Workshop on the

Capitalization of Gender in SDC:

Learning from Experience

15th – 19th June 2003

Fribourg, Switzerland

D I R E K T ION F Ü R E N T W IC K L U N G U N D Z U SA M M E N A R B E I T DE Z A
D I R EC T ION DU DE V E LO P P E M E N T E T DE L A C O O P E R AT I O N D DC
DI R E Z IO N E DE L LO SV I LU P P O E DE L L A CO O P E R A Z I O N E DS C
SW IS S AG E N C Y F O R DE V E L O P M E N T A N D C O O PE R AT I O N S DC
AG E N C I A S U I Z A PA R A E L DE SARROL LO Y L A COO P E R AC IO N COS U DE
 Workshop on the
Capitalization of Gender in SDC: Learning from Experience
15th – 19th June 2003

Background

In June 2003 a four day workshop on the Capitalization of Gender in SDC was held
in Fribourg, Switzerland. The workshop was attended by approximately 65
participants, made up of SDC staff from Bern and a range of COOFs from Asia,
Africa, Latin America, the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe, as well as
representatives from partner organisations in Switzerland and partner countries.

The objectives of the workshop were:

• To share experience of gender mainstreaming within SDC, and between SDC

and its partners.
• To capitalise current knowledge on gender mainstreaming in SDC, pulling
together experience at policy, programme and project levels; in different
sectors and areas of SDC interest; as well as experience at different
moments in the SDC programme cycle.
• To create a network for the dissemination of future experience of gender
mainstreaming by SDC and its partners, and
• To identify new trends and innovative practices in gender mainstreaming at
international, regional, national and local levels.

The Workshop

The workshop opened on Sunday evening, 14th June with a ‘Welcome Story’ by
Carol Rusell of Sparknow. She also opened the Monday morning session by
facilitating an exercise in which participants used a story telling technique to become
acquainted with each other, and to share what first made them decide to work on
gender issues.

The workshop then proceeded by exploring six themes (see Appendix 1 for
Programme). The selection of themes was made on the basis of the abstracts
submitted by participants. After the presentation of papers, each theme was
discussed with in plenary or through group work sessions and plenary discussion.
This was facilitated by a team from the Development Planning Unit, University
College London1. The main points covered during the discussions of these six
themes is outlined briefly below.

1
Caren Levy, Nadia Taher, Claudy Vouhé and Julian Walker.

-1-
Theme I: Working with men in women focused interventions

The first theme addressed the dilemmas that may arise through working with men in
women-focused interventions. The theme was addressed through three papers:

“Gender mainstreaming: Learning experiences of Rural Health Development Project

(RHDP) in the context of community empowerment for health”, by Biren Prakash
Bangdel and Harka B Thapa (RHDP, Nepal)

“Institutionalising gender in patriarchal rural communities - Creating spaces through

uncontested domains”, by RV Jayapadma (Gram Vikas, Orissa, India)

“Gender Mainstreaming in Afghanistan”, by Larisa Tahery (SDC Kabul, Afghanistan)

In the group work and plenary discussions which followed the presentations a
number of issues were raised.

One of the general points of discussion was the question ‘Why should we involve
men?’ The need to involve men was primarily justified on the basis of the following:
• ensuring that interventions are not blocked by groups of men who have more
access to power – a particular issue of concern in view of the observation that in
most societies men still dominate decision-making
• recognising that men also need to change in the context of gender relations, even
in women-focused interventions
• working with ‘progressive’ men (called ‘ambassadors’ in Ecuador) who could put
peer pressure on other men
• helping to make sure that men, as well as women, are made more accountable to
society and to their families
• promoting dialogue between women and men
• promoting ownership of the intervention by both women and men
• responding to the needs of men, where, in some instances, men also lose out
from ‘gender gaps’, particularly in relation to reproductive activities.

Another issue debated during discussions was the question of whether, in some
instances, it is better not to involve men in women oriented interventions as there is a
danger that men might take over, with the result that women’s position is not
improved or even maintained by the intervention. In this context, it was seen as
important to consult women about either informing or involving men in women-
focused interventions.

Of particular concern was that many mixed women/ men’s projects fail to challenge
power relations – for example in micro enterprise interventions, which often involve
women working in production, while men dominate in more profitable areas such as
marketing. Even where the decision is made to include men in women’s projects it
was noted that this may be problematic, especially where women beneficiaries
themselves are reluctant to have men involved, or where men, who are staffing
programmes/projects may not feel that they are legitimated to work with gender
issues.

