A Coordinated Approach to



A Summary Note

Accountability for Gender Equality amongst UN Country Teams

for Endorsement by UNDG Principals on 12 July 2006

Background

The UNDG Task Team on Gender Equality (consisting of 15 UN organizations) has undertaken three enquiries to underpin recommendations to strengthen accountability for gender equality amongst UN Country Teams (UNCTs): i) a review of the policies, strategies and accountability mechanisms for gender equality in the ExComs and ILO; ii) a desk review and three field studies on the extent to which gender equality is reflected in the latest generation of UNDAFs; and iii) desk reviews of the Resident Coordinator Annual Reports for 2004 and 2005.

Findings

The accountability study noted achievements and gaps in each agency’s innovations related to accountability for gender equality and the opportunity to harmonize through creating standards based on each organization’s most effective practices. The study highlighted the complexity of addressing accountability where RBM guidance often holds the UN system accountable for supporting processes, with countries accountable for delivering results. Given varying interpretations of accountability in the context of RBM and gender mainstreaming, the study suggests instituting minimal UN Country Team performance standards to assist UNCTs to better understand what they are expected to deliver.

The review of the CCA/UNDAFs demonstrated an improvement in the analysis of gender equality in CCAs and in mainstreaming gender equality into the UNDAFs as compared to a similar study undertaken in 2002. The reviews also showed that the link between analysis and corresponding action and investment in gender equality remains weak.

The desk reviews of the Resident Coordinator Annual Reports noted increases in reporting on gender equality in several areas (e.g., best practices). It observed the ad hoc nature of engagement in joint programming on gender equality and conceptual confusion related to gender mainstreaming.

Elements of the Decision

In line with recommendations of the TCPR, the Task Team proposes two actions to support the UNCT to move from improved analysis to more coherent implementation and accountability. The UNDG Principals are asked to endorse:

• Development of a UNCT-level “Accounting for Gender Equality” scorecard that sets minimum standards for UNCTs to assess their performance and to identify gaps and progress across the system. It will be field tested, in line with the CEB process of considering a system-wide gender equality policy and strategy, and ready for roll out no later than January 2007;

• An “Action Learning” process with a self-selected set of UNCTs to generate replicable practices to undertake rights-based, change-oriented programming that supports government and civil society to forward gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Expected results/impact arising from decision

a) The UN development cooperation system will have harmonized performance standards to underpin greater accountability of RCs and UNCTs and improved support to countries to achieve gender equality; and b) There will be improved knowledge and action on joint UN programmes on gender equality, incorporated in UNDAFs to better support countries to achieve the MDGs.

-----------------------

16 June 2006

Coordinating Support to Gender Equality in the UN Country Teams:

Preliminary Findings of the UNDG Task Team on Gender Equality

I. Background

In response to recommendations on strengthening action on gender equality in the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review resolution (TCPR, 59/25), the UNDG established a Task Team on gender equality, reporting to the UNDG Programme Group, with the objective of:

• Supporting more consistent and coherent action amongst – as a first step – the UNDG member agencies in mainstreaming gender equality and promoting women’s empowerment through the mechanisms of UN reform at the country level.

• Ensuring that gender equality and women’s empowerment are squarely on the agenda of the UNDG and mainstreamed into the wide range of tools and processes that it devises and disseminates to UN Country Teams (UNCTs).

The Task Team, with representatives from 15 UN organizations/departments and chaired by UNIFEM, undertook three initiatives to strengthen understanding of the potentials and constraints to more consistent and coherent action on gender equality. The enquiries included: a) From Checklists to Scorecards (a review of accountability for gender equality in the policy frameworks of ExCom agencies and ILO); b) Gender Equality in Common Country Programming (a desk review of the last generation of UNDAFs and 3 country-based reviews; c) A gender analysis of the 2004 and 2005 Resident Coordinator annual reports.

