1

IASC Gender Marker Assessment

Findings and Recommendations

June 2014

2

Contents Executive Summary 3 Section One – Purpose, Structure and Recommendations 4 Section Two – The IASC Gender Marker 8 Section Three – Is the IASC Gender Marker effective in ensuring gender sensitive programming?

10

Section Four - How does the Gender Marker support effective humanitarian decision-making?

17

Section Five - What is the attitude of humanitarian practitioners to the IASC Gender Marker?

20

Section Six - Is the IASC Gender Marker relevant to a Level 3 Emergency? 23 Section Seven – Is the IASC Gender Marker relevant to the Humanitarian Programme Cycle?

24

Section Eight – Conclusion 25 Annex One - Acronyms 26 Annex Two – Previous Recommendations for adaptation of the IASC Gender Marker (2011 – 2013)

27

Annex Three – References 30

3

Executive Summary The aim of the assessment of the IASC Gender Marker was to review the impact it has had on humanitarian programming since its inception, identify gaps and produce recommendations on how to improve it. The principle recommendation arising from the assessment is that the IASC Gender Marker needs to continue but that it needs to evolve to monitor gender integration throughout the programme cycle. This assessment report is a consolidation of feedback from 108 stakeholders and a review of available technical documents, assessments and reports. The report makes seven recommendations relating to the tool, the process and the broader framework for gender integration into humanitarian programmes. It is not possible to assess the impact of the marker on humanitarian programming because gender integration is currently only tracked at the design stage of the collective monitoring system. The IASC Gender Marker has been relatively successful integrating gender at the project design stage, but it is not clear what the results have been in terms of project implementation. The IASC Gender Marker was not designed as a stand-alone tool to ensure gender integrated humanitarian programming. It is one of a range of tools and technical guidance to support that aim. A key recommendation from the assessment process is that increased emphasis and resources need to be applied to building capacity and systems for gender integration.

The consistency of recommendations made over the last few years, provides a level of verification for the recommendations arising from this process. Should the recommendations be accepted, the emphasis going forward should be to put an approach in place to engage clusters, UN agencies, donors and NGOs in the process. A number of the recommendations have implications for the broader humanitarian systems and could stall if there is not broader engagement. If possible, these stakeholders should be part the decision-making and operationalization process of the “IASC Gender Marker 2” from the outset. There are a number of changes currently underway within the Humanitarian Programme Cycle and it is critical that any evolution of the IASC Gender Marker integrates with these broader changes where possible. The HPC is developing fast-track guidance notes to trial in the 2014/2015 planning cycle, as part of a longer process that will produce definitive tools and guidance for planning cycle the following year. It is recommended that the evolution of the IASC Gender Marker should follow this same timeline and process, with fast track guidance developed and shared in time for the 2014/2015 planning cycle.

4

Section One – Purpose, Structure and Recommendations 1. Assessment purpose, report structure and Next steps

The aim of the assessment of the IASC Gender Marker was to review the impact it has had on humanitarian programming since its inception, identify gaps and produce recommendations on how to improve it. The assessment was asked to answer the following questions:

1. Is the IASC Gender Marker effective in ensuring gender sensitive programming? 2. What is the attitude of humanitarian practitioners to the IASC Gender Marker? 3. Does the IASC Gender Marker support effective humanitarian programming decision-making? For example by encouraging good donorship. 4. Is the IASC Gender Marker relevant to the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC)? 5. How can the IASC Gender Marker be improved?

The assessment findings are based on interviews with 108 respondents who have had experience with applying and using the Gender Marker in national responses or at the global policy and programming level. Pakistan, Somalia and the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) provided focused country perspectives. The respondents were drawn from NGOs, clusters, donor agencies, UN agencies, and gender advisers, primarily from the GenCap

1 project. The assessment also drew on available strategic,

programmatic and technical documentation related to the IASC Gender Marker and the integration of gender into the humanitarian response. Recommendations have been based on feedback from a relatively small number of stakeholders (small as compared to the number of actors engaged in humanitarian responses and who have engaged at some level with IASC Gender Marker). Where possible, the assessment has drawn on secondary sources of information. It should be noted that there is no single platform on which all the technical and programmatic reports relating to the IASC Gender Marker and experiences of gender integration have been consolidated, so key documentation may have been missed. This report is intended as a snapshot of the experiences of the range of different stakeholders who apply the IASC Gender Marker in their work. The findings have been consolidated to produce recommendations regarding how the IASC Gender Marker should evolve. Despite these limitations, the key themes that emerged from the assessment and the areas of recommendation are consistent across the different stakeholder groups and between the national and global levels. They are also in keeping with the lessons learnt and challenges that have been documented in internal and external reports in the four years since the IASC Gender Marker was introduced. Should the recommendations be approved for action, they will be used to inform a revision of the tool, which has been planned as a separate process. It is envisaged that the process will draw on representatives from different global and national clusters, NGOs, donors, UN agencies and GenCap to support ownership of the tool. Any revision process should be planned to coincide with the HPC processes. The key recommendations that have emerged from the assessment process are presented at the outset of the report, with a summary discussion regarding the basis for each recommendation. A brief summary of the development and evolution of the IASC Gender Marker is followed by a synthesis of the feedback with regard to each of the key assessment areas.

2. Recommendations - How can the IASC Gender Marker be Improved? The principle recommendation is that the IASC Gender Marker should continue, but that it needs to evolve to an “IASC Gender Marker 2”. The recommendations can be divided into two categories, those that require policy and system changes and those that are more technical in nature. The majority involve integration with cross-organisational humanitarian systems and will, in some cases, require adaptations of those systems. In order to

1 The Gender Standby Capacity Project (GenCap) - an IASC initiative created in 2007 in collaboration with the Norwegian Refugee

Council (NRC) - seeks to facilitate and strengthen capacity and leadership of humanitarians to undertake and promote gender equality programming to ensure the distinct needs of women, girls, boys and men of all ages, are taken into account in humanitarian action at global, regional, and country levels.

5

translate these recommendations into action, it is important that a process is put in place that engages a broad cross-section of the humanitarian community to ensure feasibility and ownership of the process and any resultant “IASC Gender Marker 2”. The recommendations are presented for decision by the Gender Reference Group in the first instance. It is recognised that operationalization of the recommendations will require further levels of decision-making and that the Gender Reference Group is well placed to shape that process. It should be noted that the recommendations are not presented hierarchically. They have been grouped according to whether they primarily relate to the tool, process or broader systems (although there is an element of all three in a number of the recommendations.

Recommendation One: The IASC Gender Marker needs to evolve to be applied through the whole project cycle, in order to track implementation and monitor results. Overall, the IASC Gender Marker has been successful in integrating gender into the design stage of projects, although there continue to be some challenges with its consistent application. The main limitation is that it stops at the design stage. It is a horizontal marker that looks across multiple organisations and projects but only at one point in the project cycle. The challenge is how develop a collective monitoring mechanism that minimises additional reporting burden on partners and addresses the resource constraints and questions about role and mandate. The general feeling is that if it’s not possible to do some assessment of implementation, then a lot of the potential benefit of the IASC Gender Marker is lost. In developing the model, it is important to build on the experience of organisations that have already developed similar tools and approaches. DG ECHO and Care International have both developed gender markers

2 that monitor implementation as well as design. There have also been a number of national level

initiatives trialling the application of the IASC Gender Marker as a monitoring tool, which have involved collaboration between gender advisors, UN OCHA and the clusters. Examples can be found in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Jordan and Pakistan. Respondents proposed various models, which can be seen in section 3.3. There are a number of changes currently underway within the HPC, including changes to the monitoring framework and it is critical that any evolution of the IASC Gender Marker integrates into these systems where possible.

Recommendation Two: Adapt the IASC Gender Marker process for application in Level 3 responses. The general consensus is that gender must be integrated into emergency responses from the outset, including those of the scale of Typhoon Haiyan. However, while the IASC Gender Marker is considered to be a useful tool to support this integration, it is generally felt that the process should be adapted to respond to burdens imposed by a Level 3 emergency. Three recommendations specific to the context were identified: 2.1 Move the review of coding to later in the cycle.

2.2 Deploy more than one gender advisor through the UN system to enable support at the strategic level

and at the field level simultaneously. 2.3 Establish a formal network of gender advisers (organisational and inter-agency) (in keeping with

IASC guidelines) to maximise coordination and support to all elements of the response. ECHO and Care International have adapted models for Level 3 responses, and Care piloted their approach during Typhoon Haiyan. To the extent possible, a harmonised approach for Level 3 responses should be developed.

2 Care Gender Marker Pilot Process (notes and tools) Care International (2014)

ECHO Gender Age Marker Toolkit DG ECHO (2014)

6

Recommendation Three: The IASC Gender Marker tools and guidance should be further developed to support application by non-gender experts and where possible contextualised to country-specific realities, within clear global frameworks and standards. Despite a number of efforts that have been made to strengthen the coding process, develop the coding criteria and support technical specific application of the IASC Gender Marker over the four years since its inception, some challenges continue to be identified in these areas. Several of the proposed actions would be conducted at the national level, and this will have resource implications in terms of staff time and finances. It also requires agreement regarding which organisation / structure has the mandate to take the actions forward at the national level. Global Actions 3.1 Criteria for coding need to be made more specific and explicit for each of the three sections of

proposal design. While respondents with some level of experience and knowledge on gender integration found the guidance and tool relatively straightforward, those without reported difficulty in application.

3.2 Consolidate codes 2a and 2b into one code. The distinction between the Code 2a (The project will contribute significantly to gender equality) and Code 2b (The principal purpose of the project is to advance gender equality) is confusing to a number of stakeholders and it is felt that it would be beneficial to remove the distinction. The issue is that these codes support financial tracking and accountability mechanisms.

3.3 Each global cluster to review and develop more technically specific guidance for inclusion within the

IASC Gender Marker tip sheets, some of which are considered to be quite generic. 3.4 Adapt existing guidance notes to demonstrate how the IASC Gender Marker can be used identify

and other areas of vulnerability such as age and disability. National Actions 3.5 National UN OCHA offices to periodically review and communicate the process for reviewing gender

integration in project proposals to clusters and cluster members. There is some confusion among some stakeholders regarding the process and purpose of the different stages and responsibilities.

