Financing for Gender Equality: Review of UN Modalities for Post Conflict Financing

Financing for Gender EqualityReview of UN Modalities for Post Conflict Financing

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary.........................................3Background and Context....................................7Methodology...............................................7UN Post Conflict Financing................................8Main Findings.............................................9

Burundi........................................................12Democratic Republic of Congo...................................12Iraq...........................................................13Sierra Leone...................................................13Sudan..........................................................14Timor Leste....................................................16Recommendations..........................................16Annex A: Methodology for Data Analysis...................19Annex B: Documents used for Data Analysis of MDTF Projects.........................................................22Annex C: MDTF Information of Projects Directly Addressing Gender Needs.............................................23

2

[FINANCING FOR GENDER EQUALITY] 3

Executive Summary

Financing for Women’s Needs Post Conflict

This study examines the extent to which gender specific needs are addressed in UN Post Conflict financing for 6 country case studies - Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Timor Leste. We find that the commitment to addressing gender specific needs in Post Conflict states is not being adequately met at the planning, targeting/costing or MDTF project level.

PlanningGender is often designated as a cross-cutting issue within post conflict needs assessments and planning documents. However there has been limited success in filtering this commitment through the planning process and associated allocation of funds. Gender as a cross-cutting issue is rarely fully incorporated into the transitional results framework (TRF). Neither budgets nor indicators for monitoring priority interventions adequately track gender specific needs as a result1.

To adequately measure the extent of gender mainstreaming andallocation of funds we compiled data that was disaggregated into those that were gender targeted and those that were not, using data on outcomes, activities, indicators and budgets for the six country case studies (see figure 1). Gender mainstreaming appears to be an important commitment within many documents, but this commitment at the initial narrative stage rarely filters through every sector. Gender specific concerns are most common in the areas of social protection and human rights, health and education and least

1 Guegan (2007) in the UN/WB PCNA Review identifies this as a problem in the incorporation of cross-cutting issues in PCNAs.

3

common in the areas of security and rule of law. But gender mainstreaming is rarely reflected in the transitional results frameworks or logframe and corresponding budget allocations were much lower than might have been expected from the narrative and needs assessments. The allocation of resources towards gender specific projects within all planning documents for these 6 countries was low, at around 4 percent of funds for both planned major outcomes and activities (see figure 1). Resources allocated to indicator monitoring for gender specific projects was 10.5 percent. Atthe budget costing level, we found only 3.4 percent of fundswere allocated to gender specific needs for these six countries.

There is a wide spectrum of sensitivity to and awareness of gendered human rights issues and these appear to depend heavily on the concerns of UNDAF and PCNA technical experts at the planning and needs assessment level. However, UNDAFs in all countries show a rising sensitivity to gender issues and gender is more likely to be considered a cross-cutting issue over time. In our survey, we found only one instance (DRC International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy – I-SSSS 2009-2012) where gender is both a cross-cutting theme and a outcome by itself and is costed in the TRF.

Figure 1 Gender Financing for Post Conflict (%)

4


MDTF Projects We examined 394 project documents from MDTFs and JPs in the six case study countries, with total outlays amounting to $1.484 billion. Of this, about 5.7% targeted gender specific needs. At the level of the log frame (outcomes and indicators), 9% of total funds were allocated to gender needs.

In comparing the attention to gender needs between planning and project documents there were a number of interesting patterns that emerged. The most noticeable difference is thegreater attention to gender needs in the outcome and activities within MDTF projects. Within activities MDTF projects were over 9 percent more likely to address gender needs.

There are important differences by major sector in the resources devoted to gender needs in post conflict projects.The social protection and human rights sector allocates the largest portion of project funds to women’s issues (46 percent). However, this sector is the smallest in terms of overall expenditure and only 6.9 percent of all resources are devoted to it. The largest sector is the economic recovery and infrastructure, which receives 45 percent of all project funds, and the allocation to gender specific needs within it is low (2 percent).

Recommendations

The UN commitment to addressing gender needs and gender equality in post conflict countries, as specified in resolution 1325, is not currently being met. In this study we have assessed and measured the allocation of MDTF funds targeting gender specific needs in six post conflict countries. Currently there is no systematic framework for tracking gender needs post conflict through the process fromthe planning stage down to the allocation of funds within projects.

5

Based on our study we recommend the following areas for a systematic and procedural approach to mainstreaming gender in UN post conflict development planning and project implementation:

Gendered Analysis in Needs Assessment

The wide variability of gender mainstreaming at both the planning and project level necessitates systematic change inthe way needs assessments are conducted. A gendered analysisfrom the beginning of the process in needs assessments wouldrequire the identification of the differences in economic and reproductive activities, access and control over resources, gendered obstacles in accessing services and postconflict needs (such as targeting gender based violence or income generating activities for women). An important component of this gendered analysis will be mainstreaming gender specific needs across all sectors, addressing the lack of attention to gender in sectors where women’s needs are often missing (but receive the largest levels of funding) – such as in security and rule of law, or economic recovery and infrastructure. It is also important to note how difficult it has been to incorporate analysis or recommendations from gender specialists once the needs assessment process has already begun. Mandating gendered analysis throughout the process will help ensure gender sensitivity and analysis does not disappear at the final stage such as occurred with the Iraq and Sudan PCNAs.

Gender as a Cross-Cutting Issue

The identification of gender as a cross-cutting issue in post-conflict financing has not been matched with a framework that facilitates the addressing of gender needs through the transitional results frameworks (TFR) down to the project level. A main recommendation from this study is that gender needs should be identified as both a cross-cutting issue and as a major outcome or sub-cluster (using

6


PCNA framework) so gender priorities can be identified. Gender specific needs should have their own transitional results framework (TRF) or logical framework by major sector, and be clearly costed. Without such clarity in purpose and costing it will be difficult to monitor progressand ensure adequate funding.

