Gender Marker Implementation

Somalia

1.  Country Context

The two million Somalis in crisis are urban poor, pastoralists yet to recover from six seasons of drought, riverine populations affected by floods and IDPs. The displaced population remains relatively constant at 1.46 million and is one of the largest IDP populations in the world. Ongoing conflict throughout the year saw large numbers of people, in addition to the 1.46 million, displaced for short periods. IDPs in Somalia live in some of the worst conditions in the country. Despite a fragile food security improvement in 2010, the population dependent on humanitarian assistance in Somalia remains large.

Humanitarian organisations face severe constraints including regular interference in their operations by armed groups. In 2010, this interference escalated in south-central Somalia to the outright banning of eight humanitarian organisations. Those agencies still present deliver services under very difficult circumstances and ‘remote implementation’ from through national staff and local implementing partners is increasingly the norm. There is ‘ceiling’ on the number of international staff that can travel to Somaliland and Puntland at any one time and no international is permitted to travel to south-central for security reasons.

Al-Shabaab controls the south-central zone and Mogadishu and has placed severe restrictions on projects and programmes that propose to involve women to the point that they will even vet assessment questionnaires and will not permit any reference to women or gender.

2. Gender Marker Implementation

Approach and Entry Points

My placement with OCHA Somalia proved to be very useful, as the Head of Office there was extremely engaged and supportive of the implementation of the GM.

The rest of the team in OCHA Somalia, amongst whom I was sitting, was also operating from a high capacity, high motivation on the GM.

Due to the remote-support nature of the Somalia programme, OCHA Somalia runs a very efficient and well-staffed Somalia Support Services from the OCHA (and FAO/FSNAU) building, which meant that the vast majority of cluster meetings took place in the same building, which made it easier for me to attend as many as possible.

While the HC is located in another building – in UNDP – he was also a key ally for the implementation of the GM even if he did not participate in the process.

Entry points included the following.

·  Space within the key CAP consultation meeting in Nairobi to remind everyone of the importance of the GM in the 2011 CAP.

·  Three half-day workshops with the GM Focal Points; the first of which was attended in full by the Head of Office for OCHA and who participated fully in the proceedings, as well as lending an important voice of support to the importance with which the OCHA office was addressing the GM.

·  Attendance at most of the Clusters’ meetings in the SSS meeting rooms in the OCHA/FAO/FSNAU building; many of them on more than one or two occasions.

·  Engagement with the FSNAU (Food Security Needs Assessment Unit) who provide the main analysis of data from Somalia through a network of over 50 Somali monitors (only two of which are women)

·  The establishment of a network of Gender Marker Focal Points created a sense of buy-in and ensured a consistent application of the Gender Marker across the Clusters; this was critical for the success of the process.

·  The OCHA CAP team invited me to provide guidance on the GM to put up on their website. They also invited me to provide key text for the CAP document explaining the importance of gender and of the GM.

Step-by-Step Actions Taken to Support Country Roll Out

Action / Reason / Comment
(if not self evident) / Value of Action
Essential / Useful / Minimal
Briefing of hosting agency head / Essential
Meeting with respective UNHCT members/agency heads / Briefed most of them on my assignment; got buy-in and answered their queries. / Essential
Meeting with cluster heads / Met them at Cluster meetings, not at separate face-to-face meetings. / Essential
Brief clusters on the Gender Marker / Critical. But important to note that only very few of the cluster partners and implementing partners had access to the cluster meetings at Nairobi-level due to the remote support nature of the mission. That said, I was pleasantly surprised how far (to LNGOs in Somalia that I never met) the message spread. / Essential
Orient/train Gender Marker Focal Points / This was the most important step as it created a structure within the sectors to effectively and systematically apply the Gender Marker across the board. I was impressed with the active engagement of the people who attended. / Essential
Review Response plans with Gender Marker Focal Points / To identify gaps and make appropriate recommendations to inform the projects / Essential
Review projects / I was not in-country for this step.

What would you repeat and why? (key points)

·  The entire process was very useful, to ensure buy-in and engagement

·  The minimum standards approach – discussing and then agreeing minimum standards for gender with each of the clusters, on which they will be measured for the application of the Gender Marker. This is an incremental approach that clearly defines ‘doing better on gender’ for the team, sets the bar for them and is a system that they all seemed to appreciate.

What would you change and how? (key points)

·  Everything I did while I was with the Somalia team was about the vetting of the projects and the application of the codes, yet this is the step that I was absent for. In future, we need to make it clear to teams that where a GenCap is coming for the GM process, then s/he cannot miss the vetting and coding step and the timing of the deployment must reflect this.

External Constraints (that are specific to the context/country (if not captured above)

Internal Constraints (related to GMs, the material, the remote support available)

Enablers (if not captured above)

·  The OCHA HoH and her team’s support was the no. 1 enabler.

·  The engagement of the staff that volunteered or were appointed as GMFPs was a definite enabler.

Gender Marker Toolkit (Comment on use, value, changes/edits/revisions needed)

There is still some confusion between the 2a and 2b codes, especially in relation to nutrition and GBV projects.

I found that it was helpful to contextualise the tools, giving or asking for country-specific examples from the GMFPs – this made it more real for them.


Cluster Participation

Comment on cluster activities: (variances in reception/response to the marker; clusters requesting most/least support; any cluster-specific insights).

Cluster / Commitment to Gender / Acceptance of the GM / Needs (training, support, etc.) / General comments
Nutrition / Moderate / Moderate / The Cluster GMFP found it difficult to see how gender applied when we were talking about PLW and children where there were no differences in the feeding practices of boys and girls. There was even some resistance to seeing the value of collecting SADD / Needs work to be able to distinguish between 2a and 2b nutrition projects.
Health / Moderate / Moderate / Need to strengthen capacity on integration of gender in needs assessments; better articulation of social-economic dimensions to access for women, men, boys and girls. Many discussions with Cluster lead on the value of SADD.
Education. / Moderate / High / Needs to be pushed on understanding why there needs to be focus on girls and boys as it proved too easy for them to simply add the rhetoric of ‘with a special focus on girls’ and believe they had gender covered. / Need to work on the issue of PSEA and sexual harassment in schools – GoK came out with a directive on this shortly before I arrived, which should serve as a platform.
Protection / Moderate / Moderate but very willing / There is need for leadership and support around both gender and GBV; both covered by very motivated focal points and task teams but they need a lot of support and training. / Only GBV and CP are active.
Agriculture / High / High / Cluster Lead is very committed but relies on the OCHA SSS person and the (GenCap) Gender Advisor, who could do with some support.
WASH / Moderate / Moderate / Support and engagement on basic gender sensitive aspects of WASH. Cluster Lead is very engaged with the minimum standards approach.
Shelter / Low / Low / GM Focal Point did not turn up to any of the trainings; I was not invited to nay of their meetings, which in fact were very few; and did not respond to my messages offering support.
Food Aid / Moderate / Moderate / The ‘moderates’ in the previous two columns is more for the GM Focal Point who tried, against all odds, to get the Cluster Lead to pay any attention to the GM. The results of his lack of interest and response are evident from the codes the food projects achieved.


HC/HCT Leadership & Engagement

(Who were the champions/allies/facilitators of the gender marker process? Identify gaps in championing and/or facilitating.)

Interlocutor / Commitment to Gender / Acceptance of the GM / Needs (training, support, etc.) / General comments
HC / High / High / More advocacy; keep him advised of important gender issues in the country
OCHA HoO / High / High / Very engaged. Might appreciate regular ‘talking points’ to advise the HC

Donor Outreach

(List efforts taken to convince donors to fund code 2 projects. Also identify gaps or missed opportunities here.)

Donor / Commitment to gender / Base funding decisions on the GM / Needs (training, support, etc.) / General comments
Italian Corporation / High / Yes / Yes – training and support / Very high level of engagement. Hosted a briefing for all Italian NGOs for an orientation session on the GM, which was very well attended with high level of engagement.
European Commission / High / Said they will / Yes – training and support / The chair of the Human Rights and Gender Working Group is a key member of staff at the E.C. However, she was also very much engaged in organizing a Somali Women’s Political Participation Conference so it may be necessary to do some quiet diplomacy on women’s empowerment vs. gender if the opportunity arises. Nevertheless, potentially a useful ally.

3.  Results – The Gender Analysis of the 2011 CAP Document & Project Sheets

Where a gender analysis was done of the 2010, please insert comparative comments.

CAP – CHAP Section / Yes / No
Strategic Priorities include gender equality / √
Selection Criteria include gender equality / √
CHAP narrative features gender analysis/issues / √

In 2010, three of the four strategic priorities had the tag-on phrase about having ‘a specific focus on women and girls’. I did not believe that this was helpful or constructive to an understanding of the importance of having a gender focus so suggested that they do not include these ‘empty’ phrases this year. Instead, what we agreed is that they would establish their four strategic priorities for 2011 and that gender would be referred to in the ‘Response Strategies’ line immediately underneath (“Response Strategies - Improve the quality of the humanitarian response through the respect of humanitarian principles, increased humanitarian access, improved preparedness, better processes for transparency and accountability, and consideration of the gender dimension at all stages of the project cycle).

In addition, there is a well-developed section on gender and PSEA in Section 4.4 of the CAP document.

Gender Dimensions in Cluster Response Plans

Cluster / Gender in
Needs Analysis / Gender in Objectives-Results-Indicators / Gender in Response Strategy / Gender in Monitoring
Agriculture & Livelihoods / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes
Education / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes
Food Assistance / No / No / No / No
Health / Partial / Yes / Yes / Yes
Nutrition / Partial / Partial / Partial / Yes
Shelter & NFIs / No / No / No / No
Protection / Yes / Yes / Yes / Yes
WASH / No / No / Yes / No

The Shelter & NFIs’ and the Food Assistance Clusters’ lack of engagement of seemingly interest in the GM is clear form the table above.

Gender Code Results

Cluster / Total # projects / Code 0 / Code 1 / Code 2a / Code 2b
Agriculture & Livelihoods / 50 / 13 (26%) / 26 (52%) / 10 (20%) / 1 (2%)
Education / 17 / 0 / 8 (47%) / 8 (47%) / 1 (6%)
Food Assistance / 2 / 2 (100%) / 0 / 0 / 0
Health / 45 / 5 (11%) / 22 (49%) / 16 (35%) / 2 (5%)
Nutrition / 30 / 2 (7%) / 16 (53%) / 7 (23%) / 5 (17%)
Shelter & NFIs / 7 / 2 (28%) / 4 (57%) / 1 (15%) / 0
Protection / 28 / 4 (14%) / 11 (39%) / 13 (47%) / 0
WASH / 37 / 4 (11%) / 25 (68%) / 8 (21%) / 0
Enabling Progs / 12 / 11 (92%) / 1 (8%) / 0 / 0
Total / 228 / 43 (19%) / 113 (49%) / 63 (28%) / 9 (4%)

Codes for EHRP 2010

Total / 165 / 59 (35%) / 74 (45%) / 26 (16%) / 6 (4%)

There has been a significant change in the codes between CAP 2010 and CAP 2011 with the Code 0s falling by 16% and the code 2As increasing by 12%. Interestingly, the code 1s stayed more or less the same at just under half of all the projects and the Code 2Bs remaining unchanged at 4%. I believe that the number of Code 1s remaining more or less unchanged at just under half of the total number of projects is due with the fact that OCHA operates – and, therefore, I operated - in remote support from Nairobi and the number of LNGOs especially who, due to security or mobility/visa reasons, did not have access to guidance on the GM in Nairobi was significant, as the same standards that were applied to the Nairobi-based INGOs and LNGOs was the same. In addition, ironically, I did not spend much time with OCHA Enabling Programme staff (UNDSS in particular) and therefore the security projects in particular ‘scored’ very poorly.