3.6 Contextualise coding and technical tip sheets to local cultures and contexts.

3.7 All the tools should be translated into the main local languages at the national level.

Recommendation Four: Continued investment in and promotion of a regular cycle of capacity development for gender integration in humanitarian responses is needed. It was widely recognised that the IASC Gender Marker is one tool that supports gender mainstreaming. As one respondent put it “the gender marker is valuable but its one small stone in the wall, it can’t do everything”. This recommendation therefore looks at the broader systems supporting gender equality programming, beyond the IASC Gender Marker. Stakeholders feel that although there have been good initiatives at the global and country level to support broader capacity building around gender and gender integration in humanitarian programming, the need remains and is likely to continue to do so, given the high level of staff turnover. Global Level 4.1 Ensure staff involved in the global clusters, UN agency and NGO staff involved in humanitarian

programming receive a minimum level of training in gender equality programming, for example, the Gender E-Learning course available on the HumantaitarianResponse.Info website.

4.2 Develop and roll out of a Training of Trainers model on gender and gender integration. This would support the response to reach more people and could contribute to increased retention of knowledge within the system.

4.3 Develop different levels and categories of training / technical support to meet the different needs.

- Gender and gender integration in humanitarian programming - Gender Marker Orientation for clusters and cluster review committee members - Specific technical training responding to the needs and challenges of the different sectors;

7

- Specific technical support or mentoring for cluster coordinators to lead gender integration in their sectors.

4.4 Differentiated training should be developed to target the specific groups: field staff and senior leaders

of organisations; cluster lead agencies and UN staff. National level 4.5 Training and guidance need to be provided through the year and not restricted to the appeal process

deadlines.

4.6 Implement a fixed cycle of training each year in order to orient new staff. 4.7 Expand access to training to include more than one person per organisation, in order to provide

some mitigation against staff turnover and to support institutionalisation of the learning. 4.8 Explore and catalogue local solutions for gender mainstreaming in difficult / rigid cultural settings.

4.9 Develop and implement more sustainable mechanisms for providing gender technical expertise to the humanitarian community, building on existing gender networks, where possible. The needs within the humanitarian community will always go beyond the ability of one gender advisor to respond.

Recommendation Five: Mechanisms for sharing and building on lessons learnt should be strengthened. Since the inception of the IASC Gender Marker in 2009/2010, a number of tools and guidance have been developed to support the integration of gender in the humanitarian responses. A number of these have been developed at the country level in response to specific feedback from partners. The assessment process identified mixed levels of knowledge regarding global and national guidance among partners and differential access to the resources. 5.1 Share and promote tools and guidance documentation through a variety of web-based platforms,

including those that reach beyond the humanitarian sector.

5.2 UN OCHA / UN Women to provide regular updates regarding cluster and gender processes and guidance to the clusters, including provincial and local clusters

5.3 Provide mentoring to cluster coordinators in support of the roll out and application of the guidance

and tools. A number of cluster coordinators identified a lack of confidence in their technical knowledge of gender integration as limiting their engagement in gender integration at the cluster level.

5.4 The development of a gender-wiki was also suggested as a free access lesson-learning forum. 5.5 Establish a cross-organisational forum for GenCap, ECHO and Care International (and others as

interested) to share learning from the launch and roll out, piloting and development of the three gender markers.

Recommendation Six: There is a need for clearer and stronger accountability mechanisms for gender integration in the humanitarian response. Stakeholders at both the national and global levels identified limited accountability and a lack of clear

lines of accountability within the coordinated humanitarian response for gender integration. Priority

actions identified include: 6.1 Reorient individual agency staff and humanitarian teams to, and operationalize if necessary, the

Internal agency, UN-wide SWAP and IASC humanitarian accountability frameworks. (Global and national level).

6.2 Clarify at the global level, the decision-making structure for taking forward system-wide changes to the IASC Gender Marker and gender integration efforts.

8

6.3 Develop a system-wide mechanism and platform for documenting and sharing reports, studies and lessons learnt from implementation at the country level. The mechanism for tracking actions results should also be strengthened.

6.4 Review and revise as appropriate the draft donor strategy that was developed in 2012 with the aim of

building additional donor engagement in the development and use of an “IASC Gender Marker 2”. 6.5 The HCT and Cluster Lead Agencies should be more visible in performing their accountability

functions in terms of holding individual agencies, the clusters and themselves to account for integration gender in all elements of the response.

6.6 Recognise the role of national governments in holding organisations and agencies to account for

delivery projects.

Recommendation Seven: Adapt the IASC Gender Marker to track gender integration in the different stages of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle. National and global level stakeholders identified an added value in applying an adapted IASC Gender marker / gender tracking mechanism to the different stages of the HPC, from the Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) through to the evaluation. This would add coherence to the integration of gender in the response and also provide an internal and external accountability mechanism, including for affected communities, national governments and organisations participating in the response. Approaches have been trailed in a few locations and the lessons learnt from this should form the basis of the approach.

The HPC is developing fast-track guidance notes to trial in the 2014/2015 planning cycle, as part of a longer process that will produce definitive tools and guidance for planning cycle the following year. It is recommended that the evolution of the IASC Gender Marker should follow this same timeline and process, with fast track guidance developed and shared in time for the 2014/2015 planning cycle.

Section Two - IASC Gender Marker 1. What is the IASC Gender Marker? The IASC Gender Marker is a tool that codes, on a 0-2 scale, whether or not a humanitarian project is designed well enough to ensure that women/girls and men/boys will benefit equally from it or that it will advance gender equality in another way. If the project has the potential to contribute to gender equality, the marker predicts whether the results are likely to be limited or significant

3.

The IASC Policy Statement “Gender Equality in Humanitarian Action” (June 2008) provides the global framework for gender integration into humanitarian programming. The policy identifies the specific responsibilities of actors at the global and country level with regard to developing systems, guidance and practice to integrate gender. It is within this broader framework that the IASC Gender Marker was developed, under the auspices of the IASC Sub-Working Group on Gender Equality in Humanitarian Action.

4

The IASC Gender Marker was developed and piloted by the IASC Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP)

and Gender Equality in Humanitarian Action sub‐working groups in 2009/2010. It was rolled out in 2011

and became mandatory in all CAPs in 2012. In 2014, the IASC Gender Marker was applied in 23 CAPs and three regional appeals processes. As outlined in the 2013 IASC Gender Marker report, the tool was designed with a number of functions:

To help clusters, agencies/ organisations, and donors track the integration of gender and GBV in humanitarian projects;

To enable/to build capacity of humanitarian teams to assess and meet the different needs of women, men, boys and girls;

To highlight the importance of including gender and GBV in project selection and prioritization criteria; and

To provide project designers and clusters with a planning and self-assessment structure for the integration of gender and GBV into humanitarian projects.

3 2013 IASC Gender Marker: Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned (February 2013) 4 The sub-working group was reconstituted as the Gender Reference Group in 2013, as part of the restructuring of the IASC

9

Although gender advisers from the GenCap project supported the development and roll out of the Gender Marker, the responsibility for the implementation of the IASC Gender Marker rests with the Cluster Lead Agencies and Cluster Coordinators at the global and country levels. This responsibility was formalized in 2013, through communication from the IASC Working Group to the Cluster Lead Agencies. The role of gender advisors is to support gender mainstreaming in the humanitarian response.

The IASC Gender Marker is applied to individual projects submitted through the CAP or pooled funding mechanism. The “standard” process typically involves three stages, (although there is variation between countries). The organisation submitting the proposal (NGOs or UN Agencies) will self-assess and include a code when uploading the proposal to the Online Project System (OPS)

5. A cluster review committee

will review the projects, including gender integration and finalise the code. Should the review committee disagree with the code applied by the organisation, feedback is provided and there is normally an opportunity for the organisation to revise the project based on the feedback. A gender adviser or gender focal point will participate in the review committee if possible. The third stage is then a final review by a gender adviser to provide technical feedback and a level of coding verification

6. The gender adviser will

provide feedback to the cluster and / or organisation. This feedback may include a recommendation for changes to the code. The final decision-making authority regarding the coding of projects rests with the clusters.

2. The Evolution of the IASC Gender Marker and Lessons Learnt Since the inception of the IASC Gender Marker, mechanisms have been put in place to assess the level of application and review its effectiveness. Annual IASC Gender Marker analysis reports have been produced since 2011. Technical review workshops, led by GenCap in 2011, 2012 and 2013, focused on reviewing lessons from application and strengthening the tool and process. A number of changes have been made, based on these processes and feedback from countries. Major changes include:

The development of cluster specific tip sheets and guidance;

The translation of key guidance documents into Spanish, French and Arabic;

The development of a non-applicable code (for interventions where including gender would not affect the project’s outcomes or sustainability, such as some logistics interventions);

More systematic engagement with global clusters to support gender integration in the cluster processes; and

Changes in the review process to strengthen and consolidate cluster ownership of the IASC gender marker.

Improvements have been reported in a significant number of areas. However, there are a number of common challenges that have been consistently reported through the years. These include:

1. Lack of clarity, inconsistency and subjectivity of coding and the coding process; 2. Perception of the IASC Gender Marker as a cosmetic and “tick box exercise”; 3. Mixed levels of understanding regarding gender and gender concepts. Gender continues to be

equated with women and girls’ empowerment; 4. Limited capacity of humanitarian actors to integrate gender in programming; 5. Limited accountability and ownership for application of the IASC gender marker specifically and

gender integration more broadly; and 6. A lack of monitoring and evaluation of activities and results related to gender integration.

For more detailed recommendations from the last three IASC Gender Marker Annual Reports, please see Annex Two. A number of external reports have identified largely the same issues.

7 This assessment

process – through respondent feedback – has provided confirmation that these remain the key challenges experienced by stakeholders.

5 The OPS is a central database of projects managed by UN OCHA

6 The process will change in 2014. The final stage will no longer involve gender advisers reviewing all project submissions.

Instead, a random sample of approximately 10% will be reviewed for quality assurance purposes. 7 The Humanitarian Response Index 2011: Addressing the Gender Challenge (DARA, 2011); “Donor Spending on Gender in Emergencies” (Care International UK, 2013); Siobhán Foran , Aisling Swaine & Kate Burns (2012) Improving the effectiveness of humanitarian action: progress in implementing the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Gender Marker, Gender &

Development, 20:2, 233-247.