Gendered Impacts

The integration of gender mainstreaming through the continuum of post conflict development assistance necessitates understanding the gendered impacts of all objectives, outcomes, actions and activities. One method of systematizing and assessing gendered impacts has been through the introduction of a gender marker. A gender markeris a tool that measures the gendered impacts of activities from the needs assessment level, through desired outcomes, activities and allocation of resources. A gender marker has the potential to be an incredibly powerful tool in promotinggender equality by both assessing gender impacts and tracking the flow of resources – both weaknesses this study has found.

A gender marker was first initiated in 2007 by OECD/DAC and more recently within UNDP a gender marker is used for assessing program expenditures targeting gender equality. A gender marker pilot was conducted in 2009 for Humanitarian Appeals and Funding Mechanisms within the UN2. There exists thus a method for implementation and lessons that can be learned from what has worked.

Gendered Monitoring & Evaluation Framework

Gender Disaggregated Data is needed to consistently measure and evaluate financing for gender specific needs in countries emerging from conflict. The TRF or logical frameworks provide an existing monitoring framework where

2 For more information see

7

gender disaggregated information could easily be mandated. This would require specifying the beneficiaries (women/girlsalong with other target groups) within each level of the TRFor logical framework – from outcomes, activities, and indicators, down to budget allocations.

Tracking of Gender Expenditures

We are currently hampered in our ability to consistently measure the allocation resources targeting gender specific needs due to lack of gender disaggregated data. At both the planning and project level logical frameworks need to be costed at the outcome or activity level and specify beneficiaries by gender.

Within MDTFs, systematizing a monitoring and evaluation framework where gender specific needs and allocation of resources are tracked will also increase transparency and coherency in decision-making. The current system both lacks transparency and the setting of priorities for MDTFs often occurs to the detriment of gender needs (as we have seen in DRC priority plan).

The current low level of expenditure within MDTF projects (less than 6 percent) to address gender specific needs illustrates the difficulties in prioritizing gender needs without mandating a proportion of funds to this specific purpose. The most logical way to redress the current imbalance of funding would be to implement a minimum level of expenditures explicitly targeting gender issues. There isalso a clear president for this approach as the UNDP has successfully implemented a minimum requirement of 15% of program expenditures to advance gender equality.

Meeting the Commitment in Resolution 1325

This study has provided empirical proof that current levels of funding for gender specific needs post conflict are too low to meet the commitment specified in resolution 1325. To redress this we recommend the changes specified above to

8


increase our ability to assess gender needs, more fully incorporate women in the reconstruction of fragile societiesand track resources down to the project level. We feel it would be useful to not only implement a gender marker to track commitments to gender programming, but to in addition provide a floor for funding of gender specific needs. Thus, the implementation of a 15% minimum allocation of all MDTF budgets to address gender specific needs post conflict for example, will make the commitment to gender equality more certain.

9

Background and Context

This study was commissioned by UNIFEM to analyze post conflict financing through a gender equality framework. It acts as a background report to feed into the preparation of a report from the Secretary General on women’s participationin peacebuilding and planning in the aftermath of conflict. It examines the extent to which women’s needs have been integrated into post conflict budgeting and project development in UN-led funding mechanisms, particularly MultiDonor Trust Funds (MDTFs). The main objectives of the study are to provide:

A desk review and mapping of UN post conflict financing

Global aggregation of financing for women’s needs after violent conflict

Details from six country case studies: Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Timor Leste

Methodology

This study builds on the methodology developed by Ms. Cueva-Beteta for UNIFEM for a pilot study on funding for women’s needs within Post Conflict Needs Assessments (Cueva-Beteta, 2010). This methodology assesses the provisioning of fundingfor women’s needs at three stages during the funding process– at the narrative stage (level A) in which the overall thrust of funding is discussed, at the transitional results framework (TRF), logical framework or results-based framework, stage (level B), and within the budget (level C).The extent of funding earmarked and allocated to women’s issues is calculated by adding up the funds budgeted to sub-sectors incorporating women’s needs and this is compared with the overall level of funding. The amount of funding is

10

[FINANCING FOR GENDER EQUALITY]11

calculated for level (A, B & C) for 6 main sectors by country: Economic Recovery, Security & Rule of Law, Social Protection & Human Rights, Education, Health, and Governance& Administration. In this study these calculations were doneusing two sources for each case study country – at the planning document stage using United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks (UNDAFs) and/or Post Conflict Needs Assessments (PCNAs) and at the project implementation stage using project documentation (usually prodocs) by MDTF funds.

In this study, we made a few minor modifications to the Cueva-Beteta (2010) methodology. Firstly, we do not assign abudgeted dollar amount in the calculation at the narrative stage (level A). There is a wide range of narratives in the various documents we have analyzed – from PCNAs to project documents – that are not easily commensurable in form or content, and as a result, this figure would not be meaningful for our analysis. Secondly, we expand TRF or logframe (level B) into three categories that are usually provided – outcomes (B1), activities (B2) and indicators (B3) – so we can see in which area gender needs are getting addressed. Thirdly, we expand the budget analysis (level C) into two categories – the first (C1) for actual gender specific funds discernable from budget documents (or if TRF or logframe was costed), and the second (C2) for an expectedestimation of gender specific funds (based on weighting the allocation of gender specific outcomes by the budget for each sector). The quality of budget information within project documents was generally so poor and variable (and without costing by outcomes or activities) that we developedthe additional C2 as a reference category. A detailed explanation of the methodology is provided in Annex B.

The aggregate calculations are based on a detailed examination of 3 PCNAs, 7 UNDAFs, 2 Priority Plans, and over394 project documents from MDTFs and JPs covering six country case studies. See Annex B for documents used in the data analysis. Complete project information by country and

11

fund is given with supporting excel documentation in MDTF Project Details by Country for Gender Financing for Post Conflict Background Paper.

