Gender Scoping Study Report Presentation by cja13487

VIEWS: 22 PAGES: 31

									 Gender Scoping Study Report
         Presentation
__________________________________________
           Holiday Inn, Harare
              24 April 2007
                   By
      New Dimensions Consultancy Pty
                    &
             George Zimbizi
              Supported By
Outline of the Report Presentation
1.   Introduction
2.   Objectives of the Research
3.   Objectives of the Workshop
4.   The Research Process
5.   Key Findings of the Research
6.   Key Recommendations of the Research
7.   The way foward
1. Introduction
• The GSS was conceived out of a realisation by
  major funding partners & key interested
  stakeholders that the gender movement in
  Zimbabwe is fragmented and not clearly coordinated
  thereby making it difficult for one to have a clear
  overview picture of what institutions/organisations
  are doing, where and with whose/ what support.
2. Objectives of the Research
• The Gender Scoping Study was undertaken to
  identify key dimensions and gaps of gender
  inequality and how best to support and coordinate
  the gender sector. Broadly the study was
  undertaken to:
   • Identify key dimensions of gender inequality and
     gaps in Zimbabwe and how best to support
     effective responses
3. Objectives of the Workshop
• To present the Key Research Findings and Key
  Recommendations of the Gender Scoping Study
• To discuss the way forward for the gender sector
 4. The Research Process
                                     Inception Report

Start Date
13 February 2007
                                                                                       Collection and Review of                             Development of
                                                                                     Relevant Gender Documents                            Data Collection Tools




     Data
   Collection                                                                                                           Database/Data Entry
                                                                                                                              platform
                                               Questionnaire
                                                                                                                            Development,
                                               Administration to 79 NGOs
                                                                                                                         Data Entry, Coding,
                                                                                                                        Cleaning and Analysis



           22 Key Informant                                Stakeholder workshops in
                Interviews                                       Bulawayo (37 orgs-66
              with Donors,                                       participants),                                                 Validation meeting and
              Government,                               Harare (32 orgs-44 Participants),                                       Discussion of the report
          Civil Society and UN                              and Mutare (10 orgs-30                                               outline with Donors
                 Agencies                                        participants)




               Presentation of the
                   GSS Report
               at the Stakeholders                                                                     Report Writing
                                                          Presentation of the Zero
               Workshop (24 April
                                                          Draft to the Joint Donor
                      2007)                                   Steering Group
 5. Limitations of the Research
     ___________________________________
1.  Time constraints for planning workshops and setting up key
    informant interviews;
2. Non availability of some key informants;
3. Limited geographical coverage (Harare, Bulawayo and Mutare);
4. Non return of questionnaires even after several follow up attempts
5. Participants felt the questionnaire was too long;
6. Limited time for discussions during the actual workshops;
7. Lack of grassroots women and men’s concerns;
8. Lack of participation by International NGOs (only 20% of the
    targeted International NGOs responded versus 55.7% response rate
    for local NGOs);
9. Failure to interview refugee organisations such as UNHCR; and
10. Civil Society Organizations failure to provide funding related
    information due to confidentiality issues.
6. Key Findings of the Study
6.1. Key Stakeholders in the Gender Sector who
participated in this study

                               3%
              0%    0%


               2%
                         11%              UN Agencies
                                          Government
                                    12%
                                          Donors
                                          International NGOs
                                     6%
                                          Local NGOs
        66%
                                          Labour
                                          Private Sector
                                          Individual Gender Activists
6.1.1 SWOT Analysis of Government
6.1.2 SWOT Analysis for UN Agencies
6.1.3 SWOT ANALYSIS FOR DONORS
6.1.4 SWOT Analysis of Local & International NGOs

            STRENGHTS                                                                  WEAKNESSES
   1.        Some international NGOs                   Lack of a common understanding of key gender concept such as
            have resources and can                     mainstreaming and definition of gender
            draw from international                    2. Some international NGOs have an identity crisis, as they are both
            experiences                                donors and implementers. They at times compete with local NGOs for
   2.       Local NGOs have a strong                   funding.
            advocacy and lobbying                      3. Lack of coordination has resulted in competition for resources and
            base having successfully                   lack of common purpose and agenda.
            lobbied for a National                     4. Lack of financial and human resources capacity. Most of the local
                                                       gender NGOs have lost key staff as they go abroad in search of greener
            Gender Policy and the
                                                       pastures owing to the harsh economic environment. Some of the staff
            DVA.                                       has been “poached” by international NGOs. Some of the NGOs being
                                                       led by fresh college graduates with very limited experience.
                                                       5. Focus is mainly on urban areas at the expense of rural areas. Some of
                                                       the women’s NGOs now being viewed as elitist.
                                                       6. Exclusion of men within the gender/women’s movement has
                                                       overlooked the role of men as agents of change.
                                                       7. Lack of M&E frameworks to monitor and evaluate impact. Over 65%
                                                       of interviewed NGOs did not have an M&E system.
                                                       8. Limited focus on key gender aspects of women and disability, youths
                                                       and vocational training, post exposure prophylaxis for victims of rape,
                                                       women’s economic empowerment, human trafficking, displaced
                                                       populations and women and access to health services.