10

Section Three - Is the IASC Gender Marker effective in ensuring gender sensitive programming?

The IASC Gender Marker was designed with multiple aims. This lack of a singular focus has meant that it has been implemented to try and address the needs of multiple stakeholders. This has resulted in the perception among many that the IASC Gender Marker is a tool that is meant to address every element of gender integration. The IASC Gender Marker was not designed to ensure gender sensitive programming and therefore it is not possible to answer this question. The principal purpose of the IASC Gender Marker as understood by respondents is to ensure gender is integrated into the project design stage. A substantial number of these stakeholders also identified the IASC Gender marker was designed to enable the level of gender integration in project proposals to be tracked. A number of secondary aims were identified:

As a “conversation starter” / tool to get gender on the map with organisations working in humanitarian responses;

As an accountability tool to and for donors to show that we are responsibly meeting needs of affected people;

As a capacity building tool for project designers and humanitarian teams; and

As a tool to advocate for funding to go to projects which are gender sensitive and to encourage donors to fund these projects.

3.1 What role does the IASC Gender Marker play in ensuring that gender issues are included in the design phase? Stakeholders at all levels recognise that the IASC Gender Marker was the first tool that addressed gender integration in humanitarian responses. A number of significant successes have been identified.

A number of cluster coordinators and UN agencies in particular, identified that the mandatory nature of the gender marker is positive in that it acts as checkpoint and that “it has made people understand that they have to integrate gender”.

Successes of the IASC Gender Marker

It has given legitimacy to gender mainstreaming.

It has increased the awareness of the humanitarian community in gender integration.

It has provided a starting point for discussions with humanitarian organisations around gender integration and gender equality programming.

It has put more focus on gender from and with donors.

It has helped convince many people that gender is a life-saving criterion (although this is an on-going battle).

It has led a number of agencies and clusters to make commitments regarding gender integration in projects and systems.

It has lead a number of agencies (UN, NGO and donors) to develop their own “gender markers” building of the experience of the IASC Gender Marker / adapting the IASC Gender Marker for their own use. (ECHO, Care International and WFP).

A number of organisations have used the lessons from the IASC Gender Maker to adapt or develop their own organisational systems, for example in needs assessments.

It’s success in raising the profile of gender has lead to the possibility of developing other markers for area such as AAP (OCHA Pakistan)

11

In Pakistan, one respondent compared the current practice with the way the humanitarian responses were planned and implemented pre-2010. In that period, they felt that gender was almost always ignored and that this meant that there were many gaps in responses. According to statistical analysis of coding trends

8, the IASC Gender Marker has succeeded in increasing

the level of gender integration in project design since its inception. The analysis, using the data taken from the 2012 and 2013 Gender Marker Analysis Reports, reflects a significant decrease in the number of “gender blind projects”, from 45% at inception to 10% in 2013. However, the percentage split across the four Gender Marker categories

9 since 2011 has remained fairly static. In 2013, the percentage of

project proposals that have fully mainstreamed gender or which have gender equality as their principal aim has decreased as compared to the previous year and there has been an increase in the number of gender blind projects. In isolation, it is not possible to draw any conclusion from these figures. There are a number of possible explanations and the likelihood is that the answer lies in a combination of them.

The static levels may indicate better understanding and more stringent application of the coding criteria rather than reverses of gender integration in project proposals.

There is also the question of the capacity of implementers to apply the tool and the issue of staff turnover. There are significant numbers of new staff in the system, which may not have had the same level of exposure and orientation. (See section 5).

Overall, stakeholders feel that the IASC Gender Marker has been successful in raising the profile of gender and achieving a level of gender integration in the design phase. 3.2. Challenges with the IASC Gender Marker in the design phase Notwithstanding the successes of the IASC gender marker in the design phase, several significant challenges were identified in terms of the process and the systems. The application of the IASC Gender Marker does not act as a guarantee of quality of projects or coding. Although some stakeholders feel that when the process is applied well it offers a level of assurance that gender has been considered, other stakeholders identify that continued issues with coding undermine the process. The IASC Gender Marker Annual Reports in 2012 and 2013, and the Care International UK 2013 report

10

all highlight the issue of inconsistency of coding. The Care International UK report highlights that in in 2012, 36% of projects were coded incorrectly, with a corresponding figure in 2013 of 28%. A coding

review system was put in place at the outset of the process to offer a level of quality assurance while the tool was being rolled out. Although there are variations, the average process has three stages – a self-assessment stage, a cluster review stage, which agrees a code and a final review from a technical specialist either inside / outside the country. Feedback to the organization normally accompanies stages two and three. The final decision regarding the coding sits with the clusters not the technical specialist. Stakeholders in Pakistan find the self-assessment and review process has helped build capacities within their organisations. They value the process in terms of developing their own knowledge and understanding of gender integration through the feedback they receive. They feel that the process offers a level of quality control at the design stage as well as transparency in decision-making.

8 2012 and 2013 IASC Gender Marker. Analysis of Results and Lessons Learnt 9 Code 0: Gender is not reflected anywhere in the project sheet. The project is gender blind. Code 1: The project will

contribute in a limited way to gender equality. Code 2a: The project will contribute significantly to gender equality. Code 2b: The principal purpose of the project is to advance gender equality. 10 Donor Spending on Gender in Emergencies” (Care International UK, 2013);

Common Coding Concerns Lack of specificity in coding criteria

Inconsistency and subjectivity of coding

Coding confusion – 2b is the “best”

The tool detracts from “real gender integration” because the emphasis is on the code rather than the implementation.

Feedback from the gender advisers does not always get implemented / codes are not updated to reflect the feedback.

Commitments regarding minimum coding requirements (such as only 2s, can undermine the system (see section 4.2)

12

In the Somalia response, the perceptions of the IASC Gender Marker application and review process are more mixed. For some, as in Pakistan, it is seen as a capacity development process and useful. Others find the process difficult and lacking in clarity. Some members of the cluster review committees find the additional level of review by gender technical specialists (outside of the cluster structure) undermining and frustrating and would prefer technical feedback within the cluster review structure.

Donors who use the IASC Gender Marker value the assessment and validation process conducted by gender advisors as part of the review process. They feel it offers a level of quality assurance. The process will change in 2014 / 2015, when the third stage, in its current format, will end. The focus of the gender advisors will be on providing a level of quality control through random sampling.

Cosmetic application. For some agencies and clusters, the process has become a “tick box” and cosmetic exercise. Several members of cluster review committees identified that a number of organisations have “learnt the language” to get the right code. This is felt to be due to the absence of coordinated, collective monitoring of the gender marker and the related commitments beyond the design stage. Language: The ability to translate project plans into the project proposal template is cited as another challenge. For many proposal writers, English is not their first language and they struggle to complete the format in a way that the gender integration elements will be captured. It was pointed out by a number of the respondents that often gender integration in implementation is strong but does not get captured in the proposal writing or reporting. 3.3 How effective is the gender marker in ensuring that gender is included in all phases of the humanitarian programme cycle? The limitation of the IASC Gender Marker is widely felt to be that it stops at the design stage. It is viewed by many of the stakeholders as “a predictor of action” but not does not have a mechanism to collectively

track whether what is planned is implemented or what results are achieved. It is a horizontal marker that looks across multiple organisations and projects but only at one point in the project cycle. The perception that the IASC gender marker can be cosmetic is directly linked to the belief that that there is no follow up monitoring of implementation and by implication, no consequences within the cluster system if what was planned is not implemented. There is widespread agreement that gender integration needs to be monitored and that being able demonstrate the impact of gender integration on humanitarian programming will provide impetus for greater integration of gender. Feedback overwhelmingly emphasised

that the IASC Gender Marker commitments need to be monitored in order to remain relevant. The one stakeholder group, which does not consistently identify tracking of implementation and results as an issue, is the NGO group. This may be self-evident in that NGOs are generally required to report to their donors and have their own monitoring mechanisms in place. Organisations report consistent monitoring at the input and output level and collection of sex-disaggregated data. However, there is little if any impact monitoring. A number of the respondents also highlight that there are different levels of follow up from donors (including UN agencies’ follow up with sub-recipients) for information regarding gender integration during implementation. Some organisations gave examples of how they

Monitoring implementation – suggestions from respondent groups

Gender Marker needs to evolve to monitor implementation and impact - a Gender Marker 2.0.

Gender Marker should be maintained and expanded to include monitoring (a GM +3 +3 +3)

Integrate into monitoring cycle, with oversight from global level. Need to develop gender sensitive indicators and monitoring framework.

Donors need to push for more trackable Gender Equality Programming

Develop a benchmarking process and peer review mechanism for gender integration

“The Gender Marker tool _/ as part of this wider response _/ has the potential to promote strengthened engagement on gender mainstreaming by all humanitarian actors. It is clear, however, that the Gender Marker is not a stand-alone tool; it complements a range of gender training, resources, and activities on gender mainstreaming.” (Siobhán Foran et al, 2012)

13

have used data from monitoring to adapt projects or have integrated lessons learnt from one project into another. For example, changing targeting criteria to respond to the identification of groups such as transgender or stigmatised ethnic groups, which had been missed in the initial needs analysis.

Collective monitoring of humanitarian projects through the cluster mechanism is generally restricted to output monitoring through the ‘4Ws’

11. Cluster coordinators

reported mixed levels of consistency and quality in these reports, with partners constrained by a number of challenges. Insecurity and access are identified as significant limiting factors in the level of monitoring and verification that can be undertaken both by partners and by clusters and UN OCHA. In Somalia, UN OCHA has developed a number of strategies to partially address some of these long-standing challenges, such as third party monitoring and verification by phone, but recognise that these mechanisms only go so far. Current Experience of using the IASC Gender Marker for monitoring purposes The issue regarding monitoring gender integration has been recognised for a number of years. During the 2012 Gender Marker Workshop, “Monitoring Integration of Gender and the Gender Marker throughout the Programme Cycle” was one of the key discussion areas, with the decision taken to develop a draft monitoring strategy that looked at inter-agency

and cluster monitoring frameworks and existing humanitarian monitoring and evaluation systems12

. Three main approaches to monitoring were identified in the workshop:

Integration of gender into inter-agency and cluster monitoring frameworks in the CHAP and CRPs

Using existing monitoring and evaluation structures and systems

Specific field / monitoring visits A draft strategy was produced at the end of 2012, and endorsed towards the end of 2013. It has not been systematically implemented but a number of initiatives have been taken forward at the country level between gender advisors, UN agencies and the clusters to trial approaches. Examples can be found in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan

1314, Jordan and Pakistan.