It was noted that the decision to work with women only, with men and women or with
men only, should be a matter of strategic choice, based on:

-2-
• a situation analysis, in the form of a ‘differentiated diagnosis’, including
understanding power relations. It may then become clearer that it may be
necessary to work with women and men together or separately. It was felt that
co-operation staff/partners should have a thorough knowledge of the context, and
awareness of men's and women's gender roles, access to and control over
resources, and of their different levels of participation. This would help to avoid a
situation in which men may automatically assume positions and responsibilities
that bestow more power.
• a dialogue/consultation with women and men, as appropriate to the context and
the intervention.
• a transparent process so that, for example, women know how and why men are
involved in a women-focused intervention.
• A context-specific and participatory decision on whether women and/or men
should staff the programme/project, eg as trainers or interviewers.

Theme II: Methods and tools to mainstream gender

The second theme of the workshop addressed the tools and methods needed to
mainstream gender and the extent to which these should be integrated with other
programming tools. Three papers were presented on this theme:
La prise en compte de la dimension genre dans le Programme de Développement Local
Tillabéri (CADELT ), Niger". Catherine Timbo (SDC, Niamey, Niger)

Mainstreaming gender in a project: the case of VFFP, Bangladesh. Imran Bhuiyan Muhammad
and Alain Cuvelier (SDC, Dhaka, Bangladesh)

Gender mainstreaming in the ECOLAN Project, Ukraine: the experience of a gender diagnosis.
Irina Belyavskaya (SDC, Ukraine)

Discussions on this theme during group work and plenary sessions covered a
number of questions. Firstly, the debate covered the extent to which existing PCM
methods can or should be adapted to take on a gender perspective. It was felt that
integrating gender into existing PCM methods:

• needs to be based on ‘differentiated’ baseline studies to ensure that gender is

integrated from the beginning of the process.
• would be possible, if ‘gender spectacles’ are used at each step of the PCM
(planning, monitoring, evaluation) and would be valuable in avoiding having
separate, marginalised, gender tools
• would need to be done in a way that ensures that tools are used to link gender to
other aspects of the social context, like ethnicity, class, age etc…in urban/rural
areas
• needs to be supported by making gender aspects visible in TORs, especially
where partners/ consultants are relied on to address them

On the other hand, participants also considered that, in addition to integrating gender
questions into the core PCM methods, there is also a need for some specific gender
tools. Some example given included:
• a gender analysis, which can be useful to raise awareness of stakeholders (staff,
partners, beneficiaries) and to provide information for planning and monitoring

-3-
• a Gender Audit to assess the extent to which gender has been mainstreamed
within COOFs and the organisation of their partners
• gender budgeting which is still a new tool for SDC and more knowledge and
experience is necessary to assess the possibility of applying it.

Finally, it was noted that for gender to be integrated into mainstream methods and
tools used by SDC, and for specific gender tools to be used effectively, there are a
number of requirements. These include the need for:
• capacity building for staff expected to use these tools
• ownership by all actors (so that tools are not only used by women staff or gender
focal points)
• sufficient forward planning, so that gender analysis is not skipped due to time
pressure
• support and allies, including form internal sources (particularly at management
level), external expertise (particularly at the beginning of the process), and among
partners (policy and community level)
• additional resources (if external expertise or specific activities are needed)
• demystification of tools and their use, without de-politicising or simplifying gender
issues
• flexibility, as it was felt that as gender relates to power relations, mainstreaming
gender means being ready to change the objectives, approaches and tools of an
intervention as necessary.

Theme III: Challenging social relations

This theme addressed the extent to which development co-operation can challenge
cross cutting social relations such as gender, caste and class. Two papers were
presented which illustrated this theme:
Mainstreaming Gender through legal Intervention (Navsarjan's Experience). Manjula Pradeep
(Navsarjan, India)

Burkina Faso - témoignages de femmes sur l’alpha: formation dans des relations de genre.
Boly Koumba (Alpha, Burkina Faso)

This theme was discussed in a plenary session which encompassed a number of

issues. Firstly, it was noted that while individual interventions are valuable in
challenging social relations, social change requires collective action on a wider scale.
Therefore there is a need for individual interventions to be complemented by
activities aimed at enabling conditions – for example supporting policy or legal
reforms – and also for complementary support to sensitise individuals and
institutions. It was further noted that in sensitising individuals and institutions there
should be a focus on national partners and institutions as well as development
professionals – to build local as well as SDC capacity, in the interests of
sustainability.