        OPPORTUNITIES
1. The GSS, ZUNDAF and the
Women’s Coalition initiative
provides an opportunity for the
local NGOs to be better
coordinated.                                                        THREATS
                                       1.Decrease in funding from the donors is more likely to be the case if
                                       current funding trends continue.
                                       2. Current harsh economic environment a threat to the operations of
                                       NGOs. The high rate of inflation (at over 2000%) reduces real value of funds
                                       resulting in reduced impact.
                                       3. Loss of institutional memory as more and more local NGO staff leave to
                                       go abroad or to join international NGOs which are better paying. This is
                                       likely to be the fact in the wake of decreased funding.
                                       4. The Women’s Coalition likely to collapse or weaken if members are
                                       politically patronized especially in view of national elections to be held next
                                       year in 2008.
                                       5. Some of the NGOs deemed to be anti-government might find themselves
                                       de-registered resulting in them failing to complete their projects.
      6.2. Key Dimensions of Gender Inequality in
                      Zimbabwe

____________________________________


                                                                                                  73
                                Empowerment
                             Coalition building                                                             85

                                                                23
                                     Disability
                                                                                                                           95
Education, Culture, Religion and Socialization

   Reproductive health and sexual rights and                                                                          92
   HIV/AIDS
                                                                                                             87
             Constitutional and Legal Issues
                                                                                                                  91
                             Economic Issues
                                                                                                                 89
       Human Rights-gender based violence

                                                  0   10   20        30   40   50    60      70        80   90             100

                                                                          % of Respondents

    Dimensions of Gender Inequality in Zimbabwe
              Key Dimensions Ctd 1
• Culture, religion and socialisation-
   • patriarchal attitudes (forced marriages, men’s superiority versus
     women subservience, wife inheritance),
   • masculinity and femininity (dominance of men over women.)
• Statutory and customary law –
   • gaps in the constitution e.g. bill of rights
   • dichotomy between statutory and customary laws
   • Lack of awareness of rights and provisions of the law
   • Implementation
• Women’s rights and gender-based violence
   • Domestic violence
   • Sexual abuse
   • Psychological abuse
   • Economic abuse
• Economic empowerment
   • Participation in the formal and informal sectors
   • Decline in the national economic performance-what has it led to?
Key Dimensions Ctd 2
•     Education
    •    Enrolment & Access
•     Health and reproductive/sexual rights
    •    Decline in health service delivery
    •    HIV and AIDS.
    •    Sexual reproductive rights
•     Policy and advocacy
    •    Access
    •    Knowledge
    •    Advocacy (strategies and appropriateness)
•     Gender and disability
    •     Access (health, education, employment, legal frameworks etc)
•     Decision making
    •    Participation
    •    Access
    •    Implementation
              6.3. Areas of Intervention in Gender Programming




                        Networking and movement building among women        2.5

                                               Economic Empowerment               5

                                                  Men's Empowerment         2.5

                                               Women's Empowerment          2.5

                                                Gender Mainstreaming                  7.5
Areas of Intervention




                                                 Rape Victims Support       2.5

                                                      Disabled Women                  7.5

                                                    Gays and Lesbians       2.5

                                                 Gender and HIV/AIDS                             12.5

                                                  Reproductive Health                 7.5

                                                  Gender Coordination                 7.5

                                                Gender Based Violence       2.5

                                                            Advocacy                                                     27.5

                                                               Policy                       10


                                                                        0         5         10          15     20   25          30

                                                                                                   % of NGOs
6.4. GAPS IN GENDER PROGRAMMING
Gap                                                                                                      % of Respondents
Lack of adequate funding and attention by funding partners on gender issues                                     97
Lack of funds to respond to emergence gender issues                                                             91
Lack of documentation                                                                                           89
No common understanding of the gender concept                                                                   88
Lack of coordination in the gender sector                                                                       84
Lack of gender expertise and human resource                                                                     83
No proper monitoring and evaluation systems                                                                     83
Lack of information on gender issues such as the gender policy to grassroots communities                        77
Lack of focus on mobile groups of the population                                                                75
Confusion between women's issues and gender issues                                                              72
Lack of systematic approach on Policy, Procedure and practice                                                   65
Lack of nationwide consultations on gender issues                                                               62
No mainstreaming of disability in all gender programmes                                                         34
Lack of male involvement in gender programming                                                                  29

