Mid-Term Review of the Norwegian Action Plan for Women's ... - Norad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bjørg Skotnes, Norad, FLIDVigdis Halvorsen, Norad, FLIDBodil Maal, Norad, FLIDInger Stoll, Norad, AMOR1.2 Scope of workThe Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Mid-Term Review of the Action Plan for Women’s Rights andGender Equality in Development Cooperation identifies five key questions which the MTR is asked toinvestigate and present findings on:To what extent has Norway contributed to development results for women’s rights and genderequality in selected partner countries?To what extent has Norway changed its political priorities so women’s rights and gender equalityhave a central place in political dialogues and initiatives?Has Norway increased its relative funding to projects and programmes supporting women’s rightsand gender equality?Has Norway increased gender mainstreaming in its development cooperation?Has Norway improved the organisation of its development cooperation, to ensure the necessarycapacity, competence and governance in its work on women’s rights and gender equality?For each of these questions the ToR has defined data sources and “indicators” that the MTR Teamshould consult. However, the Team has in certain cases not been able to access these sources, or theTeam has selected to look into other sources as well. This concerns especially when looking forward tothe relevance and challenges for implementing the GEAP in a changing aid architecture and changingdevelopment cooperation procedures in the MFA.This report is a MTR of the GEAP. The purpose of conducting an MTR is usually to determine to whatextent the implementation of the plan is up-to-date, whether the plan has been operationalised,implemented and reported on, whether the GEAP is still relevant or does it need to adjust to changes inthe policy environment; in short, is it on the right track. An MTR also often prepares the material for amore comprehensive evaluation at a later stage. In addition this action plan is only valid for less thanthree years; it was launched 8 March 2007 and is valid until the end of 2009. In the recommendationswe will come back to the issues concerning a full evaluation and the alternatives for the future of theGEAP.This MTR is about development cooperation and its procedures and systems for managing aid andwork on WRGE and mainstreaming of GE in this work. It is about systems and procedures, andpolitical dialogue and commitment, or the lack thereof. However, a note of caution is necessary. Thestruggle for WRGE is not governed by development cooperation and their systems and procedures. It isa result of actors’ and groups’ own struggles for their rights, and also a result of the major social andeconomic transformations that are taking place. Development cooperation may have a positive role inthese struggles by assisting organisations and legislations that need to be in place, and supporting civilsociety and women’s organisations in their struggle to exercise these rights. However, developmentcooperation may also make things worse by ignoring WRGE and working in favour of old genderstereotypes and power relations. Development cooperation is not neutral. Such analysis of developmentcooperation and its influence on WRGE development in the partner countries is beyond the ToR forthis review.10
1.3 Methods and data collectionThe Terms of Reference (ToR) states that the Mid-Term Review (MTR) should be based on existingdocumentation that the development cooperation itself produces for monitoring and reporting data.The review has made much use of such information both on how WRGE is reported in plans andreports and budgets, but also of internal documentation relating to results reporting, more effectiveadministration of embassies and other documents that influence the work of WRGE. The approach ofthe Review Team is that WRGE cannot be analysed and understood in isolation, but must beunderstood in relation to an overall understanding of the management system and results reporting inthe development cooperation system. Assessing gender mainstreaming implies that the team must havea sound understanding of the planning and reporting system and decisions-making within the MFA andNorad.Existing documentation has included the three-year rolling plans 2008-2010 from all embassies, activityplans (VP) from 2005 and 2008, and the response letters from the MFA back to the embassies. It hasalso included statistics on the gender marker of Norwegian bilateral aid and on the Gender Budget Line(2007 and 2008), and letters of approval for funding UN agencies in the period 2006-2009.The written documentation used is referred to under each of the five chapters. Most of thisdocumentation was identified in the ToR, but some additional sources have been consulted. A full listof data sources is included in the literature list as an aid to future evaluation of WRGE work in theMFA and Norad.In addition to existing documentation, the team has based itself on interviews with staff in Norad, andin the MFA, both in the Section for Global Initiative, the UN Section and the Regional Department,and others. There have been no interviews or soliciting of opinion from partners in the South.Norad conducted a ‘gender review’ of part of the embassy’s portfolio in Ethiopia during the period ofthe MTR. One of the team members, Sigrid Skålnes, participated in that ‘gender review’. The focus wason the embassy’s natural resources management portfolio, which was channelled partly throughNorwegian NGO and partly through multilateral agencies, and through research cooperation betweenuniversities in Norway and Ethiopia.Many of the MTR questions ask “to what extent has there been an improvement”, assuming we canmeasure changes before and after and attribute these changes to the GEAP. As we will document in thisreport we can observe some changes, but in many of the areas we also look into the activity level beforethe GEAP has been high on WRGE. Many of the new initiatives were also taken before the GEAP wasdeveloped and implemented. Reinvigorating the WRGE work already started during the evaluation in2005 of the former Gender Strategy. Therefore, rather than thinking of the GEAP as a cutting-offpoint, the GEAP should be understood as positioned in a continuum of change for more active WRGEwork in MFA and Norad.1.4 The Outline of the MTR ReportThe report is organised according to the five main questions presented in the ToR, which are discussedin the Chapters 2 to 6. Chapter one gives the background, scope and method for the MTR, and chapter7 the conclusions and recommendations.11
Page 1 and 2: Norad Report 14/2009 DiscussionMid-
Page 3 and 4: Mid-Term Review of the Norwegian Ac
Page 5 and 6: AbbreviationsAMORDCDCMFLIDGBSGEGEAP
Page 7 and 8: attract staff, and governance syste
Page 9 and 10: Norad has improved its own staffing
Page 11: 1 Introduction1.1 Background8 March
Page 15 and 16: Example 1: Angola - women’s polit
Page 17 and 18: 2007c). If WRGE is not included in
Page 19 and 20: 3 To what extent has Norway changed
Page 21 and 22: One of the main points on this agen
Page 23 and 24: Extra budgetary contributions to UN
Page 25 and 26: Personal commitment and informal ch
Page 27 and 28: internal evaluation, such as the 20
Page 29 and 30: However, there are also debates on
Page 31 and 32: Moe than 50 % of the Gender budget
Page 33 and 34: Another interpretation of such find
Page 35 and 36: The review was carried out autumn 2
Page 37 and 38: 6 Has Norway improved the organisat
Page 39 and 40: One could also consider strengtheni
Page 41 and 42: The Evaluation Department did devel
Page 43 and 44: The GEAP has been in operation for
Page 45 and 46: the environment and climate, energy
Page 47 and 48: Concluding remark: Making a differe
Page 49 and 50: Norad (2009f), Gender reviews - Sta
Page 51 and 52: Annex 1: Terms of ReferenceOppdrags
Page 53 and 54: Kvinners økte økonomiske deltakel
Page 55 and 56: Gjennomgangen gjøres i løpet av 2
Page 57 and 58: influence on the policies of UNFPA
Page 59 and 60: MFA also plans to make financial co
Page 61 and 62: country under auspices which bridge
Page 63 and 64:
Policy marker Gender and EqualityPM
Page 65 and 66:
Bilateral aid coded with policymark
Page 67 and 68:
410 - General environmental protect
show all

Mid-Term Review of the Norwegian Action Plan for Women's ... - Norad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?