As a result of the findings (which are described in Sections II - V of this summary) of the studies and the consultations of the Task Team with the UNDG Programme Group and DGO, two types of actions are being taken.

a. Two key proposals for further action are being sent to the UNDG Principals meeting on 12 July 2006. In the interest of furthering capacity and accountability in UN Country Teams (UNCTs), the Task Team is proposing that the principals endorse:

i. The introduction of a scorecard with concrete performance indicators on gender equality as an assessment tool that UNCTs can use to track progress. This will measure performance of the whole UNCT rather than individual agencies, thus generating a basis for comparison between UNCTs. Once the Principals endorse the concept, field testing will be done to finalize the scorecard between September and December 2006 for roll out in January 2007[1].

ii. The roll out of an action learning process with a small number of self-selected UNCTs that will document how their support to countries contributes to change toward gender equality. This experience will be fed into more useful guidance to UNCTs on how to undertake holistic, rights-based programming in support of gender equality, women’s empowerment and women’s rights.

b. Immediate actions to expand gender equality support and resources for UNCTs. This includes:

i. Working with DGO and the UN System Staff College (UNSSC) to ensure that there is a critical mass (by years end, at least 25) of ‘tested’ consultants on gender equality and women’s rights on the DGO roster that UNCTs can call on to support formulation, implementation and evaluation of more gender responsive UNDAFs, joint programming initiatives and other tasks.

ii. Working with the UNSSC to mainstream gender equality into the relevant capacity-building programmes that they offer for Resident Coordinators, UNCTs and Coordination officers. Currently, the gender equality content of training and induction processes offered is very weak. The UNDG Task Team on Gender Equality will be bringing together the considerable training resources on gender equality produced by the UN system to offer flexible modules that can be used by UNSSC in its training and orientation.

II. Summary of overall findings

Taken together, the three enquiries demonstrate that there have been significant improvements in analysis and reporting on gender equality by UNCTs, with key evidence for this emerging from the desk and field reviews of CCA/UNDAFs and the RC annual reports for 2004 and 2005[2]. There is also a greatly improved incorporation of gender equality in the results statements of UNDAFs, although the extent to which these are measured by concrete indicators remains inadequate.[3] The gap that urgently needs to be addressed is between improved analysis and corresponding implementation to support holistic, rights-based programming. There is also an absence of data on allocations and expenditures for gender equality and women’s empowerment. Some specific observations:

Key Findings

• In the last generation of CCA/UNDAFs, gender equality is highlighted as a cross-cutting theme in all but one of the 26 UNDAFs reviewed, which represents an improvement over the first generation of UNDAFs (see Annex II). Gender equality and women’s empowerment are also better reflected in results frameworks, including organization-wide Multi-Year Funding Frameworks, and country-based UNDAFs and UNCT workplans, although this remains inadequate.

• There are good models emerging from UNCTs of gender-responsive UNDAFs and RC annual reports. The reviews highlighted the good documentation, in particular, from Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Colombia, Chile, DRC, Kenya, Nigeria, Egypt, Libya, UAE, Mongolia, Philippines, Thailand, India, and Nicaragua. There are also worthwhile innovations to strengthen accountability in different aspects of the policy frameworks for the ExCom agencies and ILO.

• There are minimal accountability mechanisms in any single UN organization (although these are beginning to emerge, including through the UNDP gender scorecard, the ILO gender audit methodology, and other examples) and too few models of coordinated programming on gender equality linked to the priorities and constituencies for gender equality at the national level.

• The review of accountability mechanisms in the policies of the ExCom agencies and ILO also demonstrates divergent understandings of gender equality and gender mainstreaming. There are good examples in each agency that could be referred to by the Chair of the Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (IANWGE) in her work on devising a UN system-wide gender equality policy and strategy. The current divergence in approaches complicates coordination on gender equality within the UNCT. In all of the ExCom and ILO gender equality policies or action plans, there are no consequences for non-performance, and there remains an inadequate capacity to track allocations and expenditures for gender equality, despite the capacity of accounting software to accommodate this.

Recommendations

The findings from all of the enquiries demonstrate that implementation and accountability are lagging behind policy, interfering with supporting countries to achieve concrete progress toward gender equality on the ground. It is time to move from policy to action and accountability. The Task Team requests the UNDG Programme Group to:

• Endorse, for consideration by UNDG Principals, the development of an “Accounting for Gender Equality” scorecard that can be used at the level of the (one) UN Country Team[4]. These should be field-tested and finalized in 2006, rolled out in 2007, and used as a self-assessment tool for monitoring progress according to a coherent set of performance indicators.

• Endorse, for consideration by UNDG Principals, an “Action Learning” process to address gaps in UNCT capacity to undertake holistic, change-oriented programming in support of governments and civil society to forward gender equality. These would become positive models for the UN system and other development assistance actors, with results documented and shared to stimulate improved programming in the context of UN reform and the move toward one UN Country Team.

The sections that follow provide a synthesis of the three enquiries.