(See also Section 7 for examples of application of the IASC Gender Marker to the Cluster Response Plans) Other Gender Markers: A number of organisations have taken action to address the challenge related to monitoring gender commitments in humanitarian programming. DG ECHO and Care International have developed their own markers to address this issue. Both tools have built on the lessons from the IASC Gender Marker. The ECHO Gender-Age Marker,

11 UN OCHA tool for collective response monitoring – ‘Who does what, where and when’ 12 Gender Marker Workshop Report June 4 – 6, Geneva (GenCap, 2012)

13 GenCap mission report – North Darfur 14-19 December 2013 (GenCap 2013) 14 Gender Issues in the Monitoring Process – A Brief Guidance Note (GenCap Factsheet, 2013)

Monitoring –Respondents’ Views “Access and security constraints make monitoring very difficult”. “Monitoring is generally very weak and it often seems like the numbers are inflated” “We need to do basic monitoring better in terms of interrogating the reports and following up with partners on those. We need to be realistic about what we can do – verification is just a word in the Somalia context” “I have never seen a report that includes gender analysis or reporting of commitments” “Need to see how we can track implementation. If we are seen as the custodians of the GM then we need to monitor” “The mandate of the cluster coordinators is to coordinate. It is not to monitor” “The focus seems to be more on the financial reporting than the narrative”

IASC Gender Marker as a Monitoring Tool

In Pakistan, the IASC Gender Marker has been applied to the

Emergency Response Fund (ERF) and has integrated gender into the reporting templates. Joint monitoring visits are undertake, comprising UN OCHA monitoring team members and technical experts. In Sudan, it was used to assess whether the projects

implemented their gender commitments at the practical field level. Overall, the monitored projects maintained their gender marker code from project design level to implementation level. A guidance note for monitoring projects was produced as a result. In DRC, gender sensitive indicators have been included in the

pooled funds and are used for monitoring. If the gender codes are not being achieved after a few rounds, then there will be sanctions (such as no future funding)

14

launched in January 2014, considers gender and age and assesses the integration of both from the proposal stage through to project implementation and evaluation. In response to some of the criticisms of the IASC Gender Marker that it can be a “tick box exercise”, it has developed more in depth criteria to support the review and coding process. Although a code is given at the design stage, the final code is not awarded until the completion of the project, based on reports and monitoring visits. Care International’s Gender Marker also expands the IASC Gender Marker model to respond to the limitation in monitoring and evaluation. It has extended the tool to encompass all phases of the project cycle, including coding of preparedness and strategic response planning, as well as design and implementation. Other NGOs and UN agencies have indicated that they have developed and adapted monitoring mechanisms to be able to track commitments through the project cycle. It is clear based on feedback and practice that the IASC Gender Marker can and should be developed to incorporate the monitoring of gender commitments beyond the design stage. It will be important to build on the experiences of DG ECHO and Care International. It will not be possible to adopt either the Care or ECHO model wholesale as the Care International tool in as internal tool, governed by internal accountability mechanisms and the ECHO tool is based on the contractual agreements between the donor and its partners. What collective monitoring system is possible? The nature of the humanitarian system raises a number of questions regarding what it is possible to monitor and who has the authority to do so. Beyond the appeal process and project approval, the primary relationship in terms of finalising the project proposal, accountability for delivery, reporting and authority to monitor and evaluate lies between the implementing agency and the donor. Although some approaches have been piloted, the question is how effectively the pilot examples could be replicated on a system-wide scale. Respondents in this assessment process identified three categories of challenges / questions related to monitoring the implementation of the gender marker commitments:

a) Who monitors what, at what level and how does that data get recorded and shared? b) What are the roles, responsibilities and capacities of the clusters in monitoring and reporting? c) What is the willingness of the organisations and agencies to report back to the clusters for

cluster / sector level reporting and analysis. a) Who monitors what and how? Although the humanitarian appeals process is a collective one, monitoring and evaluation is felt to be less so. There are different levels of monitoring and analysis starting from the field level. For organisations, once funding is secured, accountability for delivery is generally to the donor, local government and to the community. Collective monitoring at the cluster level is focuses on the ‘4Ws’ and is primarily at the output level. As indicated previously this reporting is generally considered to be variable in quality and limited in scope in that it does not look at impact.

b) Roles and Responsibilities in relation to monitoring Although there is a general consensus regarding the desirability of monitoring gender integration in implementation, there was mixed feedback from the stakeholders regarding the possibility of developing a joint framework for doing so. The capacity, mandate and authority to undertake such a function have also been raised. The pooled funds, managed by UN OCHA, provide an opportunity to test approaches. A number of organisations are sub-recipients to UN agencies, so there may be scope to trial harmonised monitoring and reporting approaches with some UN agencies. Cluster coordinators and UN OCHA staff report limited capacity to undertake a systematic monitoring role. A significant number of cluster coordinators feel strongly that their role is one of coordination and that monitoring should not be part of their role or mandate. Others indicate that some level of field monitoring is a function of their role but the ability to fulfil it is often constrained by resources, insecurity and time. As indicated above, there have been a number of initiatives at the country level to adapt the IASC Gender Marker to include a monitoring component, which have normally involved a partnership between UN OCHA, the clusters (coordinators and members) and the gender adviser. It is therefore likely that any model will need engagement of these stakeholders. In order for a collective mechanism to be feasible, these capacity and resource constraints will need to be addressed.

15

Although there is no consensus regarding what a collective mechanism should look like, a number of possible models were suggested by individual respondents. Proposed Models of Collective Monitoring

Model Characteristics Benchmarking Code is utilised as a benchmark.

The code is monitored through project cycle through report review and monitoring visits. Monitoring will be through peer group mechanism Final code is awarded at the end of the project

“4W”s plus Indicator includes the proposal template 4W template amended to include additional gender sensitive indicator and section for self assessed gender marker code The 4W process will otherwise proceed as normal

Cluster / OCHA/ Donor hybrid Independent review panel assesses projects and awards code at design stage Mixed team of OCHA, cluster technical specialist and gender advisor monitor projects through random sampling Verbal and written feedback, with recommendations, provided to the organisation and the report shared with the donor. Responsibility and authority to follow up on the report remains between the agency and the donor.

“Self-assessment” plus A system designed to capture the monitoring information that NGOs already collect. Fields added to OPS to enable partners to upload monitoring information and award a gender marker code based on implementation For countries where OPS is not used, a similar mechanism could be developed. Random cluster oversight to identify status and issues on a periodic basis and develop cluster level plans to respond to challenges.

A few stakeholders recommended a model / pilot programme to see how the IASC Gender Marker could be tracked through the entire cycle. Given the individual initiatives already undertaken, it would be worthwhile consolidating these experiences and lessons learnt, to provide the foundation for the model, in lieu of a pilot. This is another area where it should be also be possible learn from ECHO and Care International. c) What do / will members report? There is a widespread assumption among cluster coordinators and some UN agencies that implementing organisations are only be prepared to report on projects that have been funded through the CAP/ERF processes, and that they will not share other information. For some, even accessing these reports was considered a challenge. In contrast, the majority of NGOs indicate that they regularly report to the clusters, with a number indicating willingness to report on all projects regardless of funding source. A common perspective is that there is little interest within the cluster on information regarding gender integration. Some donors (ECHO was cited as an example) insist that partners report to clusters, which is considered a good precedent. Other donors such as USAID and DFID have said that they have a similar expectation. The challenge highlighted by some cluster coordinators, is that even where this is a requirement, there is minimal if any verification from donors that this happens. There is a recognition from the cluster coordinators and some of the UN agencies that implementing organisations fear that if they report challenges then they will be blacklisted and not get any more funds. Systems therefore need to be supportive, non-punitive and encourage learning. UN agencies are also cluster members and it is unclear how all of these agencies report back to the cluster. In addition, many of the NGOs receive funding from UN agencies (as sub-recipients) and they report that that the level of monitoring and follow up of information related to gender integration and results is minimal, with the exception of the UN OCHA ERF model in some countries.

16

The general sense from respondent feedback is that a lot of the potential benefit of the IASC Gender Marker is lost if it does not get applied through the project cycle.

3.4 Accountability and Ownership Limited and unclear accountability at all levels is widely identified by stakeholders as one factor impacting on the integration of gender in humanitarian programming and on the quality of application of the IASC Gender Marker.

At the system level, the 2008 IASC Gender Policy15

sets out a clear framework and specific responsibilities within the humanitarian architecture.

16 The policy calls

for an accountability framework to be developed and monitored. Although this has not happened to date, a process is underway, lead by the Gender Reference Group, to review the measures currently in place at the global and field level to promote gender integration. The review will lead to the development of an accountability

framework spanning the period 2015 – 2020. At this moment in time, there is agreement among the respondents that there is limited accountability for gender integration in the humanitarian response or for the application of the IASC gender marker. Since its inception, annual reports analysing the application of the IASC Gender Marker globally, technical workshops to review the IASC Gender Marker as well as external studies, have identified lessons learnt and made recommendations for change. Several have been taken forward, while a number of others have not. A number of initiatives have been trialled at the national level of which there is no broad knowledge beyond a small group of stakeholders. It is unclear which structure or organisation has the responsibility to ensure that these elements get shared and / or taken forward. It is important to strengthen the systems to capture and share learning and track implementation of actions, to ensure that learning is maximised, actions are completed and the impact is monitored. At the country level, it is unclear to most who is ultimately held accountable and which agency or actor has the responsibility to hold others to account. It is felt that the HCT and Cluster Lead Agencies should have this role within the coordinated system but do not perform it to the extent that they should. UN OCHA and the cluster coordinators are also identified by other respondents as having a significant level of responsibility for the application of the tool. Cluster coordinators themselves recognise that they have some responsibility but feel that the ultimate responsibility lay elsewhere, particularly with UN OCHA and the Cluster Lead Agencies. Coordinators identified the need for more orientation and technical support to be able to administer the tool. A number feel that the cluster coordinator requires a level of technical expertise to be able to provide the guidance and support to cluster members, which many do not feel that they have. Programme Accountability: Primary accountability for delivery of projects is identified between the donor and the implementing agency. Donors are also felt to have a role in holding “the system” and organisations to account for delivery and quality. There were mixed perceptions of how much this happens, with some donors recognised as stronger than others in this respect. In both the Pakistan and Somalia responses, the engagement of government bodies in gender integration efforts was emphasised, as is their role in holding agencies and organisations to account for delivery of projects. In Pakistan, the government respondent reported strong internal and external accountability mechanisms at provincial and federal level.