Another issue raised was the difficulty of simultaneously confronting multiple forms of
inequality (gender, race, caste, age etc). It was suggested, on this basis, that there
may be a need to prioritise one form of social identity/ inequality in a given context. A
counter-argument was that, in reality, it is not possible to prioritise social identities

-4-
given that as women and men, our identities are simultaneous and inter-linked. In
this light it was argued that multiple identities need to be confronted by any
intervention and entry points for gender can be through other specific identities (such
as caste in India).

One related concern in challenging social relations was that, as social relations do
not change quickly and require inputs over long periods, the scope of typical SDC
programmes of 2-3 years to effect change is limited. This reinforced the need to work
with partners and around supporting enabling conditions to ensure sustainable
change.

One final debate was around the extent to which it is appropriate to foster change
and challenge traditional social relations – especially where such challenges may be
viewed as ‘natural, or ‘western’, or an imposition from outside. This assumptions
were countered by arguments that social relations are socially-constructed (not
‘natural), that what is traditional is not automatically ‘good’, since it usually
represents the interests of particular, rather than all, groups in a society. In this vein
it was also pointed out that in most cases (as was illustrated by many of the papers
and examples presented at the workshop) that there are significant local pressure
groups and impetus to challenge social and gender inequalities. Furthermore, it was
stressed that, while change must come from within, development co-operation can
have an important role as a catalyst. Thus there is a need for the SDC not to hold
back and to take a clear position on issues of gender and social equality.

Theme IV: Assessing change in gender relations

The fourth theme concerned how best to monitor or assess changes in gender
relations and equality between women and men. This theme opened with the
presentation of three papers:

Construction d'indicateurs qualitatifs genre dans le cadre du monitoring des programmes de la

Cooperation Suisse au Mali. Dicko Abdel Kader (SDC, Bamako, Mali) and Adama Moussa

¿La equidad de género ya es una realidad? ¿Hasta que punto?

Lecciones aprendidas en el Ecuador . (Is gender equality a reality? To what extent? Lessons
Learnt in Ecuador) Holger Tausch (SDC, Quito, Ecuador)

Gains, setbacks and challenges in achieving gender equality in post-apartheid South Africa.
Nomfundo Mbuli (SDC, Pretoria, South Africa)

A number of issues were raised during group work and a plenary session on this
theme.

Firstly it was noted that context of any intervention is important for determining both
what kind of change in gender relations should be tracked, and how they should be
tracked. Thus, for example, the SDC approach for monitoring of gender should be
explicitly linked to the objectives of specific country programmes.

Various points related to methodological issues for monitoring changes in gender

relations, including the importance of:
• collecting ‘differentiated’ baseline data in a systematic manner

-5-
• using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to ensure that deeper
processes of change can be revealed (eg women and men’s roles and relations
in decision-making, or changes in status), as well as more direct measures of
change that can be reflected numerically (eg gender balance in staff)
• employing both ‘gender’ and ‘gendered’ monitoring (i.e. monitoring the extent to
which gender is mainstreamed as well as monitoring all interventions in a way
that reveals the different impacts and results for women and men). This could
involve the use of a range specific gender monitoring tools such as specific
studies on gender relations, or trend analysis to assess changes in SDC
interventions
• ensuring that monitoring gives voice to the full range of groups of women and
men who should be reached by SDC interventions (eg in India the importance of
consultation with Dalits and other marginalised groups was stressed)
• ensuring that monitoring is ethical, in that the subjects of research are fully
informed and not put in a position of conflict with other groups (eg other
household or community members) as a result of the data collected from selected
household and community members
• distinguishing between cause and effect in attempts to identify changes in gender
relations.

The discussion also addressed the various levels at which changes in gender
relations should be assessed, ranging from monitoring of specific projects up to
monitoring the national and regional context more broadly. It was noted that primary
data collection for national context monitoring is outside the scope of most SDC
COOFs to cover in any great depth. In this vein, another question raised was who
should be involved in monitoring and the importance of linking with other donors,
national departments, especially for national level context monitoring which might
otherwise be outside the scope of COOFs to undertake.

Finally the discussion addressed how the findings of monitoring should best be used.
It was agreed that key activities include:
• steering specific interventions
• dialogue with partners, and
• lobbying government (and it was noted that SDC may be particularly influential in
some countries where programmes are significant, eg Burkina Faso, Chad).
It was noted that, in order to further these uses of monitoring data, there may be a
need for building the capacity of SDC and partner staff in lobbying, and also
developing strategies for working with the media for the effective dissemination of
findings and raising awareness.