III. From Checklists to Scorecards: Accountability for Gender Equality Results

A repeated finding of evaluations of mainstream development organizations’ performance on gender equality and women’s empowerment is that implementation and accountability are not keeping pace with policy commitments. The Task Team (with funding from UNFPA and UNIFEM) commissioned consultant Tony Beck to undertake a review of accountability mechanisms for gender equality in the policies of the ExCom agencies and ILO. The objective was to identify good practices that could be replicated across agencies, areas of divergence and convergence across agencies, and gaps, particularly as these affect coordinated action on the part of the UNCT.

The consultant reviewed: gender equality policies and action plans; key strategy documents (MYFFs, etc.); guidelines on results-based management; reporting to governance bodies; evaluation and audit policies; staff appraisal and performance appraisal systems; budget reporting. The consultant used the overarching commitment to Results-based Management (RBM) as a key framework for the review. He noted, as a general comment, that the weaknesses in application and understanding of RBM, as well as the tendency of UN organizations to be accountable for managing processes rather than delivering results, created an overall weak context for strengthening accountability in general and accountability for gender equality in particular.

Key Findings

• All of the organizations have gender equality policies or action plans, with four of them (UNDP, WFP, UNICEF and ILO) having some accountability elements in their policies and plans (e.g., delineation in ILO Action Plan on Responsible Units at output and activity levels; Gender “compact” between UNDP Administrator and Bureau Heads; etc.). Having a policy or strategy without a corresponding plan (that has clear deliverables and budgets assigned) has proven to be less useful. Overall accountability is weak; none of the policies or plans is specific about consequences for non-performance are. There appears to be an absence of a common understanding or approach to implementing gender equality commitments, wide divergence in approaches to gender mainstreaming, and lack of agreement on what constitutes a minimally acceptable standard or application of gender mainstreaming in programming, monitoring and evaluation.

• With regard to broader policy and programming guidance in the 5 organizations, three of the organizations (UNFPA, UNICEF and WFP) incorporate strong statements supporting gender equality in introductions in their programming and policy manuals, but most then revert to technical discussions in which gender equality is virtually absent. UNICEF has incorporated three accountability tools for gender mainstreaming in its programme manual. There are only passing references to gender equality in RBM guidance for UNFPA, WFP and UNICEF, while UNDP provides guidance on reporting against the gender driver and ILO incorporates examples of good results statements on gender equality and information on undertaking gender audits.

• About one-third of the outcome statements in WFP, ILO, UNICEF[5] and UNFPA’s strategic planning documents incorporate a gender perspective (e.g., refer to men and women or to women specifically). UNDP does not fare as well. Overall, there is inadequate reference to gender equality as a goal in strategic and programming guidance documents. With regard to reporting, UNFPA’s and WFP’s performance reports are strongest, with WFP reporting annually on progress against results established in its gender policy.

• None of the organizations have adequate coverage of gender equality in evaluation policies. Only WFP systematically incorporates attention to gender equality in its actual evaluations. Likewise, only WFP has taken a proactive approach to gender equality in its audit policy, by incorporating five audit indicators for its assessment of country office mainstreaming performance.

• Four of the five agencies now estimate percentage of expenditures used to promote gender equality – which is an advance from the study undertaken by Beck of UN organizations in 2000 – but none have developed a system for accurately accounting for allocations or expenditures for gender equality. Software/accounting systems are entirely capable of capturing this data if it is identified and coded. In the context of results-based budgeting and MDGs, it will be important to more systematically track investments and expenditures on gender equality and link these with results.

|Recommendations |

|The good practices in each UN organization reviewed (and probably additional good practices in others) could be brought together to|

|‘raise the bar’ overall on accountability for gender equality across the UN system. |

|There is an urgent need to move from checklists to scorecards; from policies to action plans, with specifics about responsibility, |

|accountability and non-performance. |

|RBM and evaluation guidance should include examples, indicators, and principles related to gender equality and women’s empowerment;|

| |

|Audit policies should incorporate elements to track progress on gender equality; |

|Performance assessments should track progress and gaps on delivering on the organization’s commitment to gender equality; |

|Financial reporting systems should provide accurate accounting of allocations and expenditures for gender equality and women’s |

|empowerment; |

|Organization-wide strategy and policy documents should contain clear statements on the importance of gender equality and women’s |

|empowerment as core principles, with corresponding results and indicators in the results frameworks; |

|Organizational reporting exercises include sex disaggregated data and reporting. |

|Adopt an “Accounting for Gender Equality” scorecard (see Annex I) to use across UN organizations. Adapt this as an “Accounting for |

|Gender Equality” scorecard that can be used at the level of the UN Country Team. |

