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

7 Conclusions – recommendations for adjustmentsin the implementation7.1 General recommendationsThe Review Team believes that the implementation of the GEAP is in a critical phase. The GEAPdocument itself is a good and relevant document, with valid and relevant areas of interventions.However, it does lack a number of those characteristics one would expect from an action plan, such asmore annual planning and reporting systems, line of accountabilities, etc. The development cooperationsystem, i.e. the MFA, the embassies and Norad, is advised to act on this information anddevelop/expand/modify the GEAP into a working document, and ‘make the action plan come intolife’.There is a very good basis for such action to be taken; it is a political will, a large number of committedand knowledgeable staff in the system, in Norad, the MFA and the embassies, gender units in place anda general supportive attitude in most of the MFA, Norad and in the embassies. However, these positiveelements for success lack leadership and a functioning management system. Our recommendationstherefore focus on a few factors that we strongly advise action on and that we are confident will giveresults for the commitments made in the GEAP.Recommendation 1: Establish an operative management system for the GEAP at the political and administrativeleadership levelsThe MFA is advised to establish a GEAP project with clear roles and a mandate for the MFA andNorad’s gender units and other departments. The MFA is also advised to designate a managementsystem for the Action Plan and make use of available advisory capacity in Norad for such a system.Generally the system needs to work more systematically and thereby lessen the “missed opportunities”.Many of the recommendations presented in the Evaluation of 2005 are still valid and should berevisited.Norway is in a good position to improve their results from WRGE-directed activities and gendermainstreaming. WRGE has been high on the agenda for decades, and the MFA and Norad have a largenumber of well-informed and committed staff. Norway is in the forefront of being a strong stateconcerning WRGE, which is also a good basis for the staff when working on WRGE. However, unlesswork is done more systematically, we will continue to see ‘missed opportunities’. WRGE has to bepresent in policy dialogue, programming, and when identifying aid for WRGE agents that bring aboutmost significant change.Recommendations 2: Improve the quality of the gender work and report on resultsThe team recognises the importance of tracking resources for WRGE, both in donors’ aid budgets andin partner country budgeting through gender budget principles. However, the team recommends thatthe focus on financing and volume be supplemented with a much stronger focus on improving thequality of WRGE aid and report on the result(s).Closely related to this is a general recommendation of investing in more and better knowledgeproduction, at ‘home’ as well. The Review Team recognises that donor agencies produce considerableknowledge work that is not made use of. It is therefore pertinent that emphasis is made on the relevanceand use of analytical work for WRGE work. However, this covers a broad spectrum, not only analysisof development cooperation and programming, but also better understanding of the dynamics ofchange and local and national barriers to WRGE. Creating more synergy between multilateral aid andknowledge production and bilateral ones is important.Recommendations 3: GEAP 2007-2009, may be a need to adjust, and further operationalise the GEAP, rather thanthe new GEAP?40