for in-depth dialogue on selected topics. This Brief Issue Paper was prepared by a group of women’s rights organisations: WIDE, AWID, DAWN, and FEMNET 1 , to give inputs on harmonisation and gender equality for the preparation of RT3. This document provides a brief review of some key concerns highlighted by women’s rights organisations on the implementation of the Paris Declaration Principle of Harmonisation. It also introduces proposals to promote further harmonisation of gender equality and women’s empowerment and presents a list of possible speakers to be considered in the design of the RT3. The ToRs of the RT 3 provide a good base to prepare the discussions, following the Generic ToRs for the Roundtables 2 in integrating the so-called cross-cutting issues 3 . We strongly suggest to adopt the proposals put forward at the Dublin + 1 Workshop to substitute the term ”cross-cutting issue” by ”policy priority issue” or ”central goals to development”, as the continued use of the term ”cross-cutting” perpetuates their marginalisation. 4 Environmental sustainability, gender equality and human rights are not a parallel debate of aid and development policies, but central development goals. 5
1
This Brief Issue Paper was coordinated by Cecilia Alemany, with contributions from Lydia Alpizar, Fernanda Hopenhaym, and Michele Knab (AWID), Nerea Craviotto (WIDE), Therese Nyondiko (FEMNET) and Gigi Francisco (DAWN). 2 OECD Roundtables Generic Terms of Reference, December 17, 2007. 3 GENDERNET organized a first workshop to discuss the so-called cross-cutting issues in Dublin in 2007. The key messages from the Dublin workshop were: Gender equality, human rights and environmental sustainability: are fundamental cornerstones for achieving good development results; can be advanced through implementing the principles and partnership commitments of the Paris Declaration; and must be harnessed to advance the implementation of the Paris Declaration. In 2008, DFID and Gendernet followed this initiative in the Dublin + 1 workshop, on March 12 and 13 in London. 4 Irish Aid, Joint Assistance Strategies Brief. 5 See the Recommendations from the International Consultation of Women’s Organisations and Networks and Aid Effectiveness organized by the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), Women in Development Europe (WIDE) in Ottawa at the end of January 2008. Download from: http://www.awid.org/go.php?pg=ottawa_recommendations
1
2. Challenges for the implementation of the Harmonisation principle from the women’s rights perspective 6 Challenge 1: Harmonisation under the Paris Declaration framework is mostly related to management and procedures and not enough to development outcomes, human rights and gender equality In its current form, the Paris Declaration gives short shrift to human rights, women’s rights and democratic governance concerns in the overall effort to scale up aid and achieve donor harmonisation and alignment. 7 The harmonisation processes that have been taking place since the PD principles started to be implemented have shown that it hasn’t yet proved to be effective. There is need for much more work to improve development impacts that benefit the most disadvantaged. The present investment in harmonisation is not an end in itself but should be thought in relation to results on substantive issues such as gender equality and women’s empowerment, environmental sustainability and Human Rights. 8 Besides technical procedures, harmonisation should also mean that donor and partner countries align and harmonise their aid and development policies to regional and international Human Rights and Gender Equality agreements; this interpretation should be integrated in the discussions of the RT 3. Challenge 2: Harmonisation can reduce the bargaining power of partner countries and strengthen a donor-driven approach Donors must not use the harmonisation principle to strengthen the imposition of conditionalities. Although, harmonisation reduces multiple accountabilities, it can threaten the independence of partner countries and reduce their bargaining power, as they will be negotiating with all the donors together. Mechanisms as the Joint Assistance Strategies (JAS) can be an opportunity to ensure donors’ alignment with country priorities, provided that the principle of national leadership and democratic ownership is respected. Concerning the integration of policy priority issues (such as gender equality) into development and aid practices, JAS also provide an opportunity, if these initiatives come from national demands put forward by governments and civil society organisations, particularly women’s groups. The complexity of coordinating between donors, partner governments and civil society organisations can be seen as a cost and not as a way to improve democratic ownership and the harmonisation efforts, as highlighted by donors regarding the efforts to establish a basket fund in Sierra Leone 9 . A multi-
7
DE RENZIO, Paolo et al. (2006), Aid Effectiveness and human rights: Strengthening the implementation of the Paris Declaration, a Human Rights perspective on Ownership, GOVNET, September 2006. 8 Irish Aid, Joint Assistance Strategies Brief. 9 Accountability in fragile situation: Sierra Leone case study, March 2008, Joanna May M’Cormack, Dublin Workshop.