Internal Accountability: A number of UN agencies and clusters have made global commitments

regarding gender integration in the humanitarian response (see section 4.2). Stakeholders do not feel that these commitments are always translated or operationalized in national responses. Some global clusters use the annual gender marker analysis reports as a tool to follow up performance by national clusters and global cluster members. This has had positive impacts but the majority of national and sub cluster coordinators do not feel that there is much follow-up from the global level. Many of the cluster coordinators felt that the cluster lead agencies in country did not perform their roles as expected and

15

IASC Policy Statement “Gender Equality in Humanitarian Action“ (June 2008) 16 The System-wide Action Plan (UN-SWAP) for implementation of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination Policy on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (CEB/2006/2) is another global accountability mechanism related to gender that encompasses all funding for UN agencies.

“All of us – donors, UN and NGOs in the field – need to become much better at holding ourselves to account in what we are doing to address gender in emergency aid” (Care International, 2013)

17

ignored or were unaware of the neutrality of the cluster coordinator’s role.

Section Four - How does the Gender Marker support effective humanitarian decision-making?

4.1 Does the IASC Gender Marker encourage good “donorship”? Donors have a substantial role to play in in ensuring the integration of gender in humanitarian programming, as emphasised by the Humanitarian Response Index (HRI) 2011: Addressing the Gender Challenge (DARA, 2011). The report identified that the slow progress and lack of accountability on gender integration in humanitarian programming was in part due to a lack of accountability and push by donors. Donor engagement was seen as strongest at the project development stage, with weaker engagement in monitoring and follow up. 4.1.1 Donor Use of the Gender Marker One of the identified purposes of the gender marker is as a tool to support donors to identify gender sensitive projects in the CAP and to prioritise funding to these. In 2012, the IASC Gender Marker became mandatory in all CAPs. The 2012 CAP Donor Satisfaction Survey

17 asked donors about the process overall and included a question regarding how valuable the

gender marker score was to them offering five categories. 38 out of 49 respondents returned complete responses. Of these 38, 17 said that the gender marker had had great or considerable value to them; 11 said it had some value, and 10 said zero value or had no opinion. Additional Comments regarding the gender marker from the 2012 Donor Survey

Gender is a key reporting requirement for the agency

Seems like a "tick" the box exercise.

We place great value on this - important as it links in with our National Action Plan for 1325 and helps to input into our annual report on our contribution to gender equality. Encourages agencies to mainstream/focus on gender.

Since we do not fund projects directly in the CAP, I can not really comment

Useful if included in CAP prioritization criteria and CHF funding procedures, but we rarely make our own project prioritizations

Measurement is simple and keeps gender on the radar - better than "mainstreaming out" women.

It is obligatory for us, but in essence has no real meaning

Often reduced to a tick-box exercise, as opposed to a thorough assessment of gendered needs (which should take place at sector / cluster level). It does allow space to show that gender issues have been considered. For it to be effective though, cluster coordinators need to have expertise in this area, which is not always the case

Potentially of great value for the CAP to become a better planning tool

Of the seven donors interviewed as part of this assessment process, only Sida used the IASC Gender Marker to make decisions regarding allocation of humanitarian funding. Sida is also the only donor agency (spoken to in this process) that has explicitly stated that they will not fund gender blind projects. Of the remaining six, all have gender as a funding criterion and three (ECHO, Canada DFAT D, USAID OFDA) have their own systems for measuring gender integration at the project design stage. The remaining donors (DFID, Irish Aid and MFA Finland) are all aware of the IASC Gender Marker and use it

17 CAP Donor Survey: Findings September 2012

Donors are aware of the tool and it has encouraged a greater focus on gender, but the majority

do not use the tool to make decisions. 2. There is little evidence that the IASC Gender Marker has increased funding flows to gender sensitive projects / or stopped donors funding technically sound projects, with little or no gender integration. 3. A number of donors have their own tools to measure gender integration in project proposals, which are considered stronger than the IASC Gender Marker. 4. Some donors are considering developing their own tools / or adapting / applying one of the existing tools. 5, UN agencies and NGOs have adopted and adapted systems based on their experiences with IASC Gender Marker and made programming commitments in this regard.

18

informally, but it does not form part of their formal decision-making regarding humanitarian funding allocations. Two of the three donors currently without formal systems for assessing gender integration into humanitarian projects, have indicated that they are in exploring options for developing tracking systems and would prefer to build on current practice if possible, rather than create their own. One concern among implementing organisations is that there should not be a plethora of donor gender markers, but preferably a harmonised model. The majority of the donors, in addition to project funding to other organisations, provide humanitarian funding at an institutional level to many of the UN agencies. The IASC Gender Marker doesn’t work at that level. 4.1.2 Donor Funding

In 2013, Care International UK published a report “Donor Spending on Gender in Emergencies”, that used 2013 FTS data and the Gender Marker scores to measure how much funding allocated through the CAP and other UN-managed pooled funding mechanisms, was allocated to gender sensitive or targeted gender programmes. The report does not show funding trends over a period of time, so it is not possible to assess whether funding to gender sensitive of gender-targeted projects has increased over the lifetime of the gender marker. The report demonstrates that donors continue to fund gender blind projects and those with limited integration of gender, but that the majority of funding is allocated to those projects which will contribute significantly to gender equality or have as their principal purpose the advancement of gender equality.

As highlighted by the report, the FTS does not capture financial resources given outside of the CAP, which is estimated to be about 50% of total humanitarian funding. A number of NGOs have indicated that a number of the bilateral donors have more in depth proposal formats, which have their own detailed requirements regarding gender integration. While this shows a positive trend towards the majority of funds going to projects, which integrate gender, at least at the design stage, there is no clear evidence that donors have used the Gender Marker as the determining criteria. Although no definitive global analysis has been done tracking figures over a number of years, an internal review conducted in the oPt, appears to demonstrate that both the % and amount of funding going to 2a and 2b projects has declined over the course of the last four years rather than the reverse. Feedback from stakeholders in a number of countries is that they do not feel that the gender marker codes have impacted on funding decisions. A number stated that they feel donors would fund projects that are gender blind or have minimally integrated gender if the project interests them enough. At the global level, there was a feeling that donors are increasingly looking at gender and that even if they don’t already do so, they are moving towards a system where it will be a key criteria regarding funding decisions. National stakeholders reported that they had received the message from their head offices and from within the cluster system that donors will not fund gender blind projects and so they have to be able to demonstrate gender integration. The review of donor practice is very limited so it is difficult to make definitive statements. In general, there has been an increased focus by donors on gender and this is incorporated at some level in their decision-making regarding funding of projects. Few donors use the IASC Gender Marker as the basis for their decision-making and several have their own systems, which are tailored to their needs and have a greater level of detail than is available through the FTS and online project sheets.

4.2 How has gender been integrated in other humanitarian agencies systems and programmes and has the IASC Gender Marker made any contribution to this? As outlined in the previous sections and in section five, the IASC Gender Marker has had some impact on the systems and practice of organisations towards gender integration.

Eight of the top ten humanitarian donors gave the majority of their funds (50%+) to projects coded 2a or 2b; Nine of the ten donors in 2013 funded gender blind projects; All the donors gave a substantial percentage of funding (20 – 50%) to projects coded 1. Source: Care International UK (2013)

19

At the strategic and systems level, Care International and DG ECHO acknowledge that the development of their institutional gender markers is based upon the IASC Gender Marker and the lessons learnt over the last four years of its implementation. WFP have adopted the IASC Gender Marker as a corporate tool, with adaptations, also building on the lessons learnt. They are currently exploring mechanisms for tracking and monitoring the implementation using the gender marker

UN OCHA has incorporated the IASC Gender Marker within its pooled funding mechanisms at the country level. In early 2014, it was also included within the CERF mechanism. At the country level, offices have developed additional support mechanisms for partners in proposal development and monitoring and reporting. In Pakistan, Sudan and DRC for example there have been attempts to integrate the monitoring of gender commitments, using the gender marker. A number of NGOs identified that they had adapted some of their internal systems and processes as a result of the IASC Gender Marker process. Some have adapted their internal needs assessment processes because they realised that they weren’t capturing all the information on vulnerabilities that they should have been. A number of others indicate that they apply the IASC Gender Marker as tool in all of their proposal development processes. Various UN agencies, global clusters and some HCTs have made commitments regarding gender integration based around the gender marker. For example, UNICEF-led clusters, WFP and UNDP have all made aspirational commitments regarding only approving projects that are coded 2a and 2b. Many HCTs have made commitments regarding the non-approval of gender blind projects. A few, such as Chad, have made a commitment that only projects coded 2a and 2b will be approved for the CAP or the pooled funds. The intention underlying these commitments is positive, in that they are intended to encourage projects that will significantly contribute to gender equality. However, a few stakeholders are concerned that the commitments could inadvertently undermine the system on two levels. On one level, It is felt that without systems that can ensure the quality of coding, such as properly trained and empowered cluster review committees and a level of external validation, then projects may be coded in a way that ensures that they meet the requirement, despite the fact that they do not meet the criteria for the coding. On the second level, without monitoring and follow up mechanisms, the collective commitment to a standard is meaningless. These applications of the IASC Gender Marker and adaptation of systems based on learning, demonstrate that the tool has had some impact on humanitarian programming systems. In the absence of monitoring data, it isn’t possible to know the impact that these changes may have had in implementation or programme outcomes. Other UN Gender Markers: The development of the IASC Gender Marker was based on the OECD DAC and UNDP gender markers and developed for application to humanitarian responses. In January 2014, UN Women and WHO co-hosted an inter-agency workshop on gender markers with a view to supporting entities that had requested assistance to develop of gender markers to track and allocate resources to gender equality and the empowerment of women.