IV. Gender Equality in Common Country Programming

To identify strengths and weaknesses in the evolution of the UNDAFs as a useful framework for promoting coordinated approaches to gender equality programming, the Task Team (with funding from DGO, UNICEF and UNIFEM) commissioned a review of twenty-six second generation UNDAFs (2004-2006)[6] and three country reviews (Cambodia, Kenya and Albania). Note that this review was not an evaluation of actual UNCT performance on gender equality and women’s empowerment, but focused on how the processes of coordination – particularly with regard to formulation and implementation of UNDAFs – were evolving in support of gender equality.

Findings

• There has been a significant improvement in the extent to which gender equality and women’s empowerment are represented in the analysis for the UNDAFs since 2002. Twenty of the 26 UNDAFs incorporate an analysis of socio-cultural inequalities on the basis of gender. Eighteen of the UNDAFs reviewed cite the country’s national development plan for women’s advancement or CEDAW (see Annex II, that includes a chart that rates the gender-responsiveness of the 26 UNDAFs).

• The reflection of gender equality in priority outcomes has also increased. Gender equality is highlighted as a “cross-cutting” theme in all but one of the outcome frameworks, while the UNDAFs of Bangladesh and Burkina Faso highlight gender equality as a discrete outcome. All of the UNDAFs have at least one indicator related to gender equality. Gender equality is most often reflected in outcome statements as a component of access to basic services (most often, reproductive health) and governance/political participation.

• There are a number of emerging “models” for a gender-responsive UNDAF, particularly those of Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, and China.

• Gaps include: gender analysis in the UNDAFs is poorly backed by sex disaggregated data; only 6 out of 26 UNDAFs cite consultation with women’s organizations or gender equality experts as part of the process; gender-based violence is given relatively little attention. Twenty of the 26 UNDAFs either fail to mention or give little recognition to relationships between gender equality, women’s empowerment and HIV/AIDS, despite the strong rhetorical recognition of this in inter-governmental documents and commitments.

• The majority of UNDAFs are particularly weak on implementation strategies and financial commitments for gender equality programming. The most commonly cited strategy is collection of sex disaggregated data and work on legislation. Specific policy advocacy work cited tends to focus on education, literacy and health services. Where programme implementation cites work in areas other than health, reproductive health or education, it often involves UNIFEM initiatives, such as land rights or eliminating gender discrimination in the legal framework.

• The field studies revealed that an active coordination mechanism – like a gender theme group, whether led by government, UN or other donors – offers important potential for strengthening action and joint programming. But these are hampered by an inadequate or uneven skill base in their membership, inadequate resources to support coordination, and over-reliance on traditional strategies for change (e.g., gender mainstreaming training as opposed to robust programming).

• The field studies also affirmed that the understanding and application of gender mainstreaming is uneven and fragmented. In no country was there evidence of holistic programming that built on the comparative advantage of the whole UN team, that involved government and civil society, and was strategically focused on the needs described in the UNDAF analysis.

|Recommendations |

|Matching implementation, resources, and accountability to the improved analysis in UNDAFs is a priority. The consultants |

|recommended selecting a small number of UNCTs to involve in an ‘action-learning’ process that would provide concentrated support |

|for building a holistic, change-oriented approach that maximizes the increased focus on coordination. This would also provide |

|opportunities to build UNCT’s understanding of engaging with changes in power relations to support change toward gender equality. |

|Documentation of this action-learning process could then be shared throughout the RC system as a UN model. This has the potential |

|to cut through the current confusion related to gender mainstreaming. |

|A key output of this enquiry will be a modular training packet that can be used by UN Staff College and DGO to strengthen training |

|of trainers for CCA/UNDAF processes, strategic prioritization retreats for UNDAFs, training of RC Coordination Officers and |

|induction of Resident Coordinators. This module – scheduled for completion by October 2006 – will be designed in close coordination|

|with DGO and the UN Staff College. |

V. How Are We Doing? What Resident Coordinator Annual Reports Reveal about UNCT Progress on Gender Equality

The Task Team reviewed the 2004 and 2005 RC annual reports to assess the extent and nature of reporting on gender equality – towards making recommendations for revising the guidelines to elicit better reporting. The reports for 2004 serve as a baseline so that progress can be tracked over the next 3 years. The Task Team reviewed both the RC letters to the Secretary-General and the results matrix reporting.

