Managing for Development Results and Gender Equality

INPUTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE ROUND TABLE 4 ON MANAGING FOR DEVELOPMENT RESULTS 3rd High Level Forum, Accra, 2008 BRIEF ISSUE PAPER ON MANAGING FOR DEVELOPMENT RESULTS 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 management for development results and gender equality for the preparation of RT4.

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 Management for Development Results. It also introduces proposals to promote further discussion and commitments on gender equality and women’s empowerment within the context of this principle, and presents a list of possible speakers to be considered in the design of the RT4.

The ToRs of the RT 4 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 In this sense, it is also important to highlight that the women’s rights organisations refer to gender equality and not only to the concept of gender as it was suggested in the RT4 ToRs. We recommend the integration of the gender equality perspective. The current definition of gender doesn’t recognize the existing inequalities between genders and the need to focus on development outcomes that will promote gender equality, women’s rights and women’s empowerment.

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 of implementing the MfDR principle from a women’s rights perspective Challenge 1: The MfDR principle defines results by development outputs rather than human development outcomes.

Article 43 of the Paris Declaration clearly states: “Managing for results means managing and implementing aid in a way that focuses on the desired results and uses information to improve decision-making” 6 . If the desired results of aid effectiveness are to alleviate poverty then it is necessary to look beyond mere aid effectiveness and focus on development effectiveness.

There is a risk that in the name of being more effective, the DAC and key donor countries have developed a new set of aid tools that do not fit the real development needs of the recipient countries and vulnerable groups in those countries. As partner governments highlighted in there Issues Note #7: ”there is often a gap between the inputs (policies and funding) which are provided, and the monitoring and evaluation of the outputs, outcomes and results of aid-funded projects and programmes, and of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness with which they are produced, so as to learn lessons for future programmes. As a result, there needs to be much more focus on planning, implementing and monitoring development strategies and aid flows, in ways which maximise development results from each dollar of aid spending.”

When managing for results, human rights commitments and legal obligations of donors and partner governments should be used as a measure of the effectiveness of policies and approaches – particularly their impact on vulnerable groups. GENDERNET 7 proposes that existing country-relevant gender equality indicators and processes be the basis to monitor results and progress towards gender equality. Existing mechanisms include MDG targets and indicators, as well as CEDAW reporting requirements and reporting on the Beijing Platform for Action 8 . Additionally, there are regional instruments such as the Maputo and the Belem do Pará conventions.

The Article 21 of the current draft of the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) 9 outlines the emphasis that needs to be placed on the necessity to shift development focus from managing for outputs to managing for development outcomes, but as the Partner Countries have remarked:”it discusses on only those needed to ensure implementation of the Paris Declaration and aid harmonisation, alignment and effectiveness”. 10 It is imperative for donors and recipients to use this principle as a tool for achieving development effectiveness goals, not as a mechanism that focuses mainly on 6

Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, Article 43, p. 7.

GENDERNET, Draft Issue Paper, “Understanding the Connections between the Paris Declaration and Work on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment”, August 2007.

8 As stated in the UNIFEM Discussion paper8: Under the Paris Declaration, the managing for results principle means managing to achieve internationally agreed development goals, including the MDGs. As such it provides an opportunity to make the connection between gender equality and development effectiveness. Making this happen, however, means securing stakeholder buy-in on results; negotiating objectives and targets among all stakeholders; and regarding results as a shared commitment and responsibility, including identifying the constraints to achieving the results and the means to overcome them.

9 AAA, First Consultative Draft, March 18, 2008 (www.accrahlf.net).

10 Accra High-Level Forum Partner Country Preparation Process, Issues Note 7 Managing for Development Results, April 20, 2008.

7

2

programme outputs. Key development goals as gender equality and women’s empowerment should be advanced through a twin-track approach; that is, through the integration of gender equality targets along all sectors as well as by the inclusion of specific programmes and the allocation of specific resources focused on this issue.

Challenge 2: Monitoring and Evaluation systems within the context of the MfDR principle are gender-blind.

This challenge can be seen at two different levels. On one hand in relation to the quality of sources, data gathering and national statistical systems within partner countries (country system and capacity development); and on the other hand regarding the monitoring and evaluation system to assess the implementation of the Paris Declaration (how to measure partners countries performances but also donors impacts).

