DRAFT
ILO Participatory Gender Audit Report
UNESCO
19 – 30 NOVEMBER 2012, Paris
ILO Audit Facilitation Team:
Mr Federico Blanco Allais
Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour
Mr Raphael Crowe
Bureau for Gender Equality
Ms Alexia Deleligne
Management Support Unit of the Employment Sector
Ms Susan Maybud
Team Coordinator
Bureau for Gender Equality
Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Introduction
Methodology
A.Structural mechanisms for delivery of Priority Gender Equality
B.Gender in UNESCO’s objectives and programming cycle (programming, monitoring and evaluation)
C.Selection of working partners on gender
D.Information and knowledge management within the Organisation, and gender equality as reflected in its products and public image
E.Gender issues relevant to the technical areas, existing gender expertise
F.Staffing, human resources policies and organizational culture
G.UNESCO staff’s perception of achievement on gender equality
Annexes
Annex 1: Feedback Session 30 November 2012
Annex 2: List of people interviewed and workshop participants
Annex 3: List of documents reviewed
Annex 4: Record of workshop exercises
Annex 5: Pictures of the workshops
Acknowledgements
A participatory exercise can only succeed with the active contribution of all involved. During the Participatory Gender Audit (PGA) of UNESCO, the Organization’s management and staff across the sectors and operational units as well as selected in field offices and external partners contributed their time and views. The Audit Facilitation Team wishes to record its appreciation to these women and men who took part in the interviews, focus groups and workshops, and who trusted the team with their openness, constructiveness and valuable insights.We have done our best to capture these – and the helpful suggestions that were raised during the audit activities – in the following report. We would also like to note that we were entirely satisfied that we were given a representative sample of officials (and their functions) to contact by IOS and ODG/GE. On our side, every effort was made to follow-up on additional contacts for more information and opinions that were raised in the course of our interactions.
A special mention of thanks goes to Mr Bert Keuppens, Director of IOS and Ms Gülser Corat, Director of ODG/GE, for their commitment to the PGA process. The Team also wishes to acknowledge and sincerely thank Ms Barbara Torggler, Principal Evaluation Specialist and our Audit Focal Point for her indefatigable support of the process, as well as Ms Sharon Vartürk and Ms Anna Tolstyko-Wang of IOS for their help on all administrative and logistical matters related to the PGA.
Executive Summary
UNESCO’s Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP) is in its last biennium which is a most opportune period to review the progress achieved and the challenges encountered. Its evaluation has therefore been deemed necessary in view of the forthcoming development of the new Medium Term Strategy. Furthermore, in the September 2012 session of the Ad Hoc Preparatory Group of the Executive Board of UNESCO[1], a number of delegates expressed their regret for the absence of an evaluation of Priority Gender Equality.[2] Within this context, the ILO was requested by UNESCO’s Internal Oversight Service (IOS) to conduct a Participatory Gender Audit (PGA) and summarize key findings, identify good practices and provide recommendations for future action while fulfilling stringent requirements for independence and objectivity. The findings will contribute to a new action plan to take UNESCO’s global Priority Gender Equality forward. In addition, the PGA will be folded into an overall IOS Evaluation of Priority Gender Equality and will be complemented by further work by an external consultant.
A review of the structural mechanisms for the delivery of Priority Gender Equality revealed contradictory views. ODG/GE’s role was seen as contributing positively in terms of being “at the table” at highest levels of decision-making in the Organization. Some saw the move of the unit to ODG as politically astute in positioning gender as having the highest support. Others felt that gender mainstreaming into UNESCO programme and planning was better served when the sub-unit was part of BSP. There was an impression that the principal connection to the programmatic cycle had become lost with the transfer and that the natural fit that had previously existed was either absent or strained.
ODG/GE is also perceived as effective in promoting UNESCO’s visibility on gender issues both internally and especially externally, giving a strong message to the outside world that gender was seen as a key priority. Conversely, ODG/GE was also viewed as not contributing enough to shaping higher level strategy or planning on gender mainstreaming, nor as providing the necessary support and guidance on gender issues to senior management. The elevation of the gender unit to the level of ODG was seen as being “above the line” in the organizational chart/structure. There was a strong impression iterated at different levels in the Organization and by some external sources that ODG/GE spent a lot of time on external representation and that the work on gender issues got neglected internally at the expense of external visibility. It was felt that the internal advisory role of the unit was by far the more important of ODG/GE’s mandate and that serving as “an ambassador for gender” externally was secondary. There was a general disquiet about the elevation of the unit’s Director post from a P5 to a D2 in the span of two years when in fact the job description had not changed dramatically and the unit was small.[3] This was seen as an attempt to attach even more importance to gender equality mainstreaming, but it seemed to have had a perverse effect in antagonizing the perceptions of many UNESCO officials who believed this pointed to “a bureaucratic malfunction.” ODG/GE has stated that the position was upgraded in order to align the Division with all central offices and bureaux at Headquarters, which are headed by D2 level officials
The Audit Facilitation Team notes a sharp disconnect between the “visibility” mandate of ODGE/GE and the secretariat’s strong expectation from ODG/GE of the fulfillment of UNESCO’s internal mandate for guidance and support on mainstreaming gender. When gender expertise was closer to the planning function in BSP this was perceived as more accessible. The credibility of ODG/GE is threatened in reconciling the two divergent views above and in paying attention to the internal views expressed.
