22[1] 2012 in review | gender mainstreamingUnited Nations and PartnersSUDAN WORK PLAN 2012gender mainstreamingThe UN and partners continues to strengthen effortsto mainstream gender in humanitarian programming,encouraging humanitarian organizations to examine thegender dimensions <strong>of</strong> their interventions by undertaking agender analysis throughout the project cycle from the designstage to M&E. Several sectors have already undertakenintensive gender mainstreaming training, while others such asthe Education and the Food Security and Livelihoods sectorshave commenced the process by identifying the need forfurther support to implementing partners. This support entailstraining on how to undertake in depth gender analysis, and toincorporate gender not only in the project design, but also inthe practical implementation at field level.There is a significant need however for further capacitybuilding <strong>of</strong> implementing partners – both national and international,as well as <strong>of</strong> UN agencies to mainstream gender,including mainstreaming the prevention <strong>of</strong> gender-basedviolence (GBV). Monitoring <strong>of</strong> some projects on the groundhighlighted that the intention to ‘do gender’ has not translatedinto implementation. For example, some projects failedto consult with beneficiaries, while some FSL projects neededfurther in depth analysis <strong>of</strong> the unintended consequences <strong>of</strong>interventions that do not adequately take into considerationthe differential needs <strong>of</strong> women and men.There are 342 projects in the MYR; <strong>of</strong> these, over 50% <strong>of</strong>revised projects receiving a Gender Marker code <strong>of</strong> 2a or 2b,as the table below indicates. However, as the table shows, over66% <strong>of</strong> total funding was still directed at projects with limitedgender considerations (code 2). Conversely, roughly 25% <strong>of</strong>funding was allocated to these gender responsive projects.Funding by gender marker score (Jun 2012)Gender issuesconsidered inproject designRevisedReq.($m)Actualfunding($m)1 No sign 2.8 1.62In some limitedway582.2 308.63 Significantly 442.8 102.34The principalpurpose24.4 7.65 Not specified 0.2 37.7[3]23%[4]2%[5]7.8%[1]0.2%$458mActualfunding[2]67%Ascertaining the differential needs <strong>of</strong> men and women is alsodifficult in a context <strong>of</strong> constrained access to beneficiaries,organizational capacity, and a lack <strong>of</strong> know-how <strong>of</strong> humanitarianactors to undertake gender analysis. These factorsimpede the assessment <strong>of</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> affected men and womenacross all age groups. Although there were 84 or so assessmentsundertaken thus far in 2012, it is unclear how genderwas reflected in the assessment process, from composition <strong>of</strong>teams, through to the analysis <strong>of</strong> needs.While there has been improved collection, analysis andreporting <strong>of</strong> sex and age disaggregated data (SADD) acrossmost sectors, this area can be significantly strengthened.Comprehensive needs assessments which prioritize collectingSADD data should be the foundation for the 2013 HWP.Update on Implementation <strong>of</strong> the GenderMarkerThe Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) ‘Gender Marker’tool measures how well humanitarian interventions take intoconsideration the needs <strong>of</strong> all affected populations – women,girls, boys and men. Projects are measured on the followingscale: 0 where projects have not considered gender; 1 whereprojects have given limited considerations; 2a where projectshave significantly mainstreamed gender; and 2b where projectsare specifically targeted, designed to address genderdiscrimination, including GBV projects.
United Nations and Partners[2] progressSUDAN WORK PLAN 2012232PROGRESSTOWARDS ACHIEVINGSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND SECTORTARGETSThere are no changes to the overall strategic priorities asoutlined in the 2012 Work Plan. Any changes in objectives,indicators or targets for each sector are highlighted in thesector response plans. The tables provided in the overviewuses a ‘traffic light’ approach to indicate to what extent targetsare being met in terms <strong>of</strong> the overall strategic priorities. Thissection also briefly discusses some <strong>of</strong> the key impediments toreaching targets.Strategic priorities > page 24Sector response updates > page 26Forward view > page 59
Change language