2
stakeholders approach should be a priority in the harmonisation processes. Challenge 3: Harmonisation can result in a narrow framework for the inclusion of gender equality There is a risk that harmonisation processes will result in a reduction of the development agenda, based on the policies of the least progressive donors, giving little space for the inclusion of gender equality issues. New spaces for dialogue between women’s organisations and donors are needed to facilitate the inclusion of gender equality considerations into donor practices and to ensure a more coordinated approach to gender equality in development assistance. Moreover, harmonisation efforts must be framed within existing international Human Rights and Gender Equality agreements, which should be the platforms for those efforts. The risk of a narrow framework is reflected in some way in the current monitoring system of the Harmonisation principle under the Paris Declaration framework, measured through two indicators as it follows. Box 1: Indicators of the Paris Declaration INDICATOR 9: Use of common arrangements or procedures — Percent of aid provided as programme-based approaches, eg: Direct Budget Support (DBS), Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAPs) and Poverty Reduction Support Credits (PRSCs). Targets for 2010: 66% of aid flows are provided in the context of programme-based approaches INDICATOR 10: Encourage shared analysis — Percent of (a) field missions and/or (b) country analytic work, including diagnostic reviews that are joint, e.g: Joint Assistance Strategies (JAS) Targets for 2010: (a) 40% of donor missions to the field are joint; (b) 66% of country analytic work is joint.
The Direct Budget Support (SDB) and SWAPs proposed by Indicator 9 are thought to reduce transaction costs and increase the efficiency in public spending. The main critiques regarding the implementation of these programmes are that the focus is mainly on the "supply-side" and national government policies, instead of being multi-stakeholders' processes. 10 Regarding the targets put forward by Indicator 10, the risk is that once a joint strategy has been negotiated and approved by a group of donors, the possibility of changing it through democratic processes becomes highly remote. 11 This erodes local democracy, and the possibility of advancing human rights and gender equality initiatives. Finally, even when the Paris Declaration is explicit on the need for harmonisation efforts to include so call cross-cutting issues such as gender equality (paragraph 42), the likelihood of this happening will depend on how strong the commitment to 10
Roberto Bissio, Application of the criteria for periodic evaluation of global development partnerships – as defined in Millennium Development Goal 8 – from the right to development perspective: the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, Human Rights Council, 8th session, working group on the right to development, January 2008. 11 Ibid.
3
gender equality is from donors and partners. Another determining factor is how much consensus can be reached regarding this commitment and how that translates into explicit and measurable indicators in performance assessment frameworks and other monitoring and review mechanisms. 12 This is particularly important when women’s rights and gender equality commitments are not included as national priorities within the PRSPs, which happens unfortunately in most of the cases. Challenge 4: the division of labour can lead to the evaporation of gender equality and women’s empowerment. In the donor harmonisation processes, the division of labour is a key strategy to better deliver aid. The aim is to reduce congestion in some of the disproportionately favoured sectors, avoiding overlap and therefore bringing some balance in sectoral coverage. Although we recognise that there are some examples of good practices, the actual implementation of the division of labour has made clear that there are some key challenges to be addressed. Box 2: Example of good practices and challenges faced in the division of labour Kenya: In Kenya 13 the division of labour between donors for financing gender equality is being implemented under the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS) for the period 20082012 in application of the Paris Declaration. The KJAS recognises gender equality as a separate sector and as a cross-cutting issue, and commits to finance gender equality through a basket fund. CIDA-Canada is the lead donor under the KJAS Division of labour framework, deputised by the Embassy of Norway, while UNIFEM is the Secretariat. This model proposes a common framework of targets and actions in a programme approach for all stakeholders including government as co-chair through the Gender Sector Working Group and promoting gender equality in other sectors and programs through gender mainstreaming (twin-track approach). Nicaragua: The harmonisation among donors on gender equality issues has been implemented through the integration of the gender perspective in the SWAPs and development programmes in general. This has posed several challenges: gender mainstreaming has led to the dispersion of donor and government commitments to gender equality, and government changes prevented the continuity of national policies on gender equality. Despite the existence of an Inter-Agency Gender Commission, this hasn’t led to an increased integration of gender equality in development policies, due to the lack of political support and decision-making capacity of the Commission. 14
Some key concerns emerging from these examples are on how and who decides the different roles in the harmonisation processes, and what happens when this division of labour leads to the evaporation of some key focuses, such as gender equality. Additionally, serious concern still remains on what is understood as “good practices”, since these processes are mainly led by donors. 12
GENDERNET (2007), Gaynor, C., Understanding the Connections Between the Paris Declaration and Work on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, Draft version, August, 2007. 13 Division of labour in practice: responding to Paris Declaration principles and a model for financing gender equality in Kenya, Case Study, presentation by CIDA and UNIFEM, Dublin + 1 workshop, March, 2008. 14 Latin American Regional Report. Mapping Studies on Aid Effectiveness and Gender Equality: Honduras, Nicaragua, Surinam, EC/UN Partnership on Gender Equality for Development and Peace, draft March 2008.