UN Post Conflict Financing

During the last decade a number of instruments and processeshave been developed to assist in donor coordination to alignpolitical, technical and financial resources behind strategic objectives for countries emerging from periods of violent conflict. Post Conflict Needs Assessments (PCNAs) are one example of a common platform used to identify key recovery priorities for countries emerging from conflict, coordinate donors and mobilize financial resources3. The UN and World Bank usually jointly coordinate PCNAs along with national stakeholders. Accompanying PCNAs are a transitionalresults framework (TRF) that summarize the key objectives mapped by the PCNA and give a costing estimate to achieve these goals. TRFs map the priority outcomes and corresponding activities and targets/indicators along with acosting estimate by outcome4.

The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) is the basic development assistance tool used to coordinate UN system activities at the country level (PBSO 2007). UNDAFs provide an integrated UN response to national priorities and needs, including national strategies such as PCNAs. More generally they are aligned with PRSPs and withinthe framework of the Millennium Development Goals.

3 For more detailed explanation of PCNAs see Joint Guidance Note on Integrated Recovery Planning using Post Conflict Needs Assessments and Transitional Results Frameworks (UNDG/WB 2007).4 Transitional results frameworks have arisen as part of the movement towards using outcome indicators and monitorable targets and are part ofthe OECD-DAC Principles of Good International Engagement in Fragile States and the Paris Declaration on Harmonization (UNDG 2007).

12


There are two main types of UN-led funding instruments5. Thefirst, Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs) are where donors poolresources to support national priorities and facilitate UN agencies to work and deliver in close coordination. The second funding instrument is Joint Programs (JPs). A Joint Program (JP) is a set of activities contained in a common work plan and related budget, involving two or more Participating UN Organizations and (sub-) national partners.Both MDTFs and JPs often use the UNDP through the MDTF office to play the role of administrative agent (AA) interfacing with donors.

The peacebuilding fund (PBF) is a MDTF set up to provide immediate release of resources to prevent a country relapsing into violent conflict6. The key objectives of PBF projects are to promote peacebuilding activities by providing a source of fast, flexible and relevant funding. The PBF has two funding windows: the Immediate Response Facility (IRF) providing rapid funding for immediate peacebuilding and recovery needs (projects last less than a year), and the Peacebuilding and Recovery Facility (PRF) driven by joint prioritization of critical peacebuilding activities by government and UN system within the country (projects within 5 years of end of conflict)7. The PRF fundsrequire submission of a Priority Plan with government and UNsystem-wide consultation and consensus on prioritization of objectives and planned outcomes.

5 The information in this section is from the UNDP MDTF and JP website http://www.undp.org/mdtf/overview.shtml6 Similar to other MDTFs, the UNDP MDTF office is the fund administratorfor PBFs. For more information on the PBF see http://www.unpbf.org/index.shtml7 For further information of specifics of PBF including structure and reporting for each type of fund see http://www.unpbf.org/docs/application_guidelines.pdf

13

Main Findings

This study examines the extent to which gender specific needs are addressed within UN Post Conflict financing for 6 country case studies - Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Timor Leste. The main finding of this study is that the commitment to addressing gender specific needs in Post Conflict states is not being adequately met at the planning, targeting or funding levels.

PlanningGender is often designated a cross-cutting issue within manypost conflict needs assessments and planning documents. However there has been limited success in filtering this commitment through the planning process and associated allocation of funds. Gender as a cross-cutting issue is rarely fully incorporated into TRF. Therefore neither budgets nor indicators for monitoring priority interventionsadequately track gender specific needs8.

To adequately measure the extent of gender mainstreaming andallocation of funds we compiled data that was disaggregated into those that were gender targeted and those that were notusing data on outcomes, activities, indicators and budgets for the six country case studies (see figure 1). There was evidence of gender mainstreaming across sectors within narrative and needs assessments (most common in the areas ofsocial protection and human rights, health, and education and least common in the areas of security and rule of law). But gender mainstreaming was rarely reflected in the transitional results frameworks or logframe and corresponding budget allocations were much lower than might be expected. Allocation of resources towards gender specific projects within planning documents was low, at around 4 percent of funds for both planned major outcomes and activities. It was slightly higher for indicator

8 Guegan (2007) in the UN/WB PCNA Review identifies this as a problem in the incorporation of cross-cutting issues in PCNAs.

14


monitoring, at 10.5 percent. At the budget costing level, wefound only 3.4 percent of funds were allocated to gender specific needs.

There is a wide spectrum of sensitivity to gender human rights issues – dependent on the concerns of UNDAF and PCNA technical experts at the planning and needs assessment level. Over time UNDAFs in all countries show a rising sensitivity to gender issues and increasing likelihood of gender being a cross-cutting issue. However, there is only one instance (DRC International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy– I-SSSS 2009-2012) where gender is both a cross-cutting theme and a outcome by itself which was costed in the TRF.

The use of priority plans as the main planning document for PBFs has occurred in an ad-hoc fashion and often is entirelyunconnected to national priority interventions or decision-making. In the DRC for example, the priority plan included no mention of gender specific outcomes or activities and only 1 indicator out of 25 mentioned gender9.

Figure 2 Allocation of Resources for Gender Needs Post Conflict within Planning Documents

There are large variations by sector within the resources allocated towards gender needs at the level of the budget

9 The indicator was “Decrease in acts of armed violence, banditry and sexual abuse perpetrated by ex-combatants and other high risk groups” (United Nations Peacebuilding Fund Priority Plan for the DRC 2009, p9).

15

(C1). The social protection and human rights sector gets thelargest proportion of funds (15.9 percent) for gender but receives the smallest proportion of the overall budget allocation (7.5 percent). Conversely, the largest budget allocation goes to the economic recovery and infrastructure sector (62.6 percent). Yet, this sector receives the lowest percentage of gender targeted funding (0.9 percent).