Key Findings

• 52 of the 134 RC letters reviewed contain substantive information on gender equality, compared to 50 of 134 in 2004.

• Of the 20 RC letters that appended a best practice example, six of these focused on gender equality (compared to 2 of 21 in 2004). In Ethiopia women food distribution agents were trained in commodity management; distribution; and in nutrition education and promotion, resulting in resources reaching targeted beneficiaries better than before. The Philippines UNCT used CEDAW to ensure that gender was mainstreamed in the process of localizing the MDGs. Mongolia reported on its efforts to mainstream gender in the CCA/UNDAF. Nigeria noted the achievement of bringing a gender focus to the ICASA meeting on HIV/AIDS; and in Mozambique, the PRSP (PARPA II) development benefited from a “Statistical Profile of Disparities” produced by the UN, which highlighted disparities for 87 core indicators of children’s and women’s well-being. In Azerbaijan the UN supported the Government’s 10 year MDG strategy through a vision paper prepared for each MDG and a working group that was established on gender.[7]

• The reporting structure changed in 2005 to prioritize reporting according to UNDAF Outcomes. The 2004 guidelines emphasized reporting according to the MDGs. Although the MDG reporting structure did promote the inclusion of gender equality initiatives under Goal 3, this had limitations (see “Challenges” below). Though it would be desirable to measure the extent to which the changed guidelines impacted upon reporting on gender equality outcomes, the “apples to oranges” comparison makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions in this regard. However, it remains possible to accurately compare the number of joint gender equality initiatives in thematic areas (below).

The review took account of joint initiatives[8], rather than the initiatives of individual UN organizations/agencies. It reviewed reports for the following:

➢ Extent to which RC reports highlighted substantive areas of joint initiatives on gender equality: 52 examples in 2005 compared to 43 in 2004.

➢ Extent to which RC reports highlighted achievement of actual results or changes related to national gender equality priorities emerging from coordinated UNCT[9] support: 18 examples in 2005 compared to 15 examples in 2004 .

➢ Extent to which RC reports highlighted progress toward results related to national gender equality priorities emerging from coordinated UNCT support: 44 examples in 2005 compared to 43 in 2004.

➢ Extent to which RC reports noted internal capacity-building or assessment initiatives to strengthen the efforts of UNCTs to support gender equality at the national level: 21 examples in 2005 compared to 24 in 2004.

➢ Extent to which RC reports highlighted gender equality and/or women’s empowerment as a key result in the UNDAF framework: 40 examples in 2005 compared to 41 in 2004.

➢ Extent to which RC reports highlighted gender equality and/or women’s empowerment as a key outcome in its workplan: 52 examples in 2005 compared to 49 in 2004.

➢ Existence of Gender Theme Groups: 41 examples in 2005 compared to 37 examples in 2004[10]

Examples of RC reports that meet at least 3 of the criteria above and substantively mainstream coordination on gender equality in numerous sections include[11]:

Mauritania,* Ecuador,* Kazakhstan,* Tajikistan, Eritrea, Kenya,* Tanzania,* India,* Nicaragua,* Egypt, Philippines,** Morocco*.

The review also took account of the thematic areas in which there appears to be the most significant amount of joint initiatives.

Increases in 2005:

• Strengthening reproductive health and reducing maternal mortality: 46 examples compared to 37 examples 2004.

• Initiatives to increase the enrollment of girls in primary education: 24 examples compared to 19 in 2004.

• Capacity development of and support to national governments to mainstream gender equality commitments in national policy processes including PRSPs and MDGs: 20 examples compared to 17 in 2004.

• Support to the production of data and statistics to measure gender equality outcomes: 19 examples compared to 9 in 2004.

• Increasing women’s participation in democratic governance: 13 examples compared to 8 in 2004.

• Support to strengthen national machineries for women: 16 examples compared to 11 in 2004.

Declines from 2004:

• Addressing women’s empowerment in the context of HIV/AIDS: 28 examples compared to 34 in 2004.

• Support to national efforts to end violence against women: 26 examples compared to 28 in 2004.

