The question that is crucial at this instant is to ask what gender mainstreaming implies. It is obvious the definition of gender mainstreaming has transformed with history. For instance, in the late 1970s and early 1980s the focus was on women rather than gender relations. This WID focus was concerned with addressing women’s needs independent from addressing or changing the prevailing gender relations. This conceptual phase was mainly about designing projects for women in the belief that these would liberate them and help them meet their social, economic and development needs without transforming the existing structure of gender relations in the respective community.
In the mid and late 1980s, the analysis revealed that it was not sufficient addressing women’s socio-economic situation independent of social cultural gender relations. Women’s overall situation was revealed to be determined by numerous factors, such as socialization process, ideology, belief system, political and economic systems, customs, traditions, education, geography, class, etc. It was thus realized that women’s situation cannot be effectively changed without reviewing their socio-cultural context vis-à-vis men and overhauling it. The new realization was that integration and mainstreaming were imperative. While gender relations had to be addressed comprehensively and thoroughly at all levels, women still needed to be targeted in a transitory period until a time when gender relations had matured to more conducive settings.
Gender mainstreaming is defined as meaning: “consistent use of a gender perspective at all stages of the development and implementation of policies, plans, programmes and projects”[1]. Mainstreaming can be used ass a means to an end (e.g., applied as a way of addressing all development problems and solutions – a main focus or approach to doing all things), or it could also be used as a strategy to achieve gender equality (e.g., only as a step in a specific phase, a temporary measure). It is undisputable the former is more effective in terms of guaranteeing sustainable development.
Nevertheless, the overriding questions have been: How do we make gender mainstreaming understandable and acceptable to all without dilution? How do we actually mainstream? Who mainstreams? And how can we learn to gender mainstream? The issue is, there is an increasing number of persons who can currently relate to gender mainstreaming or its principles, but are not fully aware of the requisite operational implications.
Gender mainstreaming means going beyond numbers, beyond focusing on how many women and men are involved in a certain activity, and instead looking at perceptions, experiences, and interests of women and men in any situation or location. It involves making these factors crucial in the development agenda. The focus therefore, is on making development interventions, sectors, processes, less gender biased (e.g., male biased). In order for this to be achieved, the development analysis has to focus on the existing social cultural relations, on power and its inherent inequalities, conflicts, and confrontations between women and men, youths and other community categories.
Gender mainstreaming is political. It involves power transformation or realignment (e.g., ensuring that the voiceless are given representations and opportunities to speak), agenda setting (e.g., that the development agenda includes desires or demands from the disadvantaged), changing organisations or institutions (e.g., that procedures, approaches, processes are made more responsive to all stakeholders), and cultural renovation (e.g., readjusting cultural norms and values to match and respond to present demands). Mainstreaming has to be given a broader focus and context, a programme orientation, as well as touch all partners.
ActionAid Tanzania and Gender Mainstreaming
It is an established fact that, ActionAid Tanzania
Strengths in Gender Mainstreaming
It was observed (during the visit by the reporting consultant), that gender mainstreaming was somehow evident in some of the project cycle stages.
a) Gender is one of the aspects addressed by the organisation through its values on “Equality and Equity to basic Needs”[2].
b) The organisation has identified a number of opportunities in addressing gender issues within its current CSP.[3]
c) A strong rationalization for priority areas with a focus on gender perspectives such as: appropriate farming technologies; low level of awareness on gender issues; and, lack of access to and control of productive resources by women.[4]
d) “Mainstreaming of gender in all aspects of Action Aid Tanzania work” being identified as one of the guiding principles for the organisation, where it is stated that “ AATz will pursue gender mainstreaming in all its activities in the coming four years in order to address the above critical factors”[5]
e) The gender disaggregated nature of naming target groups in the current CSP’s Strategic Objective #1 where it is stated categorically “to collaborate with government and people’s CSOs in working to enhance access and quality basic education for men and women in the country”.