Theme V: Gender as a transversal issue at country level

This theme addressed the scope for, and most effective strategies for,
mainstreaming gender across country programmes. Two papers were presented
which illustrated initiatives attempting to mainstream gender at the country level:

Advances and limitations of the Bolivian SDC gender strategy. Jorge Blajos
(PROINPA Foundation, Bolivia)

Mainstreaming gender in the Macedonia country programme: experience and

challenges

-6-
 Frosina Georgievska (SDC, Skopje, Macedonia)

The discussions around this theme covered a wide range of issues. One area
addressed was the need to work effectively with and raise the commitment of
partners. It was stressed that, to mainstream gender at country level, the SDC
COOFs need to ensure that they share common goals and values on gender with
local and Swiss partners. It was therefore noted that:
• the selection of appropriate partners is key, and that when partners are selected
on the basis of their competencies, gender should be included.
• in working with Swiss partners such as SECO, SDC staff can draw on the Swiss
legal framework around gender equality
• in selecting partners, the SDC must make it clear to them that gender analysis
and other gender tools, as appropriate, is seen as a key input to the quality of
work in SDC.
• the use of specific examples of good practice, rather than general principles, can
be very important in raising the awareness and commitment of partners.
• there is a need to be creative in finding entry points with partners to ‘sell’ gender.

Another discussion was around the extent to which staff in COOFs can balance
addressing gender issues with their other mandates. This was related to the question
of whether dealing with gender issues makes their work more complex, or makes it
more effective by linking actions to the realities of women and men. In this light it was
argued that, as there are already heavy work burdens in COOFs there is a need to
integrate gender into other work and not add it on as an extra separate task, and that
gender principles should therefore be internalised by all staff. On the other hand it
was noted that to mainstream gender in this manner, there may be a need for
specific ‘gender activities’ which would require an additional input of staff time and
other resources initially, and thus there needs to be commitment to making resources
available for these activities.

One other discussion raised was the issue of ‘gender fatigue’, which some
participants felt was occurring amongst staff and partners due to the over-use of
gender terminology. It was countered by others who argued that if people are getting
tired of such a fundamental issue relating to equality there is a serious problem, and
that this might reflect resistance rather than fatigue. Others pointed out that we
rarely hear about, for example ‘poverty fatigue’! In this vein it was also argued that
perhaps sometimes the problem is use of gender terminology without the backup of
‘differentiated’ research or analysis.

Theme VI: Gender mainstreaming in sector programmes

The final theme of the workshop looked at the experience of mainstreaming gender
into sectoral programmes, and was opened through the presentation of two papers:

Gender-oriented Entrepreneurship Promotion - Strategies and tools for use during the
project cycle. Isabel Perich, SDC, Switzerland

Gender and HIV/Aids. Claudia Kessler and Sandra Bernasconi (SDC)

Technical sectors used to be the most resistant – now this has changed and it relates
more to the sensitivity awareness of individual staff members.

-7-
During the plenary discussion which followed, a number of issues were raised around
this topic. Firstly it was noted that there might be resistance to taking on gender
issues from sector experts because they fear losing power/ control of interventions in
their field. Another issue raised was that there is often the problem that gender
activities are dealt with separately from the main activities in sectoral interventions
(eg gender assessments or evaluations will be separated from the main baseline
assessments/ evaluations). A linked problem is that gender is often taken on in
activities too late, for example, after the Terms of Reference have already been
drafted.

In this light it was argued that it is vital to ensure that sectoral staff take responsibility
for gender issues and work effectively with gender specialists. To this end it was
suggested that it is important to

• share experiences of gender good practice per sector

• conduct sectoral gender training to overcome this – through practical
experiences, not just theoretical inputs.
• work through interdisciplinary groups (including gender expertise) on sectoral
interventions.
• develop and use fact sheets per sector – as in the Bridge Cutting Edge packs
introduced later in the workshop.
• develop resource lists of consultants per sector, at the country level, including
gender capabilities.

Gender networking in the SDC

The discussions on the SDC’s experiences in mainstreaming gender, covered

through the six themes outline above, was followed by a series of inputs designed to
explore the possibilities for developing a network, or series of networks, for SDC staff
and partners to share experiences, resources and mutual support in addressing
gender issues.

This phase of the workshop opened with three presentations by :

Manuel Flury (Thematic Service Knowledge and Research, SDC) on Knowledge Management:
Information and Documentation.

Charlotte Sever and Susan Jolly (of BRIDGE, UK) on the Cutting Edge Packs, which are a
series of resource packs on gender and a range of sectors, and

Venceslava Yanchovska and Peter Tsakov (SDC, Sofia) on Networking: How to keep up the
exchange? SEE Regional Gender Network - findings and experience so far. This presentation
outlined the experience of setting up a gender network for the COOFs of South East Europe
and their partners

These presentations were followed by a series of exercises led by Sparknow

designed to engage participants in thinking about:
• what makes a good network,
• what they would like from a gender network or networks within the SDC
• what they would like to have achieved in gender mainstreaming during the course
of the next year.