Lack of long term funding on gender activities/programmes                                                       92
Lack of ongoing sharing of information on programming priorities and areas of operations among women's
     NGOs (leading to unnecessary competition for attention and resources)                                      83
Language barrier and culture                                                                                    88

Lack of regional and international networks in the gender sector                                                75
Lack Knowledge Management and ICT skills                                                                        72
Key Gaps in gender programming

• Conceptualisation of gender             –gender &
    women
• Funding
• Legal and Policy issues            –technical gaps,
    implementation
•   Coordination –at all levels
•   Capacity –HR, Financial
•   M&E
•   Focus areas-e.g. youths, men, mobile populations
6.5. Three Year Funding Analysis of
        the Gender Sector
                                        Three Year Funding Trend in Gender Programmes                        Inadequate        funding     has
                                                                                                             weakened         the    women’s
                                                                                                             movement and gender sector.
                                                                                                             Over the past three years
       2006




                   1,042,576.92                                                                              donor        flows    to    civic
                                                                                                             organisations have declined
                                                                                                             from around US$2,6million
                                                                                                             to just over US$1million.
                                                                                                             The funding has been short-
                                                                                                             term (one year) with the civic
Year
        2005




                                  1,654,884.00

                                                                                                             organisations receiving an
                                                                                                             average of US$11,000 per
                                                                                                             year       each.     Bureaucratic
                                                                                                             requirements for accessing
                                                    2,626,800.00                                             funding have been noted as
        2004




                                                                                                             too complicated for small
                                                                                                             CBOs. This has resulted in
                                                                                                             their failure to access funding.
               0    500000                1000000            1500000           2000000   2500000   3000000

                                                      Total Amount Funded
6.6. Existence of Clear and Results Oriented
Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation


                        9%




                                    Yes
                                    No




                  91%
   6.7. Donor Mapping
6.7.1 Programming Approach                                              6.7.2 Areas of Support

                                                                        100.0
                                                                100.0

                                                                 90.0

                                                                 80.0             78.6

                                                                 70.0

                                                                 60.0
   36%
                     Gender Mainstreaming Alone   % of Donors    50.0

                                                                 40.0
                     Gender Stand-alone &
                                                                 30.0                          28.6        28.6
                     Mainstreaming                                                                                               21.4
                                                                 20.0
                                                                                                                      14.3                   14.3
               64%                                               10.0

                                                                  0.0
                                                                         HI           Ge         Re          Ec            Yo       Do         Me
                                                                           V/A           nd        pr           on           uth       me         dia
                                                                                ID          er        od           om            s        sti          ,A
                                                                                  S            &        uc              ic                    cV         rt
                                                                                                 W         t iv            Em                   iol         &C
                                                                                                   om          eR             po                    en
                                                                                                       en          ig h          we                   ce       ult
                                                                                                          Rig          ts          rm                              ure
                                                                                                               hts                   en
                                                                                                                                       t
                       Funding information
6.7.3 Committed Funds in the next 3 years                               6.7.4 Current Funding Modalities
                                                                                                       Current funding modalities




                                                                                                       14.3
                                                                          Non Funders
       36%                     35%

                                     1million-3 million                                                14.3




                                                           Modalities
                                                                         Fund Manager
                                     Less than 1 million
                                     Not sure
                                                                                          0.0
                                                                        Basket Funding



                       29%                                                                                                                             71.4
                                                                         Direct Funding



                                                                                      0.0       10.0     20.0    30.0      40.0       50.0   60.0   70.0      80.0

                                                                                                                        % of Donors
7. Key Conclusions and Implications of Findings
for Future Gender Programming
  •   The findings of the study are crucial for the future of gender
      programming in Zimbabwe. Put simply, if the current trends of
      decline in donor funding, the gender sector is going to be
      critically disabled and a number of civic organisations will
      cease to exist. This will reverse the momentum and gains of
      several years of activism and programming.
  •   Civic organisations on the other hand should realise that the
      more they remain uncoordinated and without a common
      agenda, there more they are likely to engage in unproductive
      competition with each other and the less they are likely to
      attract donor funding. Civic organisations have to develop
      robust M&E frameworks that demonstrate evidence and
      impact of their programmes to keep donor interest alive and
      support from their various constituents. If they fail to
      demonstrate impact, donors will move to new areas of focus
      and they will loose credibility with the constituent
      communities.
8. Key Recommendations of the Research

8.1. Capacity building
     • Conceptual capacity
     • Coordination capacity
     • Financial and Human Resources
     • M&E technical capacity
8.2. Coordination