MDTF Projects We examined over 394 project documents from MDTFs and JPs inthe six case study countries, with total outlays amounting to $1.484 billion. At the aggregate level the allocation of resources targeting gender specific needs was 5.7 percent (see figure 3). The targeting of funds for gender needs within outcomes and indicators within these funds was slightly higher at 9 percent. The largest amount of resources devoted to gender needs is for activities where such projects take 12.5 percent of budgeted outlays.

Figure 3 Allocation of Resources for Gender Needs Post

Conflict within MDTF Projects

There are important differences by major sector in the resources for gender needs in post conflict projects. The social protection and human rights sector allocates the largest portion of project funds to women’s issues (46 percent). However, this sector is the smallest in terms of overall expenditure and only 6.9 percent of all resources are devoted to it. The largest sector is the economic recovery and infrastructure, which receives 45 percent of

16


all project funds, and the allocation to gender specific needs within it is low (2 percent).

Gender is designated as a cross-cutting issue within many projects, especially in Peacebuilding Fund projects. However, even as a cross-cutting issue, gender specific issues often fail to translate into the logframe. The effectiveness of gender mainstreaming will continue to be minimal unless it can translate into specific objectives, activities, and indicators where beneficiaries by gender canbe assessed and monitored. As an illustration, Sudan’s MDGF-188-H-SDN describes gender as a cross-cutting issue in the narrative of the ProDoc. Of the 45 activities in the project, 7 mention women, accounting for almost a quarter ofthe project budget. Of the 35 indicators, only 1 tracks women. Another example in DRC is Project DDR10 that specifies “2 women’s organizations, 8 peace committees each with 25% mandatory women representatives….50 exchange candidates of which 25 shall be women, 10 peace conferences with 25-50% female participation, cultural and sporting events (5—50 gender disaggregation), youth symphony for 80 youth of which half female”. The identification of beneficiaries disaggregated by gender facilitates our ability to assess the gendered impact of projects.

Throughout MDTF project documents there is noticeably absentgender disaggregated data. Consistently monitoring gender specific impacts and allocation of funds requires a level ofgender disaggregated data that is currently rarely available. There are only two instances, in Sudan and Timor-Leste, where we found gender disaggregated data was even mentioned as a need to accurately measure and assess progress. In the Timor-Leste Joint Programme INFUSE ProDoc mentions gender disaggregated data will be calculated, but that information is not given in the other project documents(p.24).

There was a glaring lack of uniformity in use of logical frameworks and costing estimates within project documents.

17

Ideally, the Logical framework/Work Plans would be standardized which would facilitate monitoring and evaluation across projects. The logframe (including budget allocations by outcome) offers an easy tool for tracking objectives, priority activities and beneficiaries. A good example of this format is in the ProDoc of MDGF-1979 F-COD in Democratic Republic of Congo.

Burundi

For the Burundi study we used the UNDAF 2005-2007, UNDAF 2010-2014 and the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding 2008as the planning level documents. There was marked improvement in the inclusion of gender issues between UNDAFs. However, the UNDAF 2010-14 only has disaggregated costing by major outcome and none address any gender specific needs. Out of 49 policy actions and activities there are only two that specifically mention gender. One of these, within the governance and administration sector, mentions demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants specifically mentioning female ex-combatants (p. 54). Withinthe security and rule of law sector there is mention in indicators to measure effectiveness of judicial mechanisms for victims of sexual violence, and separation of female andmale prisoners.

Gender issues are identified as a major priority (priority 8) in the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Burundi 2008. The Mapping of resources and Gaps for the Implementation of the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Burundi 2008 mentions that there are only 6 projects where women’s needs are the specific focus, highlighting the need for further support inthis area.

At the project level we examine 21 projects and find 9 address gender needs in objectives, activities or indicators. The percentage of funds allocated to gender specific needs was 10.4% of the total budget for Burundi

18


MDTFs. Burundi was unusual in that the gender specific fundswere allocated within the governance and administration sector, comprising 25 percent of this sectors budget.

Democratic Republic of Congo

In this study we use International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy (I-SSSS) 2009-2012 and the Priority Plan for the PBF 2009. In addition we reference theStabilization and Reconstruction Plan for War-Affected Areas(STAREC). The I-SSSS is an example of best practice in the area of planning for gender needs in a post conflict setting. The document outlines 5 main strategies, one of which is combating sexual violence. This is taken to be a major objective and a substantial discussion is maintained on how this theme is central to the four other component strategies This is an interesting example of gender mainstreaming where gender concerns are noted as a stand-alone objective, the allocation of gender specific funds is explicitly costed within each sector and is also easily monitored.

By contrast, the Priority Plan for the DRC is not an exampleof good practice when it comes to integrating and financing for gender needs post conflict. The Priority Plan includes no mention of gender specific outcomes or activities and only 1 indicator out of 25 even mentioned gender10.

Gender specific needs are addressed in 3 out of the 7 projects we examine in the DRC. The overall allocation of funds to gender issues was higher than the norm at 18.5 percent. The majority of these funds are from two projects within the social protection and human rights sector.

10 The indicator was “Decrease in acts of armed violence, banditry and sexual abuse perpetrated by ex-combatants and other high risk groups” (United Nations Peacebuilding Fund Priority Plan for the DRC 2009, p9).

19

Iraq

In this study we use the Iraq PCNA (United Nations/World Bank Joint Iraq Needs Assessment) as the focal planning document. Gender is a cross-cutting theme in the PCNA, but the final synthesis report gives little reference to gender specific needs as identified in the sector background reports, and nobudget was allocated.

Gender as a cross-cutting theme was only partially integrated into the Iraq PCNA. UNIFEM’s gender advisor worked from HQ and the UNIFEM office in Amman coordinated with cluster teams in the field. A gender checklist was developed and a number of gender-sensitive tools and resources11. Due to insecurity the process was interrupted and not as much gender sensitive analysis was absorbed by the cluster teams. Governance, health and education had goodgender analysis but little in the area of women’s human rights and women’s empowerment. Notably missing from the PCNA was costing of gender specific actions and corresponding budget (UN/WB 2006).