-8-
Conclusions of the workshop

The workshop concluded with a summary prepared by participants from each of the
regions represented at the workshop and the DPU facilitation team. The conclusion
was based on the comments made by participants on the ‘Challenge Board’. The
‘Challenge Board’ was a pinboard organised as a matrix, with the SDC regions listed
along the top and levels of intervention (work at the local level, or with National
partners, with Swiss and International Partners and HQ) down the side. At any point
through the first three days of the workshop, participants from each of the regions
were asked to put their comments relating to the challenges they face in gender
mainstreaming, on cards and place them at the appropriate place on the board (see
Appendix 2 for final version of the ‘Challenge Board’).

The conclusion was organised in the form of an ‘institutional map’ of gender

mainstreaming in the SDC, using a tool called the ‘Web of Institutionalisation’2 (see
Appendix 3). The ‘Web’ summarises the challenges faced by the SDC in
mainstreaming gender in four main spheres: the sphere of policy, the organisational
structure of SDC, the sphere of delivery of programmes and projects, and the sphere
of citizens, or the men and women targeted by the SDC’s interventions.

At the level of policy, participants felt a range of challenges were faced by the SDC
in mainstreaming gender. Firstly it was felt that the SDC needs to develop a clear
political commitment to promoting the equal participation and decision-making roles
of women and men, and furthermore that SDC need to state this position clearly and
communicate it to their partners as a basis for negotiating common values. It was felt
that these values should be linked to policy dialogue to influence national policies on
gender, as well as support to organisations promoting gender equality. It was also felt
that SDC needs to ‘do as they say’ by, for example, implementing internal gender
equality policies to support staffs’ work/family balance at COOF level.

Furthermore, in order to best implement their gender policy, it was also felt that, given
that much work is already being done on gender by national partners and other
bilateral agencies in partner countries, SDC should work to identify “niches” to work on
gender which draw on their comparative advantages.

A range of challenges were also identified by participants which related to the SDC
as an organisation. One of the key challenges identified here was the need to
ensure that all staff take responsibility for promoting gender equality. Procedures
were seen as crucial to back this up on a day to day basis (for example HQ-led
mechanisms to ensure gender in Country Programmes, the requirement to integrate
gender into specific and other indicators, including gender capacity as a criteria for
selection of Swiss partners, or including gender in contracts clauses in the same way
as, for example, anti-corruption clauses).

2
See Levy, C (1996) The Process of Institutionalising Gender in Policy and Planning: the
‘Web of Institutionalisation’, DPU Working Paper No 74, DPU:UCL and Levy, C (1998)
“Institutionalisation of gender in participatory practice” in Irene Guijt and Meera Kaul Shah
(eds) Myth of community: Gender issues in participatory development, Intermediate
Technology Publications: London

-9-
Another area identified is the need for clarification of various organisational
mechanisms for communication and support on gender issues, for example how
COOFs can request support from HQ on gender issues or the need to clarify
responsibility for gender monitoring at different levels.

One final set of organisational challenges identified was the need for continued
capacity building and human resources for gender. These included specific support
such as capacity building for local partners, involving more men in gender at
HQ/COOF/PP, and hiring more women for strategic posts (although it was noted that
‘more women does not necessarily mean more gender’).

In the delivery of programmes and projects it was felt that SDC also needs to rise to a
number of challenges. One of the main challenges is ensuring that the situational
analysis for projects provides sufficient basis to make strategic choices about whether
to work with women and/or men. Another is to ensure that, given the complexity of
social identities of men and women reached by SDC interventions, programmes should
recognize the indivisibility of rights rather than focusing on only some social or
economic rights.

In terms of learning from the delivery of interventions it was felt that the SDC needs to
build on their capitalisation of gender experience both at the regional and COOF levels.
This, it was felt, would be an important step towards ‘demystifying’ gender by
communicating practical examples of how gender can be addressed.

Some of main challenges identified in working with citizens, or the men and women
that SDC reaches through its interventions, are for the SDC and Swiss partners to
ensure that they have a deep knowledge of the local context in which they work, and to
undertake ‘differentiated diagnosis’ as a baseline for any intervention to distinguish the
roles and needs of all relevant groups of women and men. However it was stressed
that there is a need for ethics in the collection and use of this type of information on
gender.