• Coordination of various stakeholders in the gender sector needs to
  be strengthened by the injection of both financial and human
  resources. At national level there is need for international donors
  to give maximum support to ZUNDAF Joint Working Plan for
  Gender. For ZUNDAF to be more effective UNIFEM’s
  coordination capacity needs to be supported financially and in
  terms of human resources. The donors themselves need to keep
  the Joint Donor Initiative afloat and use it as a forum for sharing
  information and joint planning. Strengthening of the Women’s
  Coalition secretariat is also a priority.
8.3. Methods and Approach to Strengthen
          Gender Programming

 1. There is need to include men in gender equality and use
    them as agents of positive change;
 2. While gender mainstreaming is a key component of
    gender programming, there is need for donors to fund
    gender standalone projects. Mainstreaming gender
    into other developmental programmes is resulting in
    women are being lost in the bigger picture; and
 3. Civic organisations should develop robust M&E
    systems for them to be able to demonstrate impact of
    programmes. The CEDAW shadow reports should be
    compiled on an annual basis to measure national progress
    towards set gender goals.
       8.4. Possible Programming Entry
             Points and focus areas
•   There is a need to explore non-traditional entry points into gender
    programming. The entry points should target main institutions of
    socialisation as the socialisation process is critical in shaping attitudes
    on gender. Suggested non-traditional entry-points include:
    1. Men and men’s organisations
    2. Religious institutions
    3. Youths (boys and girls)
    4. Disabled peoples associations
    5. Private sector
    6. Trade Unions
    7. The family unit
    8. Music, theatre and art which can be broadcast nationally via both
        print and electronic media.
    9. Engendering the electoral process as women seem to participate less
        and less in politics because of fear of political violence.
    10. Human trafficking
    11. Internally displaced populations
8.5. Funding Levels and Mechanisms
1.   Increase the levels;
2.   Increase the lifespan of the funding cycle;
3.   Consider funding men’s civic organisations;
4.   Simplify application for funding requirements ;
5.   Improve geographical coverage;
6.   Disseminate information on calls for proposals
8.6. Options for Funding
     8.7.Funding Options under Different Scenarios
                  (To discuss in groups)
Scenario One: Coordination amongst donors improves greatly; gender         Scenario Two: Coordination amongst donors improves; gender
sector organisations form a strong and well-coordinated coalition with a   sector coordination improves and there is a strong coalition; Donor
sound secretariat; relations between government and the donor community    relations with Government improve; ZUNDAF is well on course
remain as they are.
One option is to let the secretariat of the coalition manage the
                                                                           The first one is for donors to do basket funding of clusters
fund provided the secretariat’s coalition would have been built to
                                                                           within a coalition through the coalition secretariat along
satisfactory levels.
                                                                           similar lines as in Scenario One.
 Another option is to outsource an expert fund manager to do
the management of the fund. The fund manager could be a private            The second option is to support both the coalition
consultancy firm or a UN agency such as UNIFEM. The fund                   secretariat and direct funding to the Gender Ministry to
manager could have both roles of managing the funds and providing          improve its capacity.
technical backstopping such as M&E to coalition members.                   A third option would be parallel funding to both the
An alternative is to outsource technical expertise (along the lines        coalition and ZUNDAF. Different donors within the Donor
of DFID’s TLC) to provide the technical backstopping. Both the fund        Steering Committee would then decide which aspects of
manager and/or the technical consultant will report to the Joint           options they would like to fund.
Donor Steering Committee.



  Scenario Three: Donor coordination improves, gender coalition            Scenario Four:         Situation remains as it is; weak donor
  remains weak.                                                            coordination; weak gender coalition coordination; poor government-
                                                                           donor relations.
  The option 1 would be for the donors to do basket funding
  through a fund manager or through UNIFEM.                                The main option is to fund through UNIFEM who have had
                                                                           experience in dealing with the Women’s Coalition and
                                                                           therefore know what most of the organisations are doing.
  Donors could opt to fund individual civic organisations but having
                                                                           UNIFEM’s capacity would need to be strengthened though.
  done joint funding discussions amongst themselves to avoid
                                                                           UNIFEM would be responsible for disbursement of the funds
  double funding and duplication of activities.
                                                                           to the coalition members and to give technical backstopping
                                                                           either directly or as clusters.
                                                                           Donors could do direct funding to those organisations
                                                                           outside the coalition who make applications. The possibilities
                                                                           of double dipping however remain very high.
  The way forward ? Group
            Discussions
•Policy
•Programming (focus areas, approach &
implementation)
•Coordination
•Funding
•Capacity building

								
To top