Lessons learned

Topic:	The Gender Marker – a Practical Tool for the Agriculture Cluster.
Author:	Linda Pennells, GenCap Adviser (Canada).
Background documents:	The IASC Gender Marker Webpage
Applied Participatory Approaches:	The IASC Gender Marker

 

Introduction

The first 10-country implementation of the IASC gender marker in humanitarian funding signals that the gender marker is a practical and useful tool for agriculture clusters.  Where there was active facilitation of the gender marker, agriculture teams responded well. They focused more on gender analysis and designed projects to better respond to the distinct needs of male and female farmers, fishers and herders.

 

What is the Gender Marker?

The gender marker, designed by the IASC Sub-Working groups on the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) and Gender, facilitates tracking of gender allocations in humanitarian projects and nurtures gender equality results. It responds to UN Security Council and humanitarian community demands for more evidence that humanitarian action is equally meeting the needs of male and female beneficiaries. The gender marker aligns with recent initiatives by OECD/DAC and UNDP.

The 10-country implementation took place in the 2011 CAP preparation cycle. Implementation included eight CAP appeals and two pooled funds (PF)(1).  All countries either had an agriculture cluster, a merged cluster of agriculture with food security or livelihoods, or in the case of Southern Sudan, agriculture activities were embedded in the Return and Early Integration Cluster.

The gender marker is a tool that codes, on a 0-2 scale, whether or not a humanitarian project is designed well enough to ensure women/girls and men/boys will benefit equally from it or that it will advance gender equality in another way.   

 

The Gender Code in Agriculture
Gender Code 0 No visible potential to advance gender equality	Gender is not reflected anywhere in the project sheet. There is risk that the project will unintentionally nurture existing gender inequalities or deepen them. Example: a project to rehabilitate irrigation channels in returnee communities with no indication that female and male farmers both have the right to benefit or of their different farming roles, skills, needs, protection concerns etc.
Gender Code 1 Potential to contribute in some limited way to gender equality	The project has gender dimensions in only one or two components of the critical three components: 1) Needs   2) Activities  3) Outcomes. Examples: a project to revive traditional subsistence farm knowledge. The Needs section of the project sheet notes local men have traditional knowledge in constructing insect-resistant grain storages and women in seed preservation. However, Activities/Outcomes talk only of ‘farmers’ so it is uncertain if male and female farmers will both be supported to revitalize their respective skills or benefit equally.
Gender Code 2a Potential to contribute significantly to gender equality	A gender analysis is included in the project’s needs assessment and is reflected in one or more of the project’s activities and one or more of the project outcomes.  The project reflects gender mainstreaming.                        Gender Analysis of Needs  Activities Outcomes    Example: using vouchers, designed with inputs from male and female herders, to provide training and inputs equally to target women and men.
Gender Code 2b Potential to contribute significantly to gender equality: this is the principal purpose of these projects	All 2b projects are targeted actions based on gender analysis. In humanitarian settings, targeted actions are  usually of these two types: The project assists women, girls, boys or men (or groups of one sex) who have special needs or suffer discrimination. The project focuses all activities on building gender-specific services (e.g. GBV mechanisms) or more equal relations between women and men. Examples: a) supporting home-based women to grow home gardens b) funding local men, who are the local boat-building experts, to replace tsunami-destroyed fishing boats c) forming and supporting women’s farmer committees so women and men have equal voice and influence in decisions of the local farmer associations.

 

The origin of the gender marker was the need for a measuring tool. However, it was soon realized that measuring how well humanitarian projects are designed is only one step. What is much more important is to be a catalyst for projects to be designed well, then implemented and monitored well in order to maximize gender equality results. Hence, the GenCap Advisers have been implementing the gender marker as a tool to mainstream gender throughout the humanitarian funding process.

 

How does the gender marker work?

Agriculture cluster coordinators, supported by FAO, are responsible for implementing the gender marker in their cluster. In the 2011 implementation, IASC GenCap Advisers supported cluster leads. Although GenCap support to the Agriculture Cluster varied from country to country, these are the activities that proved most successful:

• orienting and training cluster coordinators and cluster teams on the gender marker. Project teams are now required to download their project onto the UN’s On-line Project System (OPS). In each implementation country, a special gender marker field was created in the OPS project sheet. Each project team is required to insert a gender code before they can exit the website. This triggers reflection by project teams on gender dimensions. The agriculture vetting panel then reviews this code and ensures that the code is accurate on all agriculture projects selected for inclusion in the appeal.
• supporting the humanitarian country team, OCHA CAP team and the Agriculture Cluster to champion the gender marker in CAP, inter-cluster and agriculture cluster meetings;
• supporting the humanitarian country team, the OCHA CAP team and the Agriculture Cluster to ensure that guidance notes, vetting templates, vetting feedback forms, etc. integrate the gender marker in a clear and practical way;
• nurturing good project design using the agriculture tip-sheet , part of the Gender Marker Toolkit, and the IASC Gender Handbook. These tools give practical tips to agriculture project teams on how to weave gender dimensions well into their project design – this worked best when the GenCap Adviser and cluster leads customized these tools by highlighting local cluster-specific issues and examples;
• facilitating the agriculture cluster identifying approximately five gender standards that each agriculture project must meet in order to be included in the CAP or pooled fund (DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya);
• advising on how to strengthen the gender dimensions in the Agriculture Cluster’s Needs Assessment Framework (NAF), which is the anchor of its Cluster Response Plan;
• critiquing and bringing gender value-added to the Agriculture Cluster Response Plan;
• training the agriculture vetting team and interested implementing partners in how to accurately assign a gender code. Practice in coding helped project teams understand how to design a project that would code well. Practice coding also gave vetting panels the confidence and competence to identify a gender code for each project efficiently and accurately during the vetting process;
• providing back-up support to vetting panels if they could not quickly agree on a gender code. This was done to avoid bogging down the vetting process;
• verifying that the vetting panels got the codes right. In the cases where a vetting panel miss-coded, the GenCap Adviser supported the coordinator to correct the coding on OPS. Where time permitted and the project team was interested, GenCap Advisers mentored project teams to strengthen over-coded projects so they would deserve the higher code, to avoid down-coding;
• taking every opportunity, at every phase, to assist project teams to strengthen their projects from a gender perspective;
• supporting clusters to identify gender indicators and a pro-active monitoring approach to nurture projects making the gender code a reality in the field.

 

Initial Results & Lessons Learned in Agriculture

Where GenCap Advisers and cluster leadership collaborated well, they were able to strengthen the gender dimensions in their NAFs, their Cluster Response Plans and their projects.  In oPt, all gender data and issues in the NAFs and project sheets was extracted and compiled into a cluster-specific resource. This informal exercise showed that the Agriculture Cluster had significantly strengthened its NAF and had used the gender marker effectively with project teams to strengthen the gender dimensions of their projects. There was a four-fold increase in use of gender data and gender issues in the 2011 CAP projects compared to the 2010 baseline.

The GenCap Adviser in Kenya raised an issue that was confirmed by many others:  that many project teams have better gender practice and do more gender analysis than is often reflected in their CAP project sheets. The gender marker, which values making gender dimensions explicit, was a catalyst for making the quality and depth of their work on gender issues more visible.

The GenCap Adviser in Democratic Republic of Congo reported that collecting sex and age disaggregated data (SADD) is now becoming a practice and that the gender marker has reinforced the value of SADD.  The gender marker is also contributing to the gender skills and awareness that have been incrementally built in recent years.

The eight GenCap Advisers supporting 2011 CAP teams put their country’s CAP document through a gender lens. A key element of the CAP document is the series of cluster response plans. A number of agriculture cluster response plans now include gender dimensions. However, more depth, strategic gender analysis and current sex-disaggregated data would be useful. Monitoring sections are exceptionally weak although gender results are often articulated better than monitoring approaches.

 

Cluster	Number of clusters	Gender in Needs Analysis	Gender in Objectives-Results-Indicators	Gender in Response Strategy	Gender in Monitoring
Agriculture	8	5	6	4	3

The eight CAPs in the 2011 implementation included 127 agriculture projects. Of these, 32% (41 projects) coded 2a and 6% coded 2b (eight projects). Based on the percentage of code 2 projects, agriculture placed eighth out of the 11 clusters(2) active in the eight participating countries. See chart below.

Clusters	Code 0	%	Code 1	%	Code 2a	%	Code 2b	%	Total
Agriculture	28	22%	50	39%	41	32%	8	6%	127
Coordination & Support	20	63%	3	9%	9	28%	0	0%	32
Early Recovery	6	12%	16	31%	27	52%	3	6%	52
Education	5	7%	20	28%	44	61%	3	4%	72
Food Security & Food Aid	34	39%	25	29%	28	32%	0	0%	87
Health	27	14%	70	36%	76	39%	20	10%	193
Multi-sector (refugees)	0	0%	7	41%	9	53%	1	6%	17
Nutrition	13	23%	26	46%	13	23%	5	9%	57
Protection	15	11%	32	24%	65	48%	24	18%	136
Shelter/NFI/CCCM	8	14%	21	38%	21	38%	6	11%	56
WASH	21	14%	68	44%	60	39%	4	3%	153
Grand Total	177	18%	338	34%	393	40%	74	8%	982

The table above includes Chad. Here is one without Chad.