Furthermore, while this deeper understanding of gender and social relations at the
local level was seen as key for designing effective interventions which can promote
equality, it was also stressed that sustainability can only be achieved if changes come
from women and men themselves. This implies that SDC needs to develop their role
as a catalyst for change, supporting local women and men.

Finally, it was pointed out that each element in the ‘web of institutionalization’ has both
problems and opportunities attached to them. In any particular context it is possible to
identify ‘routes’ through the web, which represent strategies to address particular
gender mainstreaming problems located in an element, using the opportunities
identified. ‘Routes’ can run within or between the different spheres discussed above.
It is certain that it will be necessary to make alliances between the different actors
operating in each element, in order to support collective action to bring about gender
equality and wider social change.

- 10 -
 APPENDIX 1

WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

Sunday, 15 June

16.00 Welcome
17.00 Introduction to Workshop
Programme Presentation
Welcome Story, Carol Rusell (Sparknow)
19.30 Dinner

Monday, 16 June

8.30 Story Telling Groups

Facilitated by Carol Rusell (Sparknow)
10.00 Coffee/tea
10.30 Story Telling continued
11.30 Plenary
12.30 Lunch

THEME I: WORKING WITH MEN IN WOMEN-FOCUSED INTERVENTIONS

14.00 Gender mainstreaming: Learning experiences of Rural Health Development Project

(RHDP) in the context of community empowerment for health
Biren Prakash Bangdel and Harka B Thapa (RHDP, Nepal)

14.20 Institutionalising gender in patriarchal rural communities - Creating spaces through

uncontested domains
RV Jayapadma (Gram Vikas, Orissa, India)

14.40 Gender Mainstreaming in Afghanistan

Larisa Tahery (SDC Kabul, Afghanistan)

15.00 Questions in Plenary

15.30 Coffee/tea
16.00 Group Work
17.00 Report Back in Plenary
17.30 Lessons Learnt
18.00 Close
19.00 Dinner
Tuesday, 17 June

THEME II: METHODS AND TOOLS TO MAINSTREAM GENDER

8.30 La prise en compte de la dimension genre dans le Programme de Développement

Local Tillabéri (CADELT ), Niger"
Catherine Timbo (SDC, Niamey, Niger)

8.50 Mainstreaming gender in a project: the case of VFFP, Bangladesh

Imran Bhuiyan Muhammad (SDC, Dhaka, Bangladesh)

9.10 Gender mainstreaming in the ECOLAN Project, Ukraine: the experience of a gender
diagnosis
Irina Belyavskaya ( SDC, Kyiv, Ukraine)

9.30 Questions in Plenary

10.00 Coffee/tea
10.30 Group Work
11.30 Report Back in Plenary
12.00 Lesson Learnt
12.30 Lunch
14.00 Excursion
18.30 Dinner

THEME III: CHALLENGING SOCIAL RELATIONS

20.00 Mainstreaming Gender through legal Intervention (Navsarjan's Experience)

Manjula Pradeep (Navsarjan, India)

20.20 Burkina Faso - témoignages de femmes sur l’alpha: formation dans des relations de
genre
Boly Koumba (Alpha, Burkina Faso)

20.40 Questions and Discussion in Plenary

22.00 Close

Wednesday, 18 June

THEME IV: ASSESSING CHANGE IN GENDER RELATIONS

8.30 Construction d'indicateurs qualitatifs genre dans le cadre du monitoring des

programmes de la Cooperation Suisse au Mali.
Dicko Abdel Kader (SDC, Bamako, Mali)

8.50 ¿La equidad de género ya es una realidad? ¿Hasta que punto?

Lecciones aprendidas en el Ecuador
(Is gender equality a reality? To what extent? Lessons Learnt in Ecuador)
Holger Tausch (SDC, Quito, Ecuador)

9.10 Gains, setbacks and challenges in achieving gender equality in post-apartheid

South Africa.
Nomfundo Mbuli (SDC, Pretoria, South Africa)

9.30 Questions in Plenary

Coffee/tea
10.30 Group Work
11.30 Report Back in Plenary
12.00 Lesson Learnt
12.30 Lunch

THEME V: GENDER AS A TRANSVERSAL AT COUNTRY LEVEL

14.00 Advances and limitations of the Bolivian SDC gender strategy

Jorge Blajos (PROINPA Foundation, Bolivia)

14.20 Mainstreaming gender in the Macedonia country programme: experience and

challenges
Frosina Georgievska (SDC, Skopje, Macedonia)