18

The report identified that there are a significant number of gender markers, current or planned, within the UN system. 11 UN agencies already apply a marker, with a further 19 planning to develop a gender marker in 2014 /15. The primary rationale for the many of these markers appears to be for accountability purposes, (to the System-wide Action Plan (UN-SWAP) for implementation of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination Policy on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (CEB/2006/2). The gender markers cover all funding, with humanitarian funding making a small proportion of most agency funds. Although the majority of the markers encompass all funding (development and humanitarian) and focus primarily on financial tracking, the initiative led by UN Women, presents an opportunity for sharing the lessons learnt, in the application of the IASC Gender Marker and for harmonising where possible common elements of the tools going forward.

18 Workshop report: Inter-agency workshop on resource tracking and allocation, Co-hosted by WHO and UN Women

Geneva: 22nd

January 2014

In Pakistan, the Federal Disaster Management Agency has institutionalized the gender markers through staff training and integrating it into all its disaster management activities. They have also integrated gender into their contingency plans.

20

Section Five - What is the attitude of humanitarian practitioners to the IASC Gender Marker?

Overall, there is quite a mixed, but generally positive perception, within the limits set out elsewhere, of the IASC Gender Marker. It is widely appreciated across the different stakeholder groups and at country and global levels as the first tool that focussed on gender integration in humanitarian projects. The majority of stakeholders want the application of the tool to continue, but with adaptations to some elements of the tool itself (as outlined in section two) and the process. The principal adaptation people want is the extension of the IASC Gender marker to be applied throughout the project cycle. The IASC Gender Marker is one tool to support gender integration into humanitarian projects and programmes. The discussion and recommendations in this section go beyond the gender marker and speak to the broader programming environment to support gender integration. As pointed out by a number of respondents, the gender marker is only one tool and it can’t do everything. A common emphasis among the respondents is the importance of addressing the broader challenge of integrating gender in programming and doing so in a way that supports longer-term gender equality programming. This section focuses on the broader support systems and processes that have been identified as necessary to strengthen gender integration. 5. 1 Capacity and Understanding of Key Staff Stakeholders at the country level largely agree that there is a need for longer-term and targeted capacity building interventions to support gender integration in humanitarian responses. There are a few dissenting voices, which emphasise the high level of investment in training and capacity building that has taken place. In part, this is because there was a big focus on capacity building and tool roll out at the beginning and now there is a new generation of people, some of which may not have had the same exposure and training. Common capacity challenges in relation to gender integration:

Understanding of Gender

A high level of misunderstanding of gender concepts, gender analysis and gender integration. E.g. Targeting women and men 50:50 is gender integration.

Many people continue to equate gender with women and girls’ empowerment

Training Frequency and Focus

Field staff are often left out of training on gender and the IASC gender marker but they the ones that have to implement the proposals.

A number of cluster coordinators and cluster members have not received an orientation to the tool, the guidance or the processes.

Training is too broad and doesn’t meet the needs of the different levels of knowledge, roles and technical focus.

Technical Confidence

Capacity and confidence of cluster coordinators to lead gender integration efforts is low in many settings.

Some clusters / sectors report difficulty to identify opportunities for gender integration.

A number of partners struggle to translate the project design into implementation.

Cultural contexts make it difficult to implement many of the planned activities. It is sometimes difficult to source advice regarding programming options.

Language

English is not the first language of many people, but the tool, the guidance document and support systems are all in English / not in their first language.

The nuances within gender terminology, and the way that it is often used interchangeably (gender sensitive programming, gender integration, gender mainstreaming, gender equality programming) can lead to confusion for native and non-native English speakers.

21

Proposed Solutions: 5.1.1. Training and guidance to be provided through the year and not restricted to the appeal process

deadlines. 5.1.2. Develop a fixed annual cycle of training to orient new staff. 5.1.3. Expand organisational access to 2 or 3 staff members per organisation to mitigate the impact of

staff turnover to support institutionalisation. 5.1.4. Provide different levels and categories of training / technical support.

- Gender and gender integration in humanitarian programming (including a session on the IASC Gender Marker)

- Gender Marker Orientation for clusters and cluster review committee members - Specific technical training responding to the needs and challenges of the different sectors; - Specific technical support or mentoring for cluster coordinators to lead gender integration in

their sectors. 5.1.5 Differentiated training should be developed to target the specific groups: field staff and senior

leaders of organisations; cluster lead agencies and UN staff. 5.1.6 Explore the development of a Training of Trainers model in some of these areas to build a pool

of resource people. 5.1.7 Explore and catalogue local solutions for gender mainstreaming in difficult cultural and insecure

settings. Although the assessment process did not undertake a review of the capacity building initiatives undertaken by different agencies at the national and global levels

19, a number of examples were shared during the

process. 5.2 Putting support systems in place Resource constraints, particularly in terms staff and finances were identified by a number of different stakeholders as limiting efforts to integrate gender. A particular challenge is the need for dedicated technical support for gender integration. The role of gender advisors The role and function of the inter-agency and global cluster gender advisors was appreciated. Expectations of the role of the gender advisor at the national level fall into three categories:

Provision training and capacity building support to NGOs regarding gender and gender equality programming.

Provision of targeted technical support to the clusters before and during the project review processes on the application of the IASC Gender Marker and the review of the projects.

Provision of strategic support to the clusters and HCT to develop and implement a strategy for gender integration / ensure that the gender is integrated in the Strategic Response Plans and Cluster Response Plans.

There is a tension in the balance between these roles and it is widely recognized that the scope is too broad for one person to be able to do all three to equal quality. The balance tends to be different depending on the location and the person. Examples were shared from a number of locations regarding the support that gender advisors have provided at all of these levels. A number of respondents identified gaps in support either because there is no dedicated gender advisor or because the demands on one person were too high to address everything. Gender advisors (for example, Pakistan, Somalia) engage in broader gender networks comprising gender specialists from across the humanitarian and development community. These have been identified as a possible resource for technical support to the clusters as well as broader advocacy. There are a number of questions regarding how to develop a structure that would ensure regular and reliable technical support through voluntary structures such as these. However, it would be an avenue worth exploring further in terms of building up larger pools of technical support and exchange.

19

Review of IASC Gender Policy Statement on Gender Equality in Humanitarian Action, which will take place in 2014, which will do a comprehensive review of this area.

Examples of capacity and systems development at the global cluster level

The Global Education Cluster: - Members of the rapid response team

requested to complete the gender –e-learning course;

- Gender explicitly identified in the terms of reference for all deployments

The Global Early Recovery Cluster: - completion of the gender e-learning

course to become a requirement for roster members

The Global WASH Cluster has highlighted the importance of gender integration in its revised strategic framework and included indicators in the monitoring framework.

22

SRP Timelines and Review Process A common challenge related to the SRP (previously the CAP and still referred to as such in many places) is the timeframe for project submissions and review. A significant majority of organizations, cluster coordinators and gender advisers identify that the compressed time frame makes it difficult to do a complete or quality review process. One of the recommendations is that training and orientation to the IASC Gender Marker should not be linked to the appeal dates but should be conducted on a year-round cycle. Financial Tracking System / Online Project System

20

These two systems are key in CAPs and an important component in the IASC Gender Marker review and tracking process at the project design stage. One of the expectations at the initiation of the IASC Gender Marker was that the FTS would be a mechanism through which donors and other organisations could access project summary sheets to make decisions regarding programming and funding. Respondents at the global and country level have highlighted that these systems do not support the application of the IASC Gender Marker as well as had been expected. The issues with the systems go beyond the Gender Marker and a number of humanitarian teams have moved away from using the OPS. Criticisms of the FTS tend to focus on the inaccuracy/incompleteness of the information provided, which therefore makes it difficult to base decisions on it. These systems are currently being updated, and any changes to the IASC Gender Marker needs to be cognizant of and integrate systems to adapt to the changes. 5.3 Senior Leadership There is a widespread view that there is still significant institutional resistance to the integration of gender in humanitarian programming. This was identified in all stakeholder groups – NGOs, UN agencies, donors and in the clusters system. Although there has been considerable progress, it was emphasized that “the argument has not been won” and it is necessary to have ongoing discussions about why gender should be considered a life-saving criteria and included in humanitarian programming. Accountability and Leadership is discussed more fully in section 3.4.

20 The FTS is a global, real-time database, which records all reported international humanitarian aid (including that

for NGOs and the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, bilateral aid, in-kind aid, and private donations). The OPS is a database which records all projects included as part of the consolidate appeals process.

23

Section Six - Is the IASC Gender Marker relevant to a Level 3 Emergency?

The IASC Gender Marker was applied in the recent crisis in the Philippines within days of the declaration of an L3 disaster. At the time, there was a mixed reaction from the humanitarian actors engaged in the immediate response efforts about whether the tool was relevant and useful at that stage of the crises, given its sudden onset. During the assessment process, stakeholders who had been part of the Philippines effort and others who have been involved in responding to sudden onset emergencies were asked to reflect on their experience of the tool in that situation and if and how it should be applied in the future. The general consensus is that gender must be integrated into emergency responses from the outset, including those of the scale and suddenness of Typhoon Haiyan. However, while the IASC Gender Marker was considered to be a useful tool to support this integration, it was generally felt that the process should be adapted to respond to burdens imposed by a Level 3 emergency, with coding review shifted to a later stage in the cycle. The gender advisers who were deployed at the time also suggested developing cluster checklists during the preparedness phase identifying minimum commitments (3 – 6 key points). UN OCHA and GenCap have both conducted post Typhoon Haiyan reviews regarding the integration of gender into the response efforts and the deployment report of the GenCap advisors who were part of the initial response efforts have also identified a number of strategic recommendations

21.

One of the common recommendations regards the role and focus of gender advisors in an L3 emergency situation. The OCHA review identified the importance of deploying at least two gender advisors to enable support at the strategic level and at the field level simultaneously. Feedback from NGOs and other agencies highlighted that a number of organisations had deployed their own gender advisors within the first week of the typhoon. It was pointed out that due to the situation there was surfeit of gender advisors in the Manila, working at the strategic level and not enough at the field level. IASC guidance

22

recommends the establishment of a gender network in such circumstances to maximise impact. A number of specific recommendations were made around the role of gender advisors, and work that should be done in the preparedness phase to enable better gender integration into HNO and the SRP. It is important that changes to the IASC Gender Marker process and tool should review and build on the lessons learnt and recommendations that have already been identified.

