Taking action: achieving gender equality and empowering women

Summary of e-discussion facilitated by ActionAid International, United Kingdom
211
delivering on policies. Leaders need to be accountable to citizens and not just
the international community. Poor people and youth need to be mobilized to
demand their rights and to question what resources are used and the allocation
of donor monies.
Finally, what happens when the Millennium Development target of gender
parity is not met by 2005? Who is held accountable? The consequence will be
felt most by uneducated children and their parents—but what happens to the
government and donor agencies that do not deliver on their promise?
Establish effective priorities. Participants pointed out the need to distinguish the
immediate political opportunities presented by the Millennium Development
target and the wider issue of how we might collectively work toward achieving
gender equality and women’s empowerment. Participants reiterated that the
report should focus on the missed target.
Although worthwhile, some participants wondered if the task force’s strategic
priorities might negatively affect priority-setting. Is it possible that they
might actually dilute priority-setting and not contribute to actual change?
They cautioned that adding new strategic priorities may distract governments
and donors, especially when these are more ambitious, complex, and expensive
than the original targets that are neither being funded nor achieved. Next,
how can actions whose priorities are set at international levels still address local
needs (where the changes are likely to have the greatest impact)?
Analysis and recommendations
The purpose of this analysis is to discuss the impact of the e-dialogue and the
diversity of subject matters and to recommend priority areas of action for the
task force based on the greatest number of responses received.
Impact
As aforementioned, not all of the more than 1,200 subscribers to the e-discussion
actively participated. Many noted that when they were in agreement with
responses already sent, they preferred not to send a duplicate message. Rather,
they contributed when they held a different perspective. Many people also shared
that although they had not participated, they keenly followed the dialogue and
the outcomes would have an impact on their future policy and program formulation.
The small number of people who actually unsubscribed during the three
weeks suggests that interest in the dialogue was high. Finally, this dialogue was
organized in a relatively short period of time; more preparation time would have
enhanced both the diversity and volume of responses.
Diversity of subjects discussed
The majority of responses focused on the report’s coverage of educational issues.
However, in the second week’s debate on strategic priorities, participants also