14.40 Questions in Plenary

15.00 Coffee/tea
15.30 Group Work
16.30 Report Back in Plenary
17.00 Lessons Learnt
17.30 Close
19.0 Dinner

THEME VI: GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN SECTOR PROGRAMMES

20.30 Gender-oriented Entrepreneurship Promotion - Strategies and tools for use during the
project cycle
Isabel Perich, SDC, Switzerland
20.50 ender and HIV/Aids
Claudia Kessler and Sandra Bernasconi (SDC)
21.10 Questions and Discussion in Plenary
22.00 Close

Thursday, 19 June

8.30 Conclusions
10.00 Coffee/tea
10.30 Knowledge Management: Information and Documentation
Manuel Flury (Thematic Service Knowledge and Research, SDC) and
PaulCorney (Sparknow)

Cutting Edge Packs

Susan Jolly (BRIDGE, UK)

12.30 Lunch
14.00 Networking: How to keep up the exchange?
SEE Regional Gender Network - findings and experience so far
Venceslava Yanchovska and Peter Tsakov (SDC, Sofia)

Future stories

15.00 Evaluation
16.00 Close of Workshop

SOSA
Local Partners Want
Support/capacity can not
promote one level of rights and
not others; indivisibility
COOF SDC/COOF dialoguing
Around what approach builds
common values? more in
programmes as staff/ COOF in
strategic past; women to work
past time, work/ family;
sustainability after COOF
withdraws; Who is responsible
for monitoring? Gender as
transversal and specific actions;
more opportunities for more
potential for working as gender
Swiss partners Common vision not clear
- same vision as SDC?
HQ Need to include
Kenya in some of the
discussions in region
(HIV/AIDS/gender); above
policies, games and issues
APPENDIX 2
THE “CHALLENGE BOARD”
SAO
What
are the stakes in specific sectors;
than get connections of partners;
link to what matters, being
ethnical in way gender applied;
transparent; personal; Analysis
that shows need for partners not
ready to take it on.
need to define a "niche"- whose
offers going to complement; who
are our partners? how to ensure
sustainability; What other
experience can be of relevance?
Learning in SDC; integrate
gender and M and E indicators in
more formal way; ->ressources
to support local partners
recommendation for
SDC to get into policy
dialogue at macro level with
state, more dialogue with
partners SDC are more choosy
with partners
Need for SDC to adjust
their political choices to fit local
content, HQ need to provide
tools and accompany processes;
methodological support e.g. on
leadership of women.
MENA
lots of money/donor;
privatisation; local context
studies, partners donor driven;
pray superficial; lack of gender/
class analysis; elite institutions;
representing women; advocacy
on small level; not majority
issues, social equality, political;
rarely get scale up; lots of
training, money, no impact
translate policy into
action and practice - id
; approaches and strategies to
intervene at various levels;
COOF needs to understand
undertaking of state partners;
More women in COOF is answer
to gender issues? How to enrich
own experiences.-
New office, new direct encounter
with Swiss NGO's, -need more
proactive action, ->focus on
Human Rights, discrimination;
every country signed CEDEAW,
CRC-> dialogue about situation
so far; government listens more
to donors than to own people-
SDC can spearhead dialogue
about people needs,
Sustain and continue
mainstreaming in HQ, need a
position on gender, need to
accept that might provoke
conflict, people can always be
set-up on different issues,
gender clause in contracts,
general conditions on
businesses, if Head of sections
is committed to gender progress
is possible, quotas for women
and men at different levels.
1
ASIA 1
need for men as gender
specialist; seen as issues of
women; partners want more time
with COOF; -quality tune;
integration of partners
experience in SDC program;
->separate; building capacities
on gender; intersection with
caste, class
How to go from policy
to action? COOF need
to ensure common
understanding.
Constancy
between COOF and
partners
Common vision?- big gap->
tensions between SOC, Swiss
NGO's, ->focus on discrimination
rather than gender
focus should remain
on paper,-gap between the
regional level, can be frame
policies that can be used at
country level, contextual needs
of region
ASIA 2
project staff, get gender
mainstream training; integrate
gender with other social
relations; work with MDH;
reprod. health; ->individ. men; -
>need to inform local partners
differences in country
, pray in regions,
propose more expl.
into gender- and.
interests by dir. ->
objectives and
understanding, work
done on monitoring
and gender relations,
->each country should
do a balance;
Also need common
understanding on gender
To be proactive in sharing
ideas between countries,
regional programs