TOTAL ALL

Clusters	Code 0	%	Code 1	%	Code 2a	%	Code 2b	%	Total
Agriculture	20	18%	45	39%	41	36%	8	7%	114
Coordination & Support	20	63%	3	9%	9	28%	0	0%	32
Early Recovery	4	8%	14	29%	27	56%	3	6%	48
Education	4	6%	16	25%	42	66%	2	3%	64
Food Security & Food Aid	34	39%	25	29%	28	32%	0	0%	87
Health	20	11%	68	38%	76	43%	14	8%	178
Multi-sector (refugees)	0	0%	7	41%	9	53%	1	6%	17
Nutrition	13	25%	26	49%	13	25%	1	2%	53
Protection	15	11%	30	23%	64	49%	22	17%	131
Shelter/NFI/CCM	8	14%	21	38%	21	38%	6	11%	56
WASH	19	13%	63	44%	58	41%	3	2%	143
Grand Total	157	17%	318	34%	388	42%	60	7%	923

 

The 10 country reports from the implementing GenCap Advisers also identified agriculture as one of the clusters that had very able engaged coordinators in some countries and disinterested ones in others. Where cluster coordinators actively worked with the GenCap Advisers, the partnership got impressive results.

The Agriculture Cluster performed especially well in oPt’s 2011 CAP, where 72% of projects coded 2 (2a-56% and 2b-16%). This was also a significant increase from the baseline set by the 2010 CAP of 25% (2a-9% 2b-16%) prior to the introduction of the gender marker and its active gender facilitation.

In both Yemen and Kenya, with less intense facilitation than oPt, each had 40% of agriculture projects code 2a in 2011. Neither country had any 2b targeted actions in agriculture.  This 40% is impressive, compared to 0% in 2010. Neither country had any agriculture projects that coded either 2a or 2b in 2010.

In sharp contrast, when facilitation and/or collaboration were sporadic or weak, the majority of projects still code 0.  In Chad and in Zimbabwe, there were no code 2 agriculture projects in 2011. This confirms the need for active facilitation of the gender marker in each Agriculture Cluster.

The sharp disparity in agriculture results from one country to another is evidence that there is much untapped potential. The sample clearly shows that agency and cluster leadership, gender competency and commitment can bring good gender-responsive design into any cluster:  the challenge is nurturing this capacity and recognizing excellence so humanitarian actors value, and are valued for, gender-responsive programming.

In scanning 2011 agriculture projects, two key issues repeatedly surfaced:

1. Farmers, fishers and herders are often assumed to be men. Their wives may be referred to as housewives until they become widows. That is the moment they become female headed households whose agricultural activity may then become visible, often as household gardeners, keepers of small animals or less often as ‘full’ farmers. Often hidden are active farming couples – men and women with complementary or shared roles. When statistics in some African countries document that high levels - sometimes the majority - of farm work is done by women, this invisibility undermines effective humanitarian response. Doubly worrisome is the lack of reference in project sheets to the gendered impact of HIV/AIDS on food production and food security.
2. Some projects mention female-headed households (FHHs) in Needs, then at least one Activity and Outcome. There are indications that FHHs are being used as an easy way to get a good gender code. (i.e. agriculture and food security projects) FHHs have special needs but these must be identified, through a gender analysis that considers the distinct needs of women, girls, boys and men.

 

Recommendations to FAO –Global Cluster Lead Agency

1. Ensure in-country cluster coordinators successfully fulfil their TOR which requires they “ensure the implementation of the gender marker in appeals”.(3) Feature this in coordinator evaluations.
2. Champion more gender technical assistance being provided in-country to cluster coordinators and cluster members.  As noted above, implementing partners need to routinely analyze gender issues and become skilled in designing and implementing projects that meet the distinct needs of women, girls, boys and men. This learning and capacity building can be enhanced during CAP preparation. However, gender analysis and gender learning needs to take place year-round.
3. Invest adequately in meaningful monitoring of gender marker implementation in agriculture projects. Pro-actively explore whether projects are being delivered at least as well as the project design and gender code specify. 
4. Encourage donors to fund projects coding 2a and 2b as priority and, if they fund lower gender codes, to do so on condition that gender dimensions are deepened.
5. Nurture a gender-responsive culture within the agriculture clusters in each country:
6. Encourage each agriculture cluster to routinely conduct gender analysis and collect relevant sex and age disaggregated data in the sector.
7. Create openings for gender dialogue and integration of gender issues in agriculture cluster activities.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------