4
3. Key concerns and recommendations The examples mentioned above clearly show that it is urgent to review the processes for implementing the harmonisation principle. As women’s organisation we would like to highlight the following concerns and recommendations that should be addressed about the RT3. •
As suggested by the Dublin 2007 workshop and the Dublin + 1 workshop, the use of the term “cross cutting issue” to describe these cornerstones of development is being replaced by “policy priority issue”. 15 We strongly support the implementation of this recommendation.
•
Some donors are using harmonised practices to impose new conditionalities to partner governments; this is unacceptable, as all development practices should respond to international Human Rights and Gender Equality commitments signed by both donor and partner countries.
•
Donors and partners should deliver on their commitments to regional and international human rights and gender equality agreements (e.g. Beijing Platform for Action, CEDAW, MDGs and the Maputo protocol on women’s rights in Africa).
•
JAS provide some opportunities for joint agreements, but also pose some challenges because there is little space to modify those agreements, narrowing the possibilities for change. Therefore it is central to improve the monitoring system of harmonisation, in order to identify what has proven to be a good practice, where the gaps are and how to tackle challenges, with the aim to revise joint agreements as necessary.
•
Gender equality needs to be tracked in programme budget approaches, joint analytical work and joint gender assessment work. 16
•
Strive for policy coherence between gender equality and policies in other areas (e.g.: economic, environment and social policy) and set targets for consistent policy reinforcement. 17
•
In harmonisation experiences (such as Zambia and Uganda) gender equality has been treated differently, either as a specific sector or as a cross-cutting issue. These practices need to be assessed to ensure that this priority issue is not marginalized and to evaluate the kind of impact the use of two different approaches has to the advancement of gender equality.
15
Irish Aid, Joint Assistance Strategies, “Where are gender equality, Environmental Sustainability, Human Rights and HIV and AIDS? Suggestions for strengthening priority issues in joint assistance strategy implementation”. 16 Gaynor, Cathy, “Paris Declaration commitments and implications for gender equality and women’s empowerment”, 2006. 17 Ibid.
5
•
Ensure that policy-makers involved in the development of common procedures for harmonisation efforts have the skills to analyse gender equality, and the resources and capacity to implement it. 18
•
Promote joint gender audits and evaluations and capture harmonisation in donor agencies’ gender strategies. 19
•
Donor and developing country governments must promote the participation of women’s rights organizations in the different decision-making stages and donors’ policy planning. Clear mechanisms and funding should be defined to ensure this participation.
List of suggested speakers to consider on the design of the RT3: - Usu Mallya, Executive Director, Tanzania Gender Networking Programme: she has participated in the Gender Budget Initiative in Tanzania, and has expertise in gender-related issues such as gender budgeting tracking for HIV and AIDS. She has undertaken a number of gender oriented studies that have influenced policy and government processes including: the Gender Review of Local Government Reform Programme Medium Term and Action Plans 2005-2008; and Assessment of Public Expenditure Review processes in Tanzania from a Gender Perspective, 2006. - Thérèse Nyondiko, Executive Director, African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET) in Nairobi Kenya. She is a Burundian and holds a Masters Degree in Communications Management from Coventry University, School of Engineering in the UK. She also holds a BA in Agricultural Economics from the University of Burundi specializing in Project management. Her professional experience includes telecommunications and ICTs, financial management, strategic planning, fundraising, conceptualisation, management and Project’s monitoring and evaluation. She worked also as a Freelance Consultant with UN development partners working in Burundi including FAO, World Bank and international NGOs. She is a Member of the former Working Group on Gender Issues (WGGI) of International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a former member of the Executive Committee of the Collective of Burundian Women’s Associations (CAFOB). - Emily Joy Sikazwe, Executive Director, Women for Change, Zambia: she has been an advocate to influence government policies, as well as IMF and other actors that she sees as obstacles for sound socio-economic development in rural areas and for a just distribution of resources in her country. She has produced a number of books and papers in the fields of human rights, gender, peace and development issues, as well as the themes of democracy, cotton production, drought and Structural Adjustment. - Mrs. Dorcas Coker-Appiah, Executive Director of Gender Studies and Human Rights, Research and Documentation Centre (GSHRDC). She has been consistent in the Women’s Movement as a strong builder and founder of several organisations including GSHRDC. Mrs Coker-Appiah has been able to forge links between local and international women’s rights issues through her participation in different initiatives at different levels. She is currently a member of the International Committee on CEDAW. She is an expert on issues of violence and a co-author of a book on violence against women and children. This publication led to extensive advocacy work around the abuse of women’s rights which has resulted in the passage of the Domestic Violence Law in Ghana in 2007. She is a lawyer by profession.
18 19
Ibid. Ibid.
6