The Iraq PCNA is particularly weak in its monitoring and evaluation framework. It is notably missing a TRF or logframe and the outcomes or objectives by sector are included only in the narrative of the document. Budgets werecosted by sector but varied in level of detail and we only find gender specific allocation of resources in the economicrecovery and infrastructure sector. Here only 0.04 percent of the sector budget is designated to “special employment programs and credit facilities for women”. At the aggregate level only 0.03 percent of the total budget in the PCNA can be attributed to addressing gender specific issues.

The MDTF in Iraq is the UNDG Iraq Trust Fund, comprising of 184 projects. We conducted a random sampling of all projects

11 The UNIFEM Amman office also contracted consultants to produce sector-specific gender analyses but these were not seen by the gender advisor until the process had ended (UN/WB 2006).

20


and did a detailed analysis of 25. Of these 25 projects 6 included mention of gender specific needs in an outcome, activity or indicator, but none had any budget disaggregatedinformation.

In addition, we looked through every project document and found 10 out of 184 projects targeting women and their needs(most in the health sector). The total budget for these projects amounts to 53,057,298, which is 4 percent of the total budget for the Iraq Trust Fund.

Sierra Leone

In this study we used the following planning documents: UNDAF 2006, UNDAF 2008, Peacebuilding Cooperation Framework 2007 and Priority Plan for PBF 2008. Within the UNDAFs the identification of women’s needs and allocation of funding requirements is higher than average – greater than 50 percent at the level of policy actions/activities and indicators. This commitment filters down to the budget levelwhere 39 percent of all funds directed towards women’s needs. The economic recovery and infrastructure sector pays unusual attention to gender specific needs (30 percent of resources in this sector are allocated to women’s needs). InUNDAF 2006 output 2.1.1 addresses increased production of major food crops, livestock and fish by youth and women farmers. In UNDAF 2008 gender issues are mentioned in improving self-employment opportunities and vocational skills training for women. In contrast, there was little mention of gender specific needs in either the PeacebuildingCooperative Framework or the Priority Plan and these documents did not provide a TRF or costing by outcome or activity.

At the project level we examined 25 projects (all from the PBF) and in 9 projects women’s needs were specifically

21

mentioned. Of these we could trace allocation of resources based on gender issues in 7 projects amounting to 13 percentof the overall budget. Particularly noticeable is the inclusion of gender issues in the economic recovery and infrastructure sector – 25 percent of the budget for this sector is allocated to addressing gender specific needs.

Sudan

In this study we focused on Southern Sudan and used the JAM 200512 and UNDAF 2009. In the JAM 2005 for Southern Sudan gender specific issues and concerns were addressed within all sectors. Gender specificneeds were addressed indetail in the narrativesection in relation to fullyparticipating in governancemechanisms, justice andreform of laws to addressgender based violence andgender bias in customarylaws, access to employment,protection of human rights,training female police officers, and improving access for women and girls of basic social services. Mention was even made of the necessity to gather gender disaggregated data (along with ethnic and regional disaggregated data) to adequately measure and monitor progress and inform future policy (JAM 2005 p252).

While gender was incorporated as a cross-cutting issue within the PCNA, gender concerns did not translate into actions within clusters and were not costed. Gender specificactions ended up only mentioned in the areas of governance, infrastructure and basic social services13. 12 Sudan’s PCNA13 The PCNA Review: Phase One Sudan Joint Assessment Mission Case Study (2006) discussesthe problems behind mainstreaming gender as a cross-cutting issue.

Especially in the South, the war has meant that women have carried doubleburdens or more in the absence of husbands, brothers and fathers, and under extremely difficult conditions. The peace presents new opportunities and challenges for the role of women in Sudanese society and calls for appropriate policies, programs and

22


In the Sudan PCNA for Southern Sudan gender specific issues and concerns were addressed within all sectors. Gender specific needs were addressed in detail in the narrative section in relation to fully participating in governance mechanisms, justice and reform of laws to address gender based violence and gender bias in customary laws, access to employment, protection of human rights, training female police officers, and improving access for women and girls ofbasic social services. Mention was even made of the necessity to gather gender disaggregated data (along with ethnic and regional disaggregated data) to adequately measure and monitor progress and inform future policy (JAM 2005 p252).

While gender was incorporated as a cross-cutting issue within the PCNA, gender concerns did not translate into actions within clusters and were not costed. Gender specificactions ended up only mentioned in the areas of governance, infrastructure and basic social services14. UNIFEM assigned two gender specialists to work with the Sudan JAM team, one for the North and one for the South15. The gender advisors felt they came too late into the process (after cluster teams had already begun their work) and that as a result theUNIFEM gender checklist was poorly understood and didn’t result in getting strategic actions into the TRF (UN/WB 2006).

At the planning document level we find 9 percent of funds byoutcome directly targeting gender specific needs. At the project level we were initially limited to 4 project documents on the MDTF portal – 2 from the PBF and 2 from theMDG achievement fund. Using our methodology we find 24 14 The PCNA Review: Phase One Sudan Joint Assessment Mission Case Study (2006) discussesthe problems behind mainstreaming gender as a cross-cutting issue. 15 According to the UN/WB PCNA Review (2006), the gender specialists hadlittle opportunity to interact before the Oslo donors conference due to lack of government support.

23

percent of funds are directly targeting women’s needs – thissolely coming from funding within the security and rule of law sector from the MDG achievement fund.