• Reference to Beijing Platform for Action and/or preparation for and follow up to CEDAW reporting: 18 examples compared to 21 in 2004.

|Recommendations |

|Work with DGO to: i) ensure that the synthesis report of the RC annual reports more accurately and usefully reflects what is |

|contained in the reports on gender equality programming (completed for 2005) and ii) develop new Guidelines for the RC annual |

|reports for 2006 in order to elicit more information on gender equality programming. |

|Track the reflection of gender equality in RC annual reports over the next 3 years as an indicator. Post the review and the charts |

|on RCNet and other DGO and RC-related websites to stimulate discussion. |

|DGO has stopped tracking the number of theme groups. The RC reports reflected that there were 37 gender theme groups in 2004 and 41|

|in 2005, but other evidence demonstrates that these are under-reported. Since theme groups have the potential to support better and|

|more coordinated programming, it would be useful to track their existence and membership. |

Annex I: SAMPLE of a gender equality scorecard

The following sets out the framework for developing a gender equality scorecard at the organization level. It draws on indicators already in use in the agencies under review (UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP and ILO). The aim is to develop a common set of performance indicators and a minimum set of actions to be taken to support gender equality and women’s empowerment. It is recommended that this be adapted for use by UNCTs.

Guiding principles for development of the scorecard were:

➢ Promotion of gender equality should be visible in agency planning and programming.

➢ The scorecard should be credible in terms of its method (e.g. if a rating system is used it should make sense).

➢ The scorecard should be easy to understand and use.

➢ Data should be accessible.

➢ There should be buy-in and preferably participation by the users.

Any attempt to introduce a scorecard should do so within the context of the slow implementation of RBM within most agencies. Establishing a scorecard may help to overcome the confusion about gender mainstreaming, but it will not overcome resistance to gender equality. To overcome the latter, the process of introducing a scorecard is as important as the content of the scorecard.

Following are potential thematic areas for a gender equality scorecard. They are prioritized in order of importance to establishing accountability, potential for achieving change, cost, and political viability. Columns with a scoring system (to be further discussed by UN organizations and UNCTs), responsibility for follow-up and mechanisms for tracking progress, need to be added, for example on the thematic area of gender equality policies.

Example of organization-level scorecard for UN development cooperation system

|Thematic areas |Scorecard indicators |Point system |

|1. Gender equality |1.1 Policy updated in the last five years. | |

|policy and | | |

|implementation plan |1.2 Policy includes: | |

| |i. implementation plan | |

| |ii. time frame | |

| |iii. resources needed for implementation, | |

| |iv. accountability of different levels of staff (from senior management down). | |

| | | |

| |1.3 Realistic M&E of the policy/action plan is included. | |

| | | |

| |1.4 Monitoring taking place as planned. | |

| | | |

| |1.5 Evaluation taking place as planned. | |

| | | |

| |1.6 Results of M&E are fed back into agency programming. | |

|2. Staff assessment |2.1 Work plans clearly set out expected gender equality accomplishments. | |

| | | |

| |2.2 HR system of performance management in place that rewards good performance on gender | |

| |equality and women’s empowerment, and sets out realistic consequences for poor performance. | |

| | | |

| |2.3 HR system operating as planned. | |

|3. Gender |3.1 Clear guidance on how to carry out a gender analysis included. | |

|Mainstreaming in RBM | | |

|guides and training |3.2 Clear guidance on how to develop gender-sensitive results statements included. | |

| | | |

| |3.3 Clear guidance on how to develop gender-sensitive indicators included. | |

| | | |

| |3.4 Clear guidance on how to measure gender-sensitive results statements included. | |

| | | |

| |3.5 Requirements for inclusion of sex-disaggregated data made clear. | |

|4. Audit |4.1 Audit examines whether HQ gender unit is properly set up and adequately resourced. | |

| | | |

| |4.2 Audit examines whether a system for implementing the gender policy and/or action plan is | |

| |in place and functioning. | |

| | | |

| |4.3 Audit examines whether a system for measuring/reporting achievements on gender equality | |

| |and women’s empowerment against objectives has been formulated and implemented. | |

|5. Strategic planning |5.1 Clear statement in support of gender equality in the introductory sections. | |

|documents | | |

| |5.2 One third or more of results statements integrate the promotion of gender equality and | |

| |women’s empowerment. | |

| | | |

| |5.3 Indicators are gender-sensitive where relevant. | |

| | | |

| |5.4 Systematic sex-disaggregation (all data disaggregated unless there is a reason for not | |