A main concern is that donor commitments are weak in terms of building capacities at the country level. These commitments to capacity development are crucial but there is a need to define how they are going to be implemented: “progress on results cannot come through donor-led assessments or donor-designed performance assessment frameworks. Therefore partner country leadership (including self-assessment of performance to learn lessons, and accountability of government to parliament and civil society), are the priorities for generating more rapid and sustainable progress on results” 11 .

The monitoring and evaluation systems put in place to assess the capacities at the country level pose many challenges, partner countries have expressed: “Aid should be allocated and performance assessment matrices designed based on country-defined sustainable development results and progress towards them, NOT on policy design, establishment of systems or processes, or short-term inputs or outputs, which implies reorienting conditionality.” 12 In addition, the way results are monitored and evaluated is relevant to the implementation of the MfDR principle. Sex disaggregated data is a key component of the monitoring and evaluation strategies. Without the gender equality perspective on the data collection, decision making processes can not be expected to properly focus results-oriented decisions on improving the lives of women and girls, those who are most affected by poverty.

Women’s organisations recognize that this particular issue has not been left unheard by the AAA First Consultative Draft (18 March 2008), where sex disaggregated data is a clear component of article 22 13 . Nevertheless, this is an important aspect that should be addressed throughout the discussions and debates to be undertaken in the RT4, as sexdisaggregated data should be made readily available and above all taken into consideration when implementing the principle of MfDR. However this recognition was diluted in an unacceptable proposal of the Menu of Actions where ”gender equality and accountability for achieving results of benefits to poor and

11

Ibid.

Ibid.

13 AAA, First Consultative Draft, March 18, 2008 (www.accrahlf.net ).

12

3

marginalised populations as essential conditions for effectiveness” 14 appears under the box of civil society organizations and not as a concern of donors and local governments actions.

Lessons Learned: Cambodia 15 Although national statistical strategies generally recognize weaknesses in existing capacity, few of them contain specific measures to address these, or specify guidelines for producing sex-disaggregated data.

Cambodia’s National Statistical Master Plan is one of the few that specifies gaps and provides some measures to address them, including the identification of institutional responsibilities for producing gender-related statistics. This plan also notes efforts underway to develop guidelines for setting national standards in such fields as trade and employment, though it is not clear if these will include the need for gender-specific indicators.

Currently, the mechanisms used by the Joint Venture for Monitoring the Paris Declaration (established by the OECD-DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness) are tied to the 12 indicators of progress defined in the Paris Declaration, and therefore do not consider a gender perspective. Unfortunately, despite critiques of the Baseline Study, a recent DAC document regarding modifications for the second round of monitoring to be held in early 2008 suggested that “no revisions were made to the list of indicators or targets that were agreed in Paris” (OECD DAC, November 2007).

Partner countries have also voiced their concerns regarding baseline monitoring: “an essential complement to stronger development strategies and performance assessment frameworks is that donors must provide the maximum amount of aid in ways which allow the country to achieve maximum results per dollar spent. This has several major implications for changing donor aid as countries improve” 16 In the recommendations emerging from the International Consultation of Women’s Organisations and Networks and Aid Effectiveness 17 , women’s organisations show concern regarding the fact that no gender equality indicators are included in Monitoring and Evaluation mechanisms within the Paris Declaration. A more holistic approach is essential, that is, one that integrates diverse efforts (such as those by several donors to analyse in depth the relationship between aid effectiveness and gender equality) as part of the monitoring of the impact of the Paris Declaration. Likewise, other monitoring instruments that are already in place should be included, such as the indicators of progress towards MDG3.

Key Challenge 3: CSOs, and women’s rights organisations in particular, can play an important role in strengthening development results on the ground As all other RTs, RT4 is very closely linked to accountability and democratic ownership.

If we are to improve decision making processes, in order to make them more accountable and to see the impact in the results, then the integration of a gender equality and women’s rights perspective becomes relevant. Although it has been made 14

Menu of Actions, April 20, 2008, p. 7.

UNIFEM, Promoting Gender Equality in the Aid Effectiveness Agenda in Asia Pacific Engaging the Principles of the Paris Declaration: UNIFEM Discussion Paper, November 2007.

16 Ibid Ref. 9.

17 Recommendations of the International Consultation of Women’s Organisations and Networks and Aid Effectiveness organized by AWID and WIDE in Ottawa in January 2008.

15

4

quite clear the need for CSOs to be recognized as development actors, there is a void of representation of women’s rights organisations in these processes. There is a need to recognize the roles of CSOs in the different aid and policy mechanisms to strengthen development results, as well as the spaces that can be opened for their participation.

