FINAL Ethiopia Gender Marker Report by liaoqinmei


									                               Gender Marker Implementation

1.     Country Context

Ethiopia has had a long history of natural and manmade emergencies and humanitarian crisis.
The country still remains extremely vulnerable to external shocks and natural disasters and the
related hazards, including drought, disease and floods. Persistent drought and food insecurity
particularly continue to fuel humanitarian and emergency crisis, affecting on average 7.5Million
people each year for the last ten years. This is further impacted by both internal and external
tensions and conflicts.

National humanitarian needs are projected and outlined in the Humanitarian Requirement
Document(HRD), which is developed bi-annually led by the Government and supported by
various Humanitarian stakeholders, particularly the UN and INGO’s. The HRD projects both fod
and non food related needs.

The Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF), a pooled fund mechanism is a major rapid response
tool that responds to non food emergency needs. In 2009, the HRF fund disbursed slightly
above USD 39,000,000 and in 2010; the fund has disbursed close to USD 26,000,000 to date. It
was established in 2006 with the aim of promoting a more harmonized and coordinated
approach to emergency and humanitarian funding.

The Gencap Advisor has been closely working with the HRF team since the commencement of
the deployment in April 2009, to enhance the integration of gender in the pooled fund
mechanism as a key step in institutionalizing gender integration in emergency planning and
responses. The templates and guidelines were reviewed to incorporate gender aspects and a
gender checklist embedded as a critical guide in 2009.

Consistently and over the past 18 months, the Advisor has worked closely, at the technical level
with the HRF team in supporting clusters, applicants and the HRF board to review their
proposed actions in line with the gender review and the application of the gender marker. The
NFI/emergency shelter/CCM, WASH, education, protection clusters and the GBV sub cluster
have been targeted and supported throughout this period of reporting.

2.     Gender Marker Implementation

Approach and Entry Points
    In July 2009 –November 2009, in collaboration with the CARE international, the
      Protection cluster and the UN Gender Technical Working Group, the HRF guidelines and
      templates were engendered. This was a process already envisioned by the HRF team
      as a recommendation from a HRF/donor’s workshop in 2009. This was a critical and
      strategic entry point, not only for the Gender marker (which had not been introduced
      then) but also for the work of the Gencap Advisor, as it emphasized the importance of a
      gender analysis in the needs assessment and the problem identification as well as an
      embedded gender checklist (adapted from the IASC and CARE gender handbooks)
      which guides the project cycle. The resultant output, was that gender was profiled as an
      important aspect in good humanitarian programming.
    In January 2010, the engendered templates were adopted and applicants were required
      to use them in applying for HRF funds. This was an important preamble for the gender
      marker, as now the gender marker could be introduced as another complementary
      process whose roots were grounded in the overall mainstreaming process, a process
       that aims at enhancing accountability and as a self assessment tool that assesses the
       effectiveness of the proposed project in delivering for men, women, boys and girls. A
       brief uptake period for the newly reviewed HRF guidelines and formats, before the
       official introduction of the gender marker, was very instrumental as it ensured that the
       changes in the template were disseminated fully and used thus creating a softer ground
       for the gender marker introduction.
       In April 2010, the gender marker was introduced formally in a workshop attended by
       Donors, (Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, ECHO and DFID), cluster leads, UN
       agencies, INGO’s (more than 15 key actors) and Government of Ethiopia
       representatives. The Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) gave a key note speech that
       emphasized the importance of practical and innovative initiatives that translate gender
       commitments into action in humanitarian actions. The UNFPA representative and
       UNOCHA Head of Office in their speeches too also reiterated the importance of
       ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches women, men, boys and girls through proper
       identification of their needs and planning for them in the responses. This official
       introduction was key in situating the gender marker in a wider UN humanitarian
       programming and delivery as opposed to being a “Gencap project delivery”.
      From May 2010- Capacity building session targeting individual clusters in one day or half
       day sessions have been carried out. These have been instrumental since they are
       practical and use examples from within the cluster portfolio or ongoing projects.
      Supporting the peer review mechanism to vet the HRF applications as well as individual
       applicants to apply the marker.