LAS
Local Partners clarifying concept; issued
concept->choices available; -
>work with clearer; necessity of
differentiated diagnosis;-baseline
the point of departure; ->reality
at level, region encourage
exchange of good practice in
short and long term.
COOF differences in country
, pray in regions,
propose more expl.
into gender- and.
interests by dir. ->
objectives and
understanding, work
done on monitoring
and gender relations,
->each country should
do a balance;
Swiss partners need to strengthen alliances and
synergies between int. donors,
gender should be made
mandatory in Swiss NGO's
HQ Need to link different
levels->country, region, HQ, if
Head of sections is committed to
gender, progress is possible.
Quotas for women and men at
diff. levels; need to work at
higher level on decision making
APPENDIX 2 continued
GUS
Clarify notion and pertinence of
gender; how to manage gender
mainstreaming
Gender specific indiv.
monitoring; confusion
about gender specific
- gender integrated
programms.-Don't have
budgets, partners do
not have capacity to
mainstream, ->go to
gender pecific, gender
knowledge for all NGO's
Gender knowledge should be a
criteria for the selection of
implementing agencies
Clarify who is responsible
for monitoring, on which level?
How to bring high expectations
of HQ in line with budget
resources?
SEE
Various approaches with
different partners and different
levels; increase partners
knowledge; strengthen NGO's
How to deal with Co-
and resistance - his/her
interests; is It possible
NPO have direct link to
gender unit; How to
involve their colleagues
in COOF ; think they have
to do something, want
them to be aware;
Appropriate indicators
to ensure progress? Co-ord/
coop. With other interested
partners
Gender operation improved
between donors; how to involve
Swiss partners in gender work,
partners should consider country
context
How to ensure more
Coherent approach with SDC
and others
2
Special
Gender as a clause in contracts
(like anticorruption, HR,
democracy), "impose" gender
from HQ, - do not leave it at
mercy of directors-> would
facilitate COOF work, HQ
monitors work? want feedback?
report?
HQ
Monitoring indicators for example
at national and district level
Responsibility to clarify
responsibility of monitoring
Mainstreaming gender in
contracts
Commitment for specific
resources
Mainstreaming other donors
Engendered budget at HQ and
COOF's
Men not getting paternity leave,
using local law – not applying
local law
Emphasis on qualitative
indicators
More women as coordinators
HQ well informed about local
contextual needs
Women in gender unit
 Appendix 3: Conclusions of SDC gender capitalisation workshop - challenges

Mainstream Responsibility for gender

Resources Acceptance of responsibility by NPO for working with women
Engendering budgets in SDC and COOFs and men
COOF to remind partners of the own country’s Clarify ways to get support from HQ/GU
commitment/resources Clarify that mainstream does not exclude specific actions
COOF to support synergy between donors to mobilize
resources in coherent way

Political Commitment Policy/Planning Procedures

Dialogue to bring common values on gender between SDC and Translating policy into action
local partners Translating policy to “fit” the national context
Ditto between Swiss partners SDC to identify “niches” to work on gender (comparative
SDC to be unapologetic about promoting gender/courage to advantage)
sustain COOF to integrate gender in macro and policy dialogue
Commitment of Head of Section is key factor Policy dialogue to influence national policies on gender
Commitment to gender is too dependent on COOF coord. Support to organizations promoting gender
Mainstreaming in HQ + countries HQ to give feed back, ideas, guidance to COOF
Work/family balance at COOF level (1/2 time work for women)
Clarify responsibility for gender monitoring at different levels
HQ mechanisms to ensure gender in Country Programmes
Integrating gender in specific and other indicators
HQ to push to qualitative as well as quantitative indicators
HQ to assist with production of national and institutional level
indicators
Gender as a criteria for selection of Swiss partners
Gender in contracts clause (like anti-corruption)

Pressure of political Representative political structures

constituencies Promoting equal participation of women
and men in decision-making at all Human resource development
COOF needs to be aware of not Local partners request capacity from COOF
supporting NGO representing levels
Involving more men in gender at HQ/COOF/PP
interest of elite women instead More women in strategic posts
of “grassroots” NB-More women does not mean more gender
Applying laws on paternity leave in countries

Delivery of programmes/ projects Methodology

Strategic choices to work with women and/or Demystify gender
Women and men’s experience men HQ to support programmes to
Sustainability can only be achieved if changes Programmes to recognize the indivisibility of develop methodologies (eg.
happen inside women and men – owning rights Curriculum for women leadership)
change

Research Knowledge building

Lack of differentiated diagnosis/baseline Weak capitalisation at COOF level
Swiss partners need appropriate knowledge of local context where Need for regional sharing
they work
COOF to prepare “balance sheet” of gender relations at country
levels
Need for ethics in collection and use of information on gender