21 Highlights, Lessons Learnt, and Challenges from Typhoon Haiyan Response; Integrating Gender in an L3 Emergency (Note to

the Senior Management Team, April 2014); Philippines Deployment Report 1 – 28 December (GenCap, Jan 2014) Mission report The Philippines 23 – 30 March 2014 (GenCap, April 2014);

22

“Women, Girls, Boys and Men, Different Needs Equal Opportunities” - Gender Handbook in Humanitarian Action (IASC, 2006)

Should the IASC Gender Marker be applied in a Level 3 Emergency? –Stakeholders involved in

the immediate response

“Yes, it’s absolutely relevant and can be done” “Gender should be integral to what we do. We need to have a minimum standard” “Gender has to be central to project design but the coding element wasn’t helpful at this stage”

“Yes, it is. It should be basic to project design. You might

want to adapt the process so it’s not so time invasive in the first week but it should still be there”. “Yes. Not that there should be reviews and checking of codes, but important that gender is considered in the SRP, Cluster plans and projects.” “It’s not strategic to use the tool during an L3 because it is seen as an added burden that is not helpful at that point. Could be used in the second phase but not in the immediate aftermath” “It’s not clear, we are having this debate within our own agency. Because in an emergency, it can be very challenging and are they really going to hold up a lifesaving project because it’s not a 2, with the possible repercussions. But if not a 2, that means that it’s not reaching everyone so still has repercussions.” “There are two parts of the process, the preparation of the project and the feedback loop. Maybe in an emergency setting, the feedback loop needs to get pushed.” “It’s not that its not relevant in an L3, but the timing or level of its application is wrong in that context. “ “Yes. But should follow the ECHO model so there is no

coding at the design stage but looked at in the monitoring.”

24

Section Seven - Is the IASC Gender Marker relevant to the Humanitarian Programme Cycle?

The IASC gender marker is relevant to the different stages of the HPC, from preparedness through to the evaluation stage. In many responses, gender is already included to some extent within the SRPs but the level of analysis and integration across the different elements is generally seen to be quite limited. The majority of stakeholders feel that application of an adapted IASC Gender Marker would add coherence to the integration of gender in the response, by creating a formal linkage and tracking mechanism through the elements of the HPC. It would also provide an internal and external accountability mechanism, including for affected communities, national governments and organisations participating in the response. Gender advisers provide support to HCTs and HCT processes in a number of countries and there have been initiatives in two recent large-scale responses to apply the IASC gender marker to all sections of the SRP. 7.1 In Jordan, in 2013, a pilot process was initiated to apply the IASC Gender Marker to the sectoral level and in the SRP for the Jordan response to RRP6. This action was possible due to the leadership and commitment of senior members of UNHCR and the buy in and support of senior staff from other UN agencies and international NGOs. The IASC Gender Marker was used as a prompt to integrate activities into the SRP and was also used at sectoral planning workshops. Once the drafts were completed the IASC Gender Marker was applied in the same way that it would be during a project review process. A review was conducted to assess if gender appeared in the HNO, the SRP and the performance indicators and a code agreed. The same methodology was used as for project reviews, in that feedback was provided with an opportunity for revision. The process highlighted some useful lessons and recommendations for more systemic application. 7.2 In the Philippines, during Typhoon Haiyan, the gender advisers provided support to the clusters during the SRP development process. One of the elements identified is the importance of developing outcome and output indicators for inclusion in the strategic monitoring and evaluation framework. This will enable collective reporting and accountability to gender equality within the clusters and the overall deliverable of the SRP. The Food Security Cluster In Philippines, tried to integrate gender at the strategic level as well, and made 4 / 5 key commitments. For reporting purposes there, were indicators for cluster follow up. At the reporting stage, only 6 or 7 out of 50 partners reported on the indicators, which indicates some of the challenges. 7.3 The gender marker currently being piloted by Care International also applies the gender marker methodology throughout the programme cycle, which incorporates an Emergency Preparedness Planning stage, in addition to the Strategy, Proposal and Implementation stages. They have retained many of the characteristics of the IASC gender marker model, in order to facilitate harmonisation, and as such there should be a number of lessons that can be learnt from their current pilot process that can be applied to any adaptation of the IASC Gender Marker.

25

Section Eight – Conclusion The principle recommendation arising from the assessment is that the IASC Gender Marker needs to continue but that it needs to evolve to monitor gender integration throughout the programme cycle. The IASC Gender Marker has been successful in raising the profile of gender and ensuring that it is integrated to some level in humanitarian programming. It is not possible to quantify the impact that it has had or whether it has ensured gender sensitive programming, as commitments have not been monitored beyond the design stage. Humanitarian practitioners have generally appreciated the added depth that the tool can bring to the design process, but there is widespread recognition that there is a need for the tool to evolve to remain relevant. The principle recommendation that has come out of the process is that the tool should be applied throughout the project cycle to monitor implementation and impact. The main challenge relating to this is how to develop collective monitoring mechanisms to sufficient depth to be meaningful, while minimising additional reporting burdens on organisations. The lack of evidence regarding the impact of gender integration on humanitarian programming outcomes is widely cited as a challenge. Developing a tracking mechanism / adapting the IASC Gender Marker to enable this to happen within the HPC is something that would be of great value. Although the assessment process was somewhat limited in scope, based on interviews with 108 stakeholders and a review of available literature, the issues and findings are consistent with previous reviews and studies, which provides a level of validation. For the recommendations to be taken forward, if they are approved, a process will need to be put in place to engage clusters, UN agencies, donors and NGOs in the process. A number of the recommendations have implications for the broader humanitarian systems and could stall if there is not broader engagement. If possible, these stakeholders should be part the decision-making and operationalization process of the “IASC Gender Marker 2” from the outset. There are key areas that need to be explored further as the “IASC Gender Marker 2” is developed. The current tool has multiple aims and stakeholders, and it has been less successful in some areas than others in meeting those aims. There would be considerable benefit in articulating a single purpose for the tool, against which it could be measured. This would not restrict the application and adaptation of the tool by other stakeholders but could bring greater focus to its use within the IASC humanitarian structures. During the assessment process, a small number of respondents raised the issue of adapting the IASC Gender Marker to include age and other areas of vulnerability, such as disability and protection. Although this did not come out as a priority in the assessment, it is an area of current debate within other sectors of the humanitarian system. The ECHO Gender Age Marker has incorporated age as one of the two universal determinants of vulnerability. The Care International Marker embeds age within the process but it is not a specific criteria. In the process of developing an IASC Gender Marker 2, it will be important to make a final decision in this area. There are a number of changes currently underway within the Humanitarian Programme Cycle and it is critical that any evolution of the IASC Gender Marker integrates with these broader changes where possible. One piece of work that has the potential to impact significantly on the evolution of the IASC Gender Marker is the current review of activity-based and project-based budgeting and planning. This piece of work is due to conclude in mid 2014 and the findings should be used to inform any evolution of the IASC Gender Marker. The HPC is developing fast-track guidance notes to trial in the 2014/2015 planning cycle, as part of a longer process that will produce definitive tools and guidance for planning cycle the following year. It is recommended that the evolution of the IASC Gender Marker should follow this same timeline and process, with fast track guidance developed and shared in time for the 2014/2015 planning cycle.

26

Annex One Acronyms CAP Consolidated Appeals Process CERF Central Emergency Fund CHF Common Humanitarian Fund DFATD Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development ERF Emergency Response Fund FTS Financial Tracking System HCT Humanitarian Country Team HNO Humanitarian Needs Overview IASC Inter Agency Standing Committee MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs OPS Online Project System oPt occupied Palestinian territories SRP Strategic Response Plan WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

27

Annex Two – Recommendations regarding application and evolution of the IASC Gender Marker 2011 – 2013

23

IASC Gender Marker Analysis and Lessons Learnt Report – Summary Recommendations by Year

2011 2012 2013 Global level

a. Institutionalize success factors: Uneven gender equality

results from cluster‐to‐cluster and from country‐to‐country in

the same cluster indicate global leaders are not consistently requiring good gender results at field level. b. Strengthen cluster coordinator evaluation: The gender practice of Cluster Coordinators is variable. More headquarter vigilance is needed to ensure cluster coordinators successfully fulfil their TOR which requires that they “ensure the implementation of the GM in appeals”.

c. Provide year‐round technical assistance on gender to

clusters: Cluster Coordinators and cluster members need more gender technical support. As noted above, d. Embed GM in CAP schedule: Realistic deadlines are needed to assist clusters in integrating the GM. Timelines should be agreed in advance and adherence strict.

e. Seek a positive interface between the GM and results‐based management (RBM): Although the gender marker is an effective RBM tool, effort is needed to ensure that

gender‐specific results feature visibly in both RBM

frameworks and CAP project sheets.

f. Ensure pro‐active monitoring: CAP and PF monitoring

need to pro‐actively explore whether projects are being

delivered at least as well as the project design and gender code specify. . g. Mobilize donors: Donors need to be informed about the gender marker and encouraged to fund projects with codes that address gender equality (codes 2a and 2b as priority). If

To the IASC Gender SWG, CAP SWG, GenCap Steering Committee and Advisers

1. Broaden avenues and targets of engagement at country levels. Training and awareness raising on gender mainstreaming and the Gender Marker should be made available to project designers and implementers, as well as to cluster/sector leads and cluster/sector members at country levels. More effort should be placed on engagement with national NGOs and national authorities to promote approaches to gender mainstreaming and engagement on the Gender Marker. 2. Training approaches on the Gender Marker need to be targeted in order to orient humanitarian actors towards practical engagement on gender mainstreaming and the Gender Marker. Training for individual clusters needs to be contextualised and tailored so that cluster members relate to the materials and are equipped with knowledge that is directly applicable to them in the design and implementation of gender-sensitive projects. 3. More work is required to ensure consistency on issues such as the difference between code 2a and code 2b projects, to provide support and tools to translate gender in project design phases into project implementation, to encourage clusters to reach the 15% target set by the UN Secretary General as well as identify ways forward more generally for supporting humanitarian actors on their engagement on the gender marker. 4. Continue to develop and refine the Gender Marker toolkit. a. Tip Sheets need to be developed on monitoring and evaluation; general issues relating to protection; multi-sector/refugee projects, early recovery and on the new recommended ‘Not Applicable’ code.