Step-by-Step Actions Taken to Support Country Roll Out

          Action                 Reason / Comment                     Value of Action
                                  (if not self evident)      Essential Useful         Minimal
Step 1: Engendering the       Critical and strategic entry   Very
HRF formats and               point which was planned        essential
guidelines in July to         before the introduction of
November 2009                 the gender marker, but
                              proved pivotal in the
Step 2: Gender marker         Official launch that was       Very
introductory workshop in      instrumental in the            essential
April 2010                    formulation of an action
                              plan by the stakeholders
                              present, which has been a
                              reference in the
Step 3: Awareness             Aimed as a constant                        Very
sessions to clusters during   reminder on what the                       Useful as it
planned cluster meetings      marker is and its benefits                 generates
or planning sessions-         in humanitarian                            interest
ongoing since April 2010      programming.                               and most
                                                                         as a follow
                                                                         up action.
Step 4: 1 or ½ day training   -During the half day           Very
sessions for individual       sessions, a presentation       essential
clusters – on going since     is made, relevant
April 2010                     materials shared and the
                               clusters review previous
                               applications from their
                               members, code them and
                               suggest actions that could
                               have been incorporated to
                               make them more gender
                                -During full day trainings,
                               the IASC ACT and
                               ADAPT is discussed and
                               the cluster gender
                               checklist is
                               in addition to the gender
                               marker session.
                               The two processes then
                               are interlinked and viewed
                               as complimentary, with
                               the gender marker
                               dialogue emphasizing
                               accountability to gender
Step 5: Technical support      This reinforces the          Very
to the clusters and            principle that it is not     essential
individual applicants in       simply getting a good
applying the marker and        code but incorporation of
redesigning the                practical actions and re-
applications – ongoing         designing the application
since April 2010               based on the GM
Step 6: Regional roll out of   (Yet to be implemented)
the gender marker through
regional coordination
forums (next step)

What would you repeat and why?

      In principle, all the steps were and are very relevant as it presents a logical flow and
       also enhances the stakeholders perception of the gender marker, as not being a
       standalone tool, but as an easy to use tool that enhances being practical in gender
       mainstreaming and an easy accountability mechanism for clusters who may not have a
       lot of gender knowledge.
      In Ethiopia, engendering the HRF guidelines and formats was very critical and
       provided a softer landing for the gender marker introduction. The Gencap Advisor was
       able to situate the gender marker within a wider framework of good programming which
       probably has supported faster adoption of the tool. Ideally, this is considered as the most
       critical step in Ethiopia’s experience.
      Consistency and availability in supporting the clusters, the HRF board and the HRF
       team, including individual HRF applicants whenever support was requested also created
       an enabling environment for the marker’s use. Ethiopia’s deployment was long and this
       enabled more consistent support to the clusters.
      Training and building capacity of the clusters individually on gender equality
       programming alongside the introduction of the gender marker is instrumental in ensuring
       the tool is meaningful and relevant for the clusters as the training is tailored towards the
       cluster operations and responsibilities. This also ensures that the marker is perceived
       within the wider framework of gender equality and not as a standalone tool that would
       otherwise be filled cosmetically.
      Training members of the Protection cluster and gender networks(the latter is
       planned), who in most cases are gender, GBV and protection specialists is aimed at
       creating a critical mass of personnel that will support other clusters in implementing the
       gender marker. In the long run, this is envisioned as a step that will create ownership
       and sustainability of the tool and the efforts to integrate gender in the cluster
       coordination processes.

What would you change and how?
   There has been limited experience sharing with the rest of the countries piloting the
      marker. This would be especially important when there are challenges, or the need to
      adjust the tool, or introduction methodology then lessons can be shared widely.
   The global clusters involvement in advocacy for the gender marker would be
      instrumental especially in dealing in breaking the ice with clusters that are
      “unapproachable” at country level.

External Constraints (that are specific to the context/country

      In Ethiopia, there is dual leadership of the clusters/sectors by the Government and the
       UN (and/or other humanitarian partners), and therefore the marker too should ideally be
       introduced to all members and be linked to the Governments strategic outlook that is
       now focusing on disaster risk reduction and management. However, the marker was
       envisioned as a tool to be used by humanitarian partners funded under the CAP and the
       pooled fund mechanisms.
      In Ethiopia, Local NGO’s are not direct beneficiaries of the HRF and thus may not be
       targeted by default especially during the capacity building and awareness sessions.
       However, INGO’s partner with the local NGO’s and in some instances the LNGO’s are
       the implementing partner, therefore necessitating their knowledge of the marker.
       Cascading the gender marker introductions and trainings to regional levels will partially
       address this gap or lobbying with other gender specialists within the NGO’s to target
       their partners too, as part of enhancing delivery and good implementation of
       humanitarian responses.

Internal Constraints (related to GMs, the material, the remote support available)

     As a result of tight schedules and responsibilities, the Gencap Advisor may not be
      always available to support the clusters, since still the cluster coordinators have not fully
      usurped the role of ensuring the marker is used effectively in the clusters.
     The cluster guidance note is bulky and refers more heavily to the CAP and minimally to
      the pooled fund mechanisms (although there is an explanation), clusters may not feel
      obligated to use the guidance in non- CAP settings.


      There is firm commitment by the HC, UNCT, UNFPA and UNOCHA to enhancing the
       integration of gender in humanitarian action has created an enabling environment for the
       Gencap’s work. As a result of the realization that gender integration and mainstreaming
       is a process that requires time and resources, the HC and UNFPA requested for a
       longer term deployment to build up on the gender marker initiatives as well as other
       capacity building efforts.
      The 2009 HRF guidelines and templates gender review was very instrumental, in fact
       one of the most instrumental enablers to the introduction of the gender marker. It was
       perceived as a first step and it has borne fruit, as gender was profiled as an important
       dimension in the design of emergency responses funded under the HRF.
      The 2009 UNCT commissioned gender audit amongst several UN agencies, raised
       awareness on gender gaps and lessons within the UN agencies.
      2009 UNDAF midterm review highlighted weaknesses in gender integration across
       board thus raising more awareness on gender.
      Presence of a Gencap advisor, before the introduction of the gender marker was
       catalytic and paved way as her role was well understood by the clusters and also the
       Advisor had navigated and identified allies and useful networks that were necessary in
       the marker introduction.
      A gender marker template developed by the HRF team and Gencap Advisor, that
       should be filled by the applicants and the reviewers has supported in redesigning the
       proposals to accommodate any recommendations from the review process.
      The Ethiopia HRF is a continuous process throughout the year and thus unlike the CAP
       process, where all proposals are submitted within a specific time frame, applications are
       being processed continuously thus requiring an “ear on the ground” always inorder to
       support the different clusters efficiently. This gives the GA time also to support in the
       review, as the number of proposals differ from month to month.

Gender Marker Toolkit

General Appreciation of the tools:

The tools are practical and user friendly as opposed to expectations of most technical personnel
who already have a misconceived perception of gender. The marker is revolutionary in that it
“eases” the gender debate and brings it down to doable and practical actions, which non gender
experts would under other circumstances not identify with in terms of programming. Additionally,
the tool focuses on three critical areas of analysis thereby encouraging a gender analysis by the
cluster/applicant or review team.

The resultant discussions and deliberations while assigning the marker code have been very
instrumental in enhancing the design of the projects, including institutionalizing of gender in the
applicant organization. For example, as a result of engendering the HRF formats and the
implementation of the gender marker, some HRF applicants have incorporated a gender
specialist budget within the implementation of the project to focus on building the organization’s
capacity on gender and to enhance a gender responsive implementation for the project and
other future or ongoing projects.

An unintentional and positive impact has been an interest by some organizations; especially
INGO’s in using the gender marker internally to vet other Non-HRF projects. No reports
however have been shared as of date, but it is evident that the tool offers a fast and practical
way of enhancing accountability to gender equality, particularly in emergency projects which are
in most cases short lived and geared towards saving lives.

Specific comments:

Currently, there have been requests to those applying the gender marker for comments, lessons
learnt and challenges on the use in order to contribute to the review of the tools. The following
are some of the issues raised:

   1. The “how to code tip sheet”, some gender specialists and protection cluster members
      viewed this guidance tool as being over-simplified and subjective as it only focuses on
      the code (which is either the presence or absence of a tick) in the three critical entry
      points and may lead to quickly assigning a code without due consideration of all the
      facts. This may be a valid point, however, in Ethiopia, a gender marker template was
      developed in May 2010 and has been in use, it seeks to documents the dialogue during
      the review process with a column detailing why the marker code was assigned and
      another column detailing some recommendations for improvement, which the applicant
      should incorporate before the application is tabled before the review board. The vision is
      to review/merge these two tools (the how tip code sheet and the Ethiopia marker
      template that is filled by applicants/clusters) and get the best fit that will be serving the
      intended purpose of improving the quality of emergency programming vis a vis gender.