f) The CSP document also has a set of strategies for each strategic objective, whereby the strategies include gender and women specific interventions such as: “work with CSO’s and government towards gender orientation of programme goals for all programme activities in education” (Strategic Objective #1); invest in building capacities of local institutions of various types and those that address gender specific issues, for effective management of HIV/AIDS programmes” (Strategic Objective #2); “Support research on women and special groups that have been neglected (e.g., the disabled and child-headed households) and invulnerable situations that can translate into more effective programmes for reaching out to such groups for HIV/AIDS interventions” (Strategic Objective #2); “Promote fair and equitable access to and control of productive resources (land, collateral, agricultural inputs and technology, training and extension) between men, women and also other marginalized groups” (Strategic Objective #3).
g) Moreover, the CSP’s Strategic Objective #4, deals entirely with gender issues. It states that “To address the major issues of gender equality and women’s empowerment in development processes”.
h) The CSP document’s summary of Strategic Objectives and Outcome Indicators for Monitoring contains numerous references to gender specific observations in both the strategies and outcomes.
Weaknesses in Gender Mainstreaming
The most common weakness in gender mainstreaming in most organisations and institutions, is a phenomena called the “Fade Away Effect”. This is a situation whereby organisations or institutions commit themselves to addressing gender issues, but along the way, fail to be consistent as regards: designs of its interventions (e.g., some interventions missing a gender perspective); implementation gaps (e.g., gender aspects being weeded out during implementation or in project plans for various reasons); in performance or inadequate staff incentives (e.g., staff performance and management reports not touching on gender aspects at all); unclear guidance or inconsistent follow-up (e.g., staff being deprived of constant backstopping or regular professional guidance); and neutral ToRs (e.g., terms of reference not touching on gender aspects, not allocating clear responsibility, as well as the job description).
However, the current weaknesses as regards gender mainstreaming observed in ActionAid Tanzania
a) No gender specific dis-aggregation of target groups in the vision and mission of the organisation in the current CSP. (e.g., there is a need to replace the term everyone with “all men and women”, and also work with poor communities could read “work with poor men and women in communities”. More similar changes could be done to the values.)
b) Inadequate authority in roles and responsibilities as concerns gender mainstreaming at the field office level (e.g., staff have no formal obligations for addressing gender issues).
c) Apparent male domination in some of the field offices, especially Tandahimba and Makata PAs. It could therefore be advised to see that more efforts are put into place to seek and encourage female staff to join the mentioned offices.
d) No apparent targets for balancing the sexes in recruitment, especially in consideration to the envisaged expansion in the next 3 years (whereby staff are projected to expand from 28 in 2002 to 88 in 2005). The introduction of a gender balanced recruitment goal would enable staff to be balanced sex wise.
e) Inadequate resources for coordination of gender mainstreaming aspects (e.g., gender coordination lacking adequate time and money to facilitate involvement in all other themes).
f) Absence of a regular, more inclusive and institutionalized coordination forum at the head office and field offices (e.g., there should be efforts to create an annual forum where gender issues are discussed and reviewed together with other stakeholders at the field office and head office level for the duration of the current CSP).
g) Gender mainstreaming has been mostly about following up on quantitative participation of women in certain activities (e.g., number of women in REFLECT or ACCESS committees, number of male and female staff, etc.,), and forgetting the promotion of qualitative aspects (e.g., working environment for teachers, work environment for ActionAid staff, study environment for girls, academic performance of girls, men’s involvement in caring for the sick, gender relations at the household level, etc).
h) Monitoring of changes and improvements has been generally lacking (e.g., changes in gender relations not being tracked due to absence of gender profiles for project areas or districts).
i) Insufficient practical guidelines for gender mainstreaming at the project level (e.g., inadequate experience and knowledge on gender analysis and planning skills, as well as insufficient technical backstopping from the field based gender coordinators/focal points).
It is generally anticipated by this consultant that, the above weaknesses shall be eliminated through the currently reported gender strategy and action plan.
[1] Commonwealth Secretariat.
[2] Country Strategy Paper 2002 – 2005, May 2002. Section 2.0.
[3] Ibid., Section 2.2.4.
[4] Ibid, Section 6.0.
[5] Ibid., Section 6.3.
No comments:
Post a Comment