Women’s rights organisations in particular have specific and important contributions to make and a multi-stakeholders’ approach is needed to build real democratic ownership and strength development outcomes from aid and development policies. Consequently, it is important that the RT4 places emphasis on women’s rights organisations as development actors, because by integrating them can we expect development results to efficiently promote women’s empowerment, women’s rights and gender equality.

Partner countries have also highlighted the importance of CSO’s in implementing the MfDR principle by suggesting: “extending management for results to sectors, decentralised agencies, parliaments and civil society” 18 . The Synthesis of Recommendations 19 produced by the Advisory Group on Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness (AG), in its articles 76-80, as well as the current draft of the AAA, specify the roles of CSOs in the MfDR principle. We wish not only to maintain this but to build upon it, strongly recommending a particular mention of women’s rights organisations as key development actors.

3. Key concerns and recommendations As women’s organisation we would like to highlight the following concerns and recommendations that should be addressed at the RT4: • • • • • •

There is a need to generate sex disaggregated data, as well as to build capacities at the country level to develop the appropriate indicators and carry out gender-based analysis.

The collection of sex disaggregated data must become predictable, regular and consistent to support planning, negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation of development and aid policies.

Support for improvements in gender-responsive social and financial standards for planning and forecasting is essential. 20 It is critical to include gender equality and women’s rights perspectives into the Monitoring and Evaluation Processes, moving beyond the inclusion of mere “gender components” as they are defined presently.

Performance-based monitoring systems that include “results-based equality” should be developed, to demonstrate how gender equality strategies reduce disparities and contribute to development results 21 .

It is urgent to promote the implementation of gender-budgets, in order to advance the achievements on gender equality and women’s empowerment goals.

18

Ibid Ref. 9.

Advisory Group on Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness, CIVIL SOCIETY AND AID EFFECTIVENESS SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECOND WORKING DRAFT – April 16, 2008 (http://web.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cs).

20 UNIFEM, Discussion paper: Gender Equality for Development Effectiveness, National Development Planning in the Commonwealth of Independent States, January 2008.

21 Ibid.

19

5

•

All aid should be oriented to achieve the partner country’s priority results in a balanced way, not the results which are the priorities of the donors. Partner countries could therefore propose extending management for results to sectors, decentralised agencies, parliaments and civil society, ensuring the participation of women’s organizations at all levels. 22

The International Consultation of Women’s Organisations and Networks on Aid Effectiveness suggested a set of recommendations, some clearly related to the MfDR principle: 23 1. The operational development strategies established by developing countries for 2010, related work plans and the monitoring system of the PD implementation, must fully integrate gender equality targets and indicators. Existing and new ODA management review and performance assessment tools must reflect a resultsbased monitoring and evaluation component with a special focus on how gender equality and women’s empowerment targets are being met, in both donor and developing countries.

2.

Instead of the current Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) mechanism, a technical working group should be formed to produce a more appropriate set of measures integrating gender equality for assessing public finance management and procurement in developing countries. The technical working group proposals must be discussed by all countries and stakeholders concerned, consistent with the principle of democratic ownership.

3.

To improve the gender equality component in the current monitoring system of the PD, the use of baselines as well as input and output performance indicators of gender impacts in budgetary reporting must be promoted; in addition, gender targets, inputs and outputs in national budgets and ODA must be specified.

List of suggested speakers to consider on the design of the RT4:

Dr. Rose Mensah-Kutin: is the Regional Programme Manager of ABANTU for Development, a gender-oriented NGO working on the relationships between policies and gender equality in Africa.

She holds a PhD in Gender and Energy from the University of Birmingham, U.K. Her main research interest is on the implication of technologies on gender relations in rural households and communities in Ghana. She worked in Ghana’s energy policy sector for years as a socioeconomic analyst on energy issues. Dr. Mensah-Kutin is also a professional journalist with expertise on gender and development issues. She is the Convenor of NETRIGHT. Isabella Bakker: Much of her recent work has involved the interplay between feminist perspectives and (international) public policy, and in particular macroeconomics, especially fiscal policy and gender questions, and how these relate to the conditions of life in both the global North and the South, and how these conditions might be improved. She is an expert on gendersensitive budgeting and has worked with the United Nations, UNIFEM, UNDP, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OECD on these questions. She has held a number of visiting positions, for example at the European University Institute in Florence, at Rutgers University, New Jersey and at Carleton University in Ottawa.

22 23

Ibid Ref. 9.

Ibid Ref. 4.

6