   2. Secondly, some users have perceived the marker scale (0,1,2a,2b) to be very limiting
      particularly at the peer review processes and one of the most common suggestion
      brought forth by a few of stakeholders is to expand the code to (0, -1,+1,-2a,+2a, 2b) to
      enhance the room for improvement, for example; a project could be an almost 2a, but
      needing some level of adjustments to measure up as a 2a, therefore the
      recommendation is to assign a lower level of 2a(-2a) and feedback to the project
      developer on proposed recommendations. This has been perceived as a way of giving
      more room to the applicants for improvement.

   3. There has been encouragement from the HRF team to applicants to engage in self
      assessment and fill the gender maker template as the design the project and share this
      with the review mechanism. There is an indication that these projects which have gone
      through this process, of self assessments at the level of the design and before the peer
      review, have to some extent addressed more gender issues and more commitment to
      enhancing gender mainstreaming within the proposed initiative. This may not be
      conclusive within this pilot period, but should be encouraged to draw more factual

   4. In tandem to the gender marker process too, is the fact that the HRF application
      template is engendered and also includes an embedded gender checklist. This has led
      to a significant improvement of the quality of proposals vis a vis gender as compared to
      2009 and beforehand. The review process therefore doesn’t only focus on applying the
      gender marker, but also on how well gender dimensions are reflected in the application;
      at the needs identification and also how these identified gender issues would be
      addressed in activities and outcomes. Thus, in addition to the peer review process, in
      some instances the review board involves the Gencap Advisor and the Protection cluster
      in the technical review of applications. The technical reviews are however inconsistent
      and should be encouraged to enhance integration of gender holistically and across
      board. At the end of the various review processes, the final gender marker code
      improves from the initially assigned code during the applicant’s self assessment, as
      improvements to the design are encouraged and recommended from both the peer
      review process by the cluster and further reviews as recommended by the board.
      However, a weakness that may manifest on the code’s analysis is that once the
      applicant organizations improve the application with respect to gender, sometimes the
      code is not adjusted to reflect these changes.
Cluster Participation
Comment on cluster activities: (variances in reception/response to the marker; clusters
requesting most/least support; any cluster-specific insights).

     Cluster        Commitment to      Acceptance of      Needs (training,          General
                        gender            the GM            support, etc.)         comments
Nutrition           Moderate           Expressed a lot    Needs training       Cluster reviews
                                         of interest      and more             have included the
                                                          support              gender marker.
Health              Moderate            No contact yet    Needs training
                                                          and more
NFI/emergency       High                    High                               The cluster has
shelter/CCM                              Acceptance                            adopted          the
                                                                               gender checklist
                                                                               and tools fully.
WASH                Moderate to high   Shows interest                          Various
                                                                               sessions have
                                                                               been carried out
                                                                               and their tools
                                                                               reviewed, however
                                                                               the uptake has
Education           High               High acceptance                         One day training
                                                                               on the gender
                                                                               marker carried out
                                                                               and consistent on
                                                                               spot support.
Protection          High               High                                    ½ day training
                                       Acceptance                              carried out and
                                                                               support being
                                                                               given during
                                                                               technical reviews
                                                                               of proposals.
Food distribution   No individual      No contact yet
                    contact yet
Agriculture         No individual      No contact yet
                    contact yet
Early warning       Not active         Not active         Not active           Not active

HC/HCT Leadership & Engagement
(Who were the champions/allies/facilitators of the gender marker process? Identify gaps in
championing and/or facilitating.)

     Interlocutor      Commitment to      Acceptance of     Needs (training,         General
                            gender           the GM          support, etc.)         comments
HC                     High              High
UNCT                   High                High                                 The Senior
OCHA management        High                High                                 management
HRF management         High                High                                 has been very
and team                                                                        instrumental in
UNFPA                  High                High                                 the introduction
management                                                                      of the gender
IOM(NFI/emergency      High                High                                 marker through
shelter/CCM cluster                                                             creating an
lead)                                                                           enabling
                                                                                and space.

Donor Outreach

   Donors were invited by UNOCHA to the gender marker introduction on the 7th of April.
    Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, ECHO and DFID were present.(These are also some of
    the main donors to the Ethiopian HRF)
   The 2009 HRF annual report (currently being published) compliments the Gencap project on
    the support, underscores the importance of engendering the HRF formats and the
    introduction of the gender marker as an accountability tool and annexes the gender marker
    template. As this report will be disseminated widely, including to the donors, there is hope
    that it will generate interests amongst the donors on the positive steps towards enhancing
    integration of gender in emergency responses.
   In July 2010, a DFID commissioned external HRF review lauded the “strenuous efforts” to
    promote gender sensitivity by adhering to the guidelines set out in the IASC gender marker,
    that had led to the improvement of the design and delivery of HRF programmes.