A number of options were proposed by interviewees about how UNESCO can better fulfill its Priority Gender Equality mandate. A centralized ODG/GE could be maintained. However, it would be important that more emphasis be placed on the delivery of internal services, especially in terms of guidance and advice to UNESCO senior management and giving more of the time and focus of ODG/GE management to internal needs. However, this does not resolve the concerns of centralizing guidance at a high level in the Organization and the lack of proximity to the programming functions in BSP.
The majority of those interviewed preferred a structural adjustment and a change in the current architecture. It was suggested that one or two officials, including management, be retained in ODG/GE for the purposes of coordination and representation, that one official be returned to BSP not only to provide direct programming assistance but also to serve as a liaison with other operations units (HRM, ERI etc). This would allow for seeding other ODG/GE officials in selected Sectors where their assistance is most needed and where they could contribute in a more concerted manner. Proportionate amounts of ODG/GEs budget would need to be re-allocated to the receiving units should a mainstreamed structure be considered.
The suggestion to re-assign some ODG/GE officials is also linked to the finding that some Sectors – Education in particular – have a number of gender experts who are not necessarily integrated into the gender network and whose expertise is not maximized. Therefore should re-assignment be considered, Sectors where less expertise is present should be targeted first. Further recommendations include a mapping of gender expertise in UNESCO at all levels, both at Headquarter and the field. This mapping would reveal a great deal of capability that is currently either hidden or loosely tapped. Working on gender issues lends itself to working across silos. Even if gender specialists are not centralized at ODG/GE, arrangements could be made to call upon specialists in the different Sectors to work on cross-cutting areas.
Work on gender issues in the field at regional and national levels was a crucial part of UNESCO’s delivery and visibility on gender. Performance on gender ranged across a wide spectrum and was dependent on the inter-play between the active backing of field directors, programming at the field level, the capacity and expertise of the field Gender Focal Points and the level of demand from UNESCO constituents. There is an opportunity to influence the proposed Field Reform Package to consider the possibility of creating positions in the field for gender specialists. Financial considerations notwithstanding, this would be a most important contribution to UNESCO’s Priority Gender Equality. In the meantime, officials from Headquarters with gender expertise either from the different Sectors or from ODG/GE could be (voluntarily) rotated to serve in the field, with the costs shared. For example, links could be created with Priority Africa to first service this region on gender issues, thus benefitting two Global priorities for UNESCO.
While a GFP network has existed in UNESCO for many years, the network was further defined by key criteria and institutionalized.[4] Noticeable weaknesses in the GFP system were also pointed to by GFPs themselves and their managers and colleagues alike. Above all, GFPs have their own demanding professional tasks, so they do not really have much time to devote to gender. Recommendations included increased capacity-building for GFPs and encouraging more male officials to serve in this capacity.
In terms of UNESCO’s entire programming cycle (programming, monitoring, reporting and evaluation), many officials did not consider 2008 Gender Equality Action Plan (GEAP) 2008-13 as a programming document but rather a “results-based road map” to translate the policy Priority Gender Equality into strategic actions. Gender equality will remain a Priority in UNESCO’s next medium-term strategy, and the work on drafting a new Gender Equality Action Plan 2014-17 will start next year. Regular analyses of work plans conducted by ODG/GE demonstrate how inadequately gender equality is included in programming and there is an absence of mechanisms for monitoring results (except self-monitoring through SISTER[5]) or for evaluating if there has been any impact. Similar observations were made regarding budgetary allocations and the inability to track financial resources allocated to the promotion of gender equality and “guesstimates” of budgetary allocations indicate minimal budget allocations. The lack of capacity in ODG/GE during work plan revisions created a choke-point, as there are over 1500 work plans to review within one week. It is recommended that gender be mainstreamed into the entire programming cycle from programming through evaluation. This effort needs to be undertaken rapidly so as to avoid a similar recommendation having to be made in a few years. BSP and IOS should be in the lead in this exercise, with ODG/GE working closely with these units to ensure gender mainstreaming throughout the programme management cycle by, among others, ensuring that gender concerns are adequately reflected in BSP and IOS guidelines and the templates and in terms of reference for evaluations. Awareness-raising on results-based management and the formulation of benchmark performance indicators as in 36 C/5 should be stressed, emphasizing that accountability on gender mainstreaming is key. It is not only a question of reporting on gender, but monitoring the improvements made through mainstreaming and gender-specific actions.
In working with partners, UNESCO has a strong comparative advantage in positioning itself as a key player on global aspirations to achieve gender equality. It has a broad mandate covering major issues of universal relevance, and it has the gravitas and credibility to speak authoritatively to these issues. The UNESCO «brand» generates myriads of possibilities of working with multiple partners; therefore the inclusion of gender equality is a natural fit in work planned with partners. This would entail vigilance at the planning stages but will go a long way when gender issues are mainstreamed. An area that has been reported by many as being a good practice in terms of successful inclusion of gender equality is the UNESCO Participation Programmes. The full potential of the Global Network of UNESCO Chairs on Gender could be explored by proposing common research themes that could be subsequently compiled and disseminated by UNESