Addressing the gender challenge- Part II:

IASC Gender Marker

Results & Lessons Learned

IASCCAP Sub Working Group

Sex mattersTsunami: 4 female for every 1 male death

2

MEASURING THE ISSUE:THE HUMANITARIAN LEXICON

DisplacedReturneesHouseholdsCommunitiesVulnerablesChildren below 5Survivors…

IASC Gender Marker CodingTo measure/track inclusion of gender and GBVTo enable/to build capacity of humanitarian teams to build the

capacity of humanitarian teams to design projects that respond to the distinct needs of ALL beneficiaries

Gender Code Description

Gender Code 0(UNDP code 0)

Gender is not reflected anywhere in the project sheet i.e gender-blind

Gender Code 1(UNDO code 1)

The project includes gender equality in a limited way

Gender Code 2aGender Mainstreaming(UNDP code 2)

A gender analysis is included in the project’s needs assessment. This gender analysis is reflected in the project’s activities and outcomes.

Gender Code 2bTargeted Actions(UNDP code 3)

The project’s principal purpose is to advance gender equality.

Overview – GM to Date GM piloted 2009, 12 countries in 2010

20 countries 2012. Fully integrated into • 16 CAPs 2012• 5 Pooled Funds (PF)/ER Pakistan

Support from GenCap Advisers• Capacity development in-country• HQ review process

RESULTS: CAP 2010-2012 (Baseline)Kenya, Niger, oPt, Somalia, Yemen, Zimbabwe

RESULTS: CAP 2010-2012• Kenya, Niger, oPt, Somalia, Yemen, Zimbabwe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% o

f p

roje

cts

0 1 2a 2b

Codes

Change in Gender Marker Coding 2010 to 2012 in Six Countries

2010

2011

2012

RESULTS: Clusters/16 CAPs in 2012

RESULTS – GM 16 CAP Countries 2012

Key Emerging Issues…From the abstract to the practicalSpace for dialogue and engagementDonor engagement

Gender = women?

Sex-and-age disaggregated data (SADD)Collection and use?

….Key Emerging Issues & Going forwardTargeting the ‘right’ people for training

(designers/implementers, national actors)

Gender minimum standards/commitmentsGM as a ‘Criteria’ - quality of projects

Consistency in coding: more engagement by designers & clusters

….Key Emerging Issues & Going forward (ctd)Distinguishing between 2a & 2b projects

15% target on 2b (Protection & Multi-sector only)? More funding towards 2b/esp. GBV projects

From design to monitoring implementation: South Sudan/Yemen/Zimbabwe = initial steps MYRs = entry point

THANK YOU