| |doing so). | |

| | | |

| |5.5 Key terms (‘poor’, ‘farmers’, ‘workers’, ‘children’) disaggregated. | |

|6. Programme review |6.1 Programmes assessed and reviewed based on gender equality content – gender equality | |

| |explicitly promoted, gender analysis carried out, and gender analysis incorporated into | |

| |programme design.[12] | |

| | | |

| |6.2 Programmes monitored and evaluation for gender equality content takes place. | |

|7. Reporting |7.1 Reporting to the Executive Board/governing body on strategic planning is gender-sensitive,| |

| |e.g. reporting on gender equality as a thematic area, and as a cross-cutting theme; data is | |

| |systematically disaggregated by sex; gender-sensitive results statements in the strategic plan| |

| |are systematically tracked. | |

| | | |

| |7.2 Guidelines for reports from Country Offices require gender-sensitivity, e.g. reporting on | |

| |gender equality as a thematic area, and cross-cutting theme; requirement for sex-disaggregated| |

| |data. | |

|8. Evaluation |8.1 Evaluation guidance is gender-sensitive, e.g. includes background on gender analysis, | |

| |gender-related examples, and stresses the requirement for sex-disaggregated data. | |

| | | |

| |8.2 Evaluations carry out gender analysis. | |

| | | |

| |8.3 Evaluations report on gender as both a thematic area and cross-cutting theme, and data is | |

| |systematically sex-disaggregated. | |

|9. Budgeting |9.1 System in place for tracking allocations to promote gender equality and women’s | |

| |empowerment. | |

| | | |

| |9.2 Regular reporting on allocations and expenditures to promote gender equality and women’s | |

| |empowerment. | |

|10. Policy and |10.1 Clear statement in support of gender equality in the introductory sections. | |

|programme manual | | |

| |10.2 Requirement for gender analysis set out, and gender analysis defined and explained. | |

| | | |

| |10.3 Requirement for sex-disaggregated data set out. | |

| |Total Score | |

-----------------------

[1] The fieldtesting will be done in close consultation with the CEB-endorsed initiative of the Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality to introduce a system-wide gender equality policy and strategy. The scorecard will align with these to strengthen accountability for their implementation. It will take into account existing gender equality scorecards that UN organizations already use.

[2] None of the enquiries provided in-depth information on actual performance, since this was not what was being assessed. The proposed scorecard, action learning process, and other actions can be taken to ensure more systematic and coherent performance assessment – including through peer reviews – in the future.

[3] Progress is measured against the two interagency reviews of gender in CCA/UNDAFs undertaken in 2002 (coordinated by UNIFEM and UNICEF respectively) and the review of accountability mechanisms across UN agencies undertaken by Tony Beck for the IANWGE in 2000.

[4] Please note that the Tony Beck study looked at accountability at the level of the UN organization, rather than the UNCT level. As such, the suggested scorecard in Annex I aims at the organizational level. Conversations have already begun between the five organizations in the study about the feasibility of having a scorecard with common elements that also allow for some agency-specific elements. Principals are asked to endorse a scorecard that would be adapted to assess UNCT performance.

[5] UNICEF’s MTSP does not have outcomes but rather focus areas and targets. Its targets include strong references to mothers, but also include statements related to gender disparity and gender equality at the policy level.

[6] This review updated two reviews undertaken in 2002, one was a global review by the Gender in CCA/UNDAF Task Team convened by UNIFEM (New York) and the other a review of CCA/UNDAFs in West Africa by an inter-agency task force convened by UNICEF.

[7] In 2004 the 2 best practice examples included 1) a gender assessment in Cuba and 2) a project on rural women in Tunisia.

[8] We refer to joint ‘initiatives’ rather than joint programmes because it is often not possible to ascertain whether the examples cited conform to the definition of joint programmes in the UNDG guidelines

[9] ‘coordinated UNCT support’ is attributed when it refers to the whole UNCT or at least 3 agencies collaborating.

[10] This count reflects the numbers of GTGs mentioned in the RC reports; however, it does not reflect the full number as there is no place for RC annual reports to tally these.

[11] Many of the countries were the same in 2004: DRC*, Kenya*, Nigeria*, Egypt, Libya*, UAE, Mongolia*, Philippines*, Thailand*, India*, Cuba*, Colombia*, Chile*, Nicaragua* (* = countries with Gender Theme Groups)

[12] The OECD-DAC (1997) policy marker includes a number of sub-categories for programme review.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download