Due to the limitednumber of projectdocuments available onthe MDTF portal wesupplemented ouranalysis with additionalproject information fromthe UN & Partners WorkPlan for Sudan website16.This website provides amuch richer and detailedbreakdown of projects byyear, sector, fund, geographical location and a gender marker17. We supplement our analysis by examining the 147 project documents for Southern Sudan for 2008. Out of a total budget of 254,390,212 million (US$) we find 4,517,931 million directed towards gender specific needs, representinga mere 1.8 percent of outlays. The disparity of gender allocated funding between both sources of data is a source of concern, indicating further need for standardizing reporting mechanisms.

Timor Leste

In this study we used at the following planning documents: the Report of the Joint Assessment Mission to East Timor (JAM 1999)18,

16 See http://workplan.unsudanig.org/17 The gender marker is a check box and does not correspond to beneficiaries, objectives, outcomes, activities or indicators within each project. In this instance a gender marker has not been successful in facilitating measurement or tracking of gender specific targeting of funds. 18 Timor Leste’s PCNA. Note we do not use JAM 99 in the calculation of gender financing as there was too little detail for the data to be

Women have limited access to economic resources such as land and credit, and while they do most of the work on the farm, they may be excluded from decisionson how and when to use farm proceeds. Addressing women’s workload will require increasing access to labour-saving technology, whether for economic or domestic activities as well as access to economic resources; investments in women’s health and education to make them more efficient development agents

24


UNDAF 2003-2005 and UNDAF 2009-2013. The PCNA for Timor Leste (JAM 1999) was overall weak in the identification or addressing of gender specific needs. Gender was not addressed as a cross-cutting issue and there were only two major sectors that identified gender needs – community empowerment and education. Within the UNDAFs gender specificneeds were addressed more comprehensively in all major sectors except security and rule of law.

At the project level we looked at five projects: one from the peace building fund, two from the MDG achievement fund and two from the joint programme. These five projects cover the entire MDTF for Timor Leste – with a total budget of $11.9 million. Gender specific programming at the project level was encouragingly high for Timor Leste. Of the 5 projects, one targeted gender equality and women’s human rights (MDGF-1703-B-TLS).

Timor Leste is the only case study country we examine where gender needs were addressed substantially more fully at the project level than within the planning document and needs assessment level. This is largely because 71 percent of the total budget for all current MDTFs come from the MDG achievement fund and the largest project specifically targets gender. The MDG achievement fund is unrepresentativeof post-conflict projects as it funds projects in eight major areas – and one of these specifically targets gender equality.

Recommendations

The UN commitment to addressing gender needs and gender equality in post conflict countries, as specified in resolution 1325, is not currently being met. In this study we have assessed and measured the allocation of MDTF funds

meaningful in the empirical exercise.

25

targeting gender specific needs in six post conflict countries. Currently there is no systematic framework for tracking gender needs post conflict through the process fromthe planning stage down to the allocation of funds within projects.

At both the planning and project level we found a wide rangeof examples from detailed gender analysis (such as the I-SSSS in DRC) to complete lack of gender analysis even when gender was ‘mainstreamed’ and identified as a ‘cross-cuttingtheme’ (such as Iraq). The integration of gender analysis and targeting of resources occurs in an adhoc fashion without systematic analytical tools for assessing gender needs, impacts, beneficiaries of programs or allocation of resources. It is not surprising then, that the total allocation of resources for gender specific needs is so low – at 5.7 percent for MDTF projects and even lower within costing of planning documents at 3.4 percent. Based on our study we recommend the following areas for a systematic and procedural approach to mainstreaming gender in UN post conflict development planning and project implementation:

Gendered Analysis in Needs Assessment

The wide variability of gender mainstreaming at both the planning and project level necessitates systematic change inthe way needs assessments are conducted. A gendered analysisfrom the beginning of the process in needs assessments wouldrequire the identification of the differences in economic and reproductive activities, access and control over resources, gendered obstacles in accessing services and postconflict needs (such as targeting gender based violence or income generating activities for women). An important component of this gendered analysis will be mainstreaming gender specific needs across all sectors, addressing the lack of attention to gender in sectors where women’s needs are often missing (but receive the largest levels of funding) – such as in security and rule of law, or economic recovery and infrastructure. It is also important to note

26


how difficult it has been to incorporate analysis or recommendations from gender specialists once the needs assessment process has already begun. Mandating gendered analysis throughout the process will help ensure gender sensitivity and analysis does not disappear at the final stage such as occurred with the Iraq and Sudan PCNAs.

Gender as a Cross-Cutting Issue

The identification of gender as a cross-cutting issue in post-conflict financing has not been matched with a framework that facilitates the addressing of gender needs through the transitional results frameworks (TFR) down to the project level. A main recommendation from this study is that gender needs should be identified as both a cross-cutting issue and as a major outcome or sub-cluster (using PCNA framework) so gender priorities can be identified. Gender specific needs should have their own transitional results framework (TRF) or logical framework by major sector, and be clearly costed. Without such clarity in purpose and costing it will be difficult to monitor progressand ensure adequate funding.

Gendered Impacts

The integration of gender mainstreaming through the continuum of post conflict development assistance necessitates understanding the gendered impacts of all objectives, outcomes, actions and activities. One method of systematizing and assessing gendered impacts has been through the introduction of a gender marker. A gender markeris a tool that measures the gendered impacts of activities from the needs assessment level, through desired outcomes, activities and allocation of resources. A gender marker has the potential to be an incredibly powerful tool in promotinggender equality by both assessing gender impacts and tracking the flow of resources – both weaknesses this study has found.

27

A gender marker was first initiated in 2007 by OECD/DAC and more recently within UNDP a gender marker is used for assessing program expenditures targeting gender equality. A gender marker pilot was conducted in 2009 for Humanitarian Appeals and Funding Mechanisms within the UN19. There existsthus a method for implementation and lessons that can be learned from what has worked.