Overall

1. The Gender Marker and gender equality

programming need to be clearly standardized within the CAP guidelines, needs assessment, CHAP, and cluster response plans. In addition, the CAP timeline should include a dedicated window for Gender Marker project review. 2. There is a need for a protocol to be developed for the CAP project review related to the Gender Marker that establishes clear authority in terms of timing, approach, and who has the last word on the coding entered in OPS. 3. A practical component on the role of SADD in the identification and understanding of the different needs of women, men, boys and girls needs to be included in the gender equality programming training package, and should be clearly linked to application of the Gender Marker. 4. The Gender SWG should play a stronger role in ensuring the success of the Gender Marker. 5. A standardized gender equality programming training package should be developed for GenCap Advisors in the field to ensure consistency of message and practice. 6. The inclusion of men and boys should be a consistent message within the GEP training package, and within the Gender Marker Tip Sheets. 7. The GenCap and the CAP section should collaborate with the Child Protection and GBV sub-

23 2013 IASC Gender Marker: Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned (Feb 2013); 2012 IASC Gender Marker: Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned (February 2012), 2011

Gender Marker in CAPS and Pooled Funds: Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned (January 2011)

28

they fund projects coding 0 and 1, they should be encouraged to do so on condition that IPs are instructed to deepen the gender dimensions of the project. Country level

a. Recognize gender progress: Recognition and effective monitoring that nurture positive results are needed to maintain the gender marker’s momentum. b. Promote Gender Analysis: There is need to encourage cluster members to routinely conduct and share gender analysis. This entails clear planning and gender technical support for gender capacity building. c. Ensure technical assistance on gender in clusters: It is the responsibility of all cluster lead agencies to secure gender TA for their respective clusters.

d. Ensure technical assistance on gender in inter‐cluster

coordination fora: Active, well‐supported and senior gender

marker focal points are needed to serve the HCT. Their role is to both monitor and mentor GM implementation in the

clusters and in inter‐cluster collaboration.

e. Champion gender equality: Gender champions are essential to create openings for gender dialogue and

integration of gender issues in inter‐cluster activities.

f. Mobilize donors: Donors need to be informed about the gender marker and encouraged to fund projects with codes that address gender equality (codes 2a and 2b as priority). If they fund projects coding 0 and 1, they should be encouraged to do so on condition that IPs are instructed to deepen the gender dimensions of the project.

Strategic Approach

a. The need for more clarity and direction on how gender dimensions will ‘weigh’ in project selection. Will projects be rejected if critical gender issues are not addressed?

b. Helping project teams to design and implement gender‐

responsive projects should be an on-going and year‐round

focus of all clusters. Gender activity should not focus

b. The Tip Sheets also need to be translated into more languages to render them accessible for project designers and implementers in an increasing number of countries, such as Afghanistan and Somalia. c. The Minimum Standards/Commitments on Gender was seen as a key strategy for engagement on gender mainstreaming and the Gender Marker. Accordingly, a guidance note should be developed that brings together best practices from fields where this approach has been taken with a high degree of success. d. A set of tools and information for engaging with donors should also be developed so that GenCap Advisers and Donor Liaison Officers are using consistent data and messaging on the Gender Marker. 5. Develop enhanced ways to promote and improve the generation and use of SADD. More consistent approaches are required across all clusters to collect and use SADD to support gender analysis and gender mainstreaming. 6. Enhance the intersection between gender/sex- and age-related issues 7. Develop a strategy to guide and enhance inclusion of the Gender Marker within monitoring frameworks at country levels. A monitoring strategy should encompass key steps to be taken at cluster levels to ensure that monitoring captures whether implementation of projects are commensurate with Gender Marker codes attained during the project design phase. 8. Engage with relevant stakeholders to consult on and agree specific changes to the OPS in line with the findings of this report. The following will improve implementation of the Gender Marker:

that may be gender neutral

Project Document Template on the OPS so that it reflects and includes Men/Women/Boys/Girls. 9. Pooled Funds’ policies, guidance and templates require revision for gender mainstreaming and incorporation of the Gender Marker across the board.

.‐clusters to agree on an effective and practical

mechanisms for identifying GBV and CP Projects within OPS and FTS.

29

exclusively on appeal preparation. However, the appeal preparation period should be maximized to include a gender perspective. It is important to identify how to get most value from the short ‘windows of opportunity’ before vetting, between initial and final vetting, and before CAP finalization. c. During vetting, GenCap Advisers can serve a useful role on vetting panels. d. Seek manageable equitable approaches to helping IPs improve the gender codes of projects which vetting panels code 0 or 1. This support will be needed for some time and it should be a priority to provide it. e. Between vetting and fund closure, ensure that GenCap

Assisting project teams to make last‐minute gender

improvement in their projects is important. Urgent priority must, however, be given to two activities: • Verifying that the codes assigned by review and vetting panels are correct. Cluster leads need to be informed as soon as possible if coding needs correction on any of their projects in order that they can inform the applicants in a timely manner. • Ensuring gender is fully addressed in the final version of the CAP and PF country document (CHAP and cluster response plans).

f. Maximize project improvement opportunities year‐round.

Strategic use of the mid‐year review triggers year‐round

attention to gender‐responsive programming.

g. Invest in engendering active monitoring and evaluation which will nurture projects implementing fully, or even surpassing, the gender code assigned at project design. h. Consider practice coding as one device to improve GenCap Adviser support.

10. Re-assess timing of GenCap Adviser deployments and their overall focus. The analysis of the implementation of the Gender Marker in 2012 appeals highlighted that earlier engagement with the CAP cycle is crucial for training and awareness-raising on gender to result in meaningful gender mainstreaming approaches through project design. 11. Develop a standard set of data on the Gender Marker to recommend for inclusion in CAP narrative documents. It is recommended that CAP narratives include the following on the Gender Marker:

Marker

projects in the CAP (it is noted that the inclusion of the Gender Marker in CAP criteria is a process determined at country levels and inclusion in the narrative is dependent on that process).

To Donors:

12. Increase funding towards those projects coded highly on the Gender Marker. In particular, projects focusing on GBV require more support and funding. 13. Reconsider funding of code 0 and 1 projects. Consider not funding projects that code 0 on the Gender Marker and/or fund projects with gender codes 0 or 1 on condition that gender dimensions are deepened. Demand and fund projects that include a gender analysis and gender-responsive monitoring. 14. Ensure that humanitarian actors know that the Gender Marker code, and their performance on gender more generally, are influencing your funding decisions. 15. Use the Gender Marker search criteria on the FTS. The Gender Marker can be used to inform and advance funding approaches so that donors’ own commitments to gender equality may be implemented through their funding strategies.

30

Annex Three – References IASC Gender Marker Reports, Guidance and Policy Framework 2011 Gender Marker in CAPS and Pooled Funds: Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned (January 2011) 2012 IASC Gender Marker: Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned (February 2012) 2013 IASC Gender Marker: Analysis of Results and Lessons Learned (February 2013) Gender Marker Workshop Report June 4 – 6, 2012 GenCap (2012) Gender Marker Workshop Report April 29 – May 2, 2013 GenCap (2013) Gender issues in the monitoring process - A brief guidance note GenCap Factsheet (2013) Gender focused humanitarian assistance in the occupied Palestinian territories: Analysis of gender marker data - Draft (2011-2014) Nisreen Alami (2014) Highlights, Lessons Learnt, and Challenges from Typhoon Haiyan Response; Integrating Gender in an L3 Emergency Note to the Senior Management Team UN OCHA April 2014;

IASC Gender Marker: Inter‐agency Consultation on Establishing Systems to Track Allocations /

Expenditures for Gender and GBV Programming in UN Managed Humanitarian Appeals and Funding Mechanisms (Feb 2011) Women, Girls, Boys and Men, Different Needs Equal Opportunities - Gender Handbook in Humanitarian Action (IASC, 2006) IASC Policy Statement “Gender Equality in Humanitarian Action“ (June 2008) IASC Policy Statement for the Integration of a Gender Perspective in Humanitarian Assistance (May, 1999)

GenCap Reports & Frameworks GenCap Mission Report – North Darfur 14-19 December 2013 (GenCap 2013) Philippines Deployment Report 1 – 28 December (GenCap, Jan 2014) Mission report The Philippines 23 – 30 March 2014 (GenCap, April 2014) Gender Marker GenCap Final Report, Handover and Deliverables (2013) Lessons Learned: Building Gender Equality Measures in Humanitarian Action in Jordan Reflections by the Gender Capacity Advisor to the IATF Merrin Waterhouse (2014) The Gender Standby Capacity Project and the IASC Gender Reference Group: Protocol Ruling the relationships among entities (March 2014) Draft GenCap Gender Marker Policy. GenCap Steering Committee Meeting (April 2013) The Seventh Technical Workshop of the Gender Standby Capacity Project (2014) UN Reports and Policy Frameworks Workshop report: Inter-agency workshop on resource tracking and allocation, Co-hosted by WHO and UN Women Geneva: 22

nd January 2014 (2014)Guidance Note: Gender Equality Marker.

CAP Donor Survey: Findings September 2012 Report of the Secretary General: Mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes in the United Nations system Economic and Social Council (May 2013) External Reports and Tools Donor Spending on Gender in Emergencies 2013: An investigation by CARE International UK into the UN data on donor aid to emergency appeals for 17 countries in crisis Care International UK (2013) The Humanitarian Response Index 2011: Addressing the Gender Challenge (DARA, 2011) Siobhán Foran, Aisling Swaine & Kate Burns (2012) Improving the effectiveness of humanitarian action: progress in implementing the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Gender Marker, Gender & Development, 20:2, 233-247, DOI: 10.1080/13552074.2012.687221

Care Gender Marker Pilot Process (notes and tools) Care International (2014) ECHO Gender Age Marker Toolkit DG ECHO (2014) DG ECHO Gender Policy and Gender Age Marker Facilitator’s Guide DG ECHO (2014)