           Results – The Gender Analysis of the HRF guidelines and application template.

                                                      Yes No
Strategic Priorities include gender equality          yes
Selection Criteria include gender equality            yes
Narrative features gender analysis/issues             yes

 The HRF templates (overall guidelines, application template, progress and final reporting
  templates, budgets) have been engendered and thus encourage a gender analysis right
  from the problem identification to monitoring and evaluation. A gender checklist, adopted
  from the IASC and CARE gender handbooks is embedded as a guide throughout the project
  cycle in the HRF guidelines. This implicitly underscore the importance of adhering to gender
  mainstreaming as a strong criteria for a project attracting funding, although applications with
  weak gender integration are funded but with strong recommendations on how to mainstream
  during implementation.
 The gender marker template is being reinforced as part of the proposal review process,
  including as part of self assessment by the applicants to the HRF, the peer review by the
  clusters and the HRF team and board review. This sends out a strong message to the
  humanitarian partners that gender is important in the selection criteria although applications
  are not turned down completely but the applicants are requested to redesign them with the
  support of either the Gencap Advisor or internal capacity.

                             Gender Dimensions in Cluster Response Plans

Cluster                Gender in                  Gender in                    Gender in       Gender in
                       Needs Analysis             Objectives-                  Response        Monitoring
                                                  Results-Indicators           Strategy
Agriculture            Some                       Some                         Some            Some
NFI/emergency          Yes                        Yes                          Yes             Yes
Early Recovery         Not active                 Not active                   Not active      Not active
Education              Yes                        Yes                          Yes             Yes
Food Security          Some                       Some                         Some            Some
Health                 Some                       Some                         Some            Some
Nutrition              Some                       Some                         Some            Some
Protection             Yes                        Yes                          Yes             Yes
WASH                   Some                       Some                         Some            Some

                                              Gender Code Results1
Cluster                        Total #          Code 0      Code 1                     Code 2a            Code 2b
                                                 # (%)              # (%)              # (%)              # (%)
Agriculture                    10                10                 60                 303
NFI/CCCM/emergency             3                 -                  334                67
Education                      15                                                      100
Food Security                  -                 -                  -                  -                  -
Health                         -                 -                  -                  -                  -
Nutrition                      7                 28                 28                 42
Protection/UNFPA               16                -                  -                  -                  100
WASH                           16                6                  50                 437-
UNDSS                          1                 100

    5. Use of the Marker to Track GBV Results

        So far, there has been no application submitted on GBV, however with the formation of
         the GBV sub cluster, the members will be submitting proposals in the near future.
        From a word search, in a random sample of 20 applications; 16% had indicated GBV
         terms; especially sexual exploitation of boys and girls and Gender based violence
         affecting women and girls, although an indicative budget or output was not always

  In some instances when the application has been revised from the review processes, the final gender code has not
been revised. This needs to be adjusted in future gender marker templates.
  These are applications received and funded after the introduction of the gender marker, from end of April
2010/May 2010.
  One of the projects in this category is a joint project consisting of 4 partners, for the purposes of this analysis; it
was treated as one project as there is joint accountability for the results.
  Recommendations were made to the applicant to ensure that sanitary materials were included in this initiative as
part of enhancing integration of targeted actions based on a gender analysis.
  This was part of a joint initiative addressing WASH issues too.
  The proposal was submitted by UNFPA, with the aim of supporting the Gencap role in 2011.
  Of note is that majority of these WASH projects in these categories address other sectors jointly with WASH such
as Agriculture, NFI and Education. None is a standalone WASH initiative.
       visible. Actions ranged from awareness raising and ensuring safety and security of
       women and girls in the implementation of the emergency operations.

5.   Next Steps – Suggestions for follow up after the pilot phase.

At the level of the clusters:
 Outlining the role of the protection cluster (or the GenNet where available), in reinforcing
    and institutionalizing the use of the gender marker and giving adequate support to the rest of
    the clusters in the application after a Gencap Advisor leaves.

At HC/HCT level:
 Continuous advocacy and lobbying with the HC and HCT’s as advocates for gender in

At the level of the donors:
 Lobbying with the donors to encourage their humanitarian partners to implement and apply
    the Gender marker at all levels would be a critical step forward.


To top