Gendered Monitoring & Evaluation Framework

Gender Disaggregated Data is needed to consistently measure and evaluate financing for gender specific needs in countries emerging from conflict. The TRF or logical frameworks provide an existing monitoring framework where gender disaggregated information could easily be mandated. This would require specifying the beneficiaries (women/girlsalong with other target groups) within each level of the TRFor logical framework – from outcomes, activities, and indicators, down to budget allocations.

Tracking of Gender Expenditures

We are currently hampered in our ability to consistently measure the allocation resources targeting gender specific needs due to lack of gender disaggregated data. At both the planning and project level logical frameworks need to be costed at the outcome or activity level and specify beneficiaries by gender.

Within MDTFs, systematizing a monitoring and evaluation framework where gender specific needs and allocation of resources are tracked will also increase transparency and coherency in decision-making. The current system both lacks transparency and the setting of priorities for MDTFs often occurs to the detriment of gender needs (as we have seen in DRC priority plan).

19 For more information see

28


The current low level of expenditure within MDTF projects (less than 6 percent) to address gender specific needs illustrates the difficulties in prioritizing gender needs without mandating a proportion of funds to this specific purpose. The most logical way to redress the current imbalance of funding would be to implement a minimum level of expenditures explicitly targeting gender issues. There isalso a clear president for this approach as the UNDP has successfully implemented a minimum requirement of 15% of program expenditures to advance gender equality.

Meeting the Commitment in Resolution 1325

This study has provided empirical proof that current levels of funding for gender specific needs post conflict are too low to meet the commitment specified in resolution 1325. To redress this we recommend the changes specified above to increase our ability to assess gender needs, more fully incorporate women in the reconstruction of fragile societiesand track resources down to the project level. We feel it would be useful to not only implement a gender marker to track commitments to gender programming, but to in addition provide a floor for funding of gender specific needs. Thus, the implementation of a 15% minimum allocation of all MDTF budgets to address gender specific needs post conflict for example, will make the commitment to gender equality more certain.

29

Annex A: Methodology for Data Analysis

Country Planning Documents

United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks. The more recent UNDAFs follow a format of UNDAF major outcomes, then countryprogramme outcomes, followed by indicators and budget by country program outcomes. Sometimes there are two Annexes - (i) giving the UNDAF Results and Resources Framework and (ii) giving the UNDAF Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. We work with information from both and use UNDAF major outcomes to designate "Major sector", country program outcomes as "Outcomes", country program outputs as "Policy Actions/Activities" and indicators as "Indicators". For example the UNDAF 2009-2013 for the Democratic Republic of Timor Leste has the following structure:

In tracing how well the Country Planning Document addresses or targets women's issues and needs directly, we find that they may be addressed in the following ways:

(1) An entire UNDAF Outcome could mention women. In this case we don't label all outcomes, activities, indicators and

30


funds are recorded as addressing women 100%. We go to the next step and look at Country Program Outcomes (see below (2)).

(2) An entire Country Program Outcome could be targeting or mention gender in the title. In this case we label all outcomes, activities, indicators and funds are recorded as addressing women 100%.

Eg. In the UNDAF 2009-2013 for the Democratic Republic of Timor Leste, CP Outcome 2.1: Vulnerable groups, particularlyIDPs, disaster-prone communities, women and youth, benefit from opportunities for sustainable livelihoods. In the aboveframework, that means for CP outcome 2.1, we label all the outputs and indicators for Outcome 2.1 as addressing women'sneeds.

(3) An UNDAF outcome, defined by its title, could not mention gender or women's specific needs. However the Country Program Outcomes might target women's needs. In thatcase, all outputs and indicators coming under this outcome are recorded as addressing women's needs 100%.

(4) Next we calculate the percentage of funds going directlyto women's needs by assessing the percentage of the budget addressing gender needs by outcome – this gives us what we designate as C1 (the actual gender budget). To calculate C2 (the expected gender budget) we weight the budget by the relative number of outcomes targeting women to the total outcomes. So if there are 6 outcomes in all (as in the aboveexample) and 1 activity targets women, then 1/6 of the outcome budget is the expected budget amount going to women's needs.

Project Documents

Typically the data are available in the format where every fund has a country level priority plan (if the fund spans

31

multiple countries) or a ProDoc (a programme document for the country concerned). The priority plan lists the global objective and specific outcomes and results from the fund activities. The funds are disbursed by projects; and each project in turn has a ProDoc (giving the results and (sometimes) the resources or budget framework.

Typically the project data in the ProDocs are available in any of these formats:

FORMAT I:

The project is demarcated by Outcomes, with Outputs, Activities and Indicators corresponding to a particular Outcome. Table 1.1 below presents Format I data.TABLE 1.1: PROJECT: PBF-SLE-A-3 (for example)

FORMAT II:

The project is demarcated by Outcomes but lists the Outcomes, Outputs, Activities and Indicators but without a budget

TABLE 1.2:

FORMAT III:

This is the most generic format, sometimes indicating which activities belong to which outcomes by

32


their naming pattern (as in Table 1.3 below). They do not have a budget by activity or outcome.

FORMAT IV:

This is the most detailed format and serve best for accurateestimation. They have projects demarcated by Outcomes, Activities, Indicators with a budget by Activity. This tells

us exactly how much is proposed to be spent per each activity.

33

Annex B: Documents used for Data Analysis of MDTF Projects

Complete project information by country and fund is given with supporting excel documentation MDTF Project Details by Countryfor Gender Financing for Post Conflict Background Paper.

Country Number of MDTFprojects

Number ofprojectsanalyzed

Burundi 21 21Democratic Republic of Congo

9 7

Iraq* 185 185Sierra Leone 25 25Sudan MDTF GatewaySudan Work Plan 2008

13147

4147

Timor Leste 5 5 Total 405 394

* In Iraq, using a random sampling technique, 25 of 185 projects were analyzed in detail. The 185 projects were

scanned to identify theprojects that were devoted to women’s issues.

Projects By Type of MDTF

34


Annex C: MDTF Information of Projects Directly Addressing Gender Needs

Sierra LeoneRef: Sierra Leone MDTF Analysis.xls9 of 25 projects

Project 100% toWomen?

Outcomes/Activities/Indicators addressing women

Actual BudgetTraceable to Women

Remarks on Calculations

PBF-SLE-A3 Yes O: 3/3A: 14/14I: 60/60

802,640

PBF-SLE-A4 No O: 1/2A: 0/12I: 1/20

0 No disaggregated budget available

PBF-SLE-A5 No O: 0/2A: 1/6I: 1/4

12,000 No disaggregated budget available. Onlythe categorizedbudget mentions$12,000 for training women MPs. Since this

35

is the only activity mentioned in the Logical Framework, I have taken thisto be the actual budget. The budget then, for Outcomes & Indicators are Zero & not available.

PBF-SLE-J1 Yes O: 3/3A: 7/7I: No Indicators

29,463

PBF-SLE-J2 Yes O: 3/3A: 8/8I: 11/11

45,261

PBF-SLE-B2 No O: 0/2A: 3/18I: 1/14

45,000 3 activities total $45,000. Indicators not linked to costs. Hence Outcome is Zero& Indicators isN.A.

PBF-SLE-B4 No O: 1/5A: 3/72I: 1/28

226,000 Outcome 5 mentions Women along with juveniles & other vulnerable gps.Gendered Outcome budget is 843000. OnlyActivity sum isnoted as it is more accurate. Indicators not linked to costs.

PBF-SLE-D1 No O: 1/6A: 9/28I: 8/37

3740000 Half of Outcome5 was for women. Budget in mln lei. Outcome 5 budget was

36


22340 mln lei. Half is 11170 mln lei. At exchange rate 1US$ = 2985 Leone on 11 May2007 (date on ProDoc), 11170 mln lei amountsto $ 3740000.

PBF-EMER-10 No O: 0/3A: 1/29I: No indicators listed

0 No disaggregated budget available, onlytotal project budget.

BURUNDIRef: Burundi MDTF Analysis.xls

9 of 21 projects





PBF-BDI-A3 Yes O: 2/2A: 21/21I: 56/56

3,105,193

PBF-BDI-A4 No O: 0/2A: 7/28I: 7/49

0 No disaggregated budget data available.

PBF-BDI-A6 No O: 0/3 A: 0/11I: 1/38


PBF-BDI-A7 No O: 0/2A: 0/16I: 1/52


PBF-BDI-B3 No O: 0/3A: 1/11I: 1/30


37

PBF-BDI-B4 No O: 0/2A: 0/15I: 1/18


PBF-BDI-C4 No O: 0/3A: 0/13I: 4/28


PBF-BDI-F1 No O: 1/3A: 1/6I: No indicators listed


PBF-BDI-IRF-18

No O: 2/14A: 17/18I: 15/33

O: 1375378A: 1375378

O1 mentions women partiallyand O2 is wholly for women. However,all activities & total O1 costhas been attributed to women. Plus 100% of the O2 activities & total O2 budget.

IRAQRef: Iraq MDTF Analysis.xls

6/25 projects (Initial Random Sample)





ITF-C10-11 No O: 1/2A: 2/19I: No Indicators listed

0 No disaggregated budget data available

ITF B1-22 No O: 1/4A: 0/6I: 0/5


ITF D2-14 No O: 2/2 0 No

38


A: 10/10I: 2/6

disaggregated budget data available.

ITF A5-04 No O: 0/5A: 1/22I: No Indicators listed


ITF C9-25 No O: 0/5A: 0/17I: 1/43


ITF C9-26 No O: 0/1A: 1/5I: 0/10


10/184 Iraq Trust Fund Projects Targeting Women’s Needs (all projects scanned)Project 100% to

Women?Major Sector Actual Budget

Traceable to Women

ITF B1-08 Yes Education 2230400ITF B1-33 Yes Education 12461061ITF D2-02 Yes Health 12603477ITF D2-14 Yes Health 4999050ITF D2-30 Yes Health 1406000ITF D2-32 Yes Health 2178300ITF A6-02 Yes Economic Reconstruction &

Infrastructure9194839

ITF C9-04 Yes Governance & Administration 1904616ITF C9-10 Yes Governance & Administration 3235570ITF G11-13 Yes Governance & Administration 2843985

SUDANRef: Sudan MDTF Analysis.xls

2/4 ProjectsProject 100% to

Women?Outcomes/Activities/Indicators addressing women



MDGF-1888-H- No O: 0/3 1350000 Individual activity sums

39

SDN A: 7/45I: 1/35

of 1 activity in O2 & 6 activities in O3. Indicators not linked to costs, so not available for actual budgeting.

MDGF-1978-F-SDN

No O: 1/2A: 51/56I: 28/41

4195686 Outcome 2 wholly devoted to women. Therefore all activities within this andOutcome budget of 4195686 allocated to women. Indicators not linked to cost,hence actual not available.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGORef: Democratic Republic of Congo MDTF Analysis.xls

3/7 Projects





DRC SecurityReform

No O: 1/5A: 2/17I: No Indicators Listed

1226229 O2 of 5 wholly devoted to women. There are 2 activities within this, sototal for both O&A are 1226229.

PBF-COD-B1 No O: 1/4A: 37/66I: 17/39

2890000 O1 of 4 devotedto women. All activities and indicators within this amount to

40


2890000

41

TIMOR LESTERef: Timor Leste MDTF Analysis.xls

2/5 Projects





MDGF-2040-TLS Children

No O: 1/3A: 16/21I: 13/76

2734478 O1 of 3 wholly dedicated to women. All 16 activities and 13 indicators within it AND O1 get 2734478,100% of O1 budget

MDGF-1703-B-TLS

Yes O: 3/3A: 64/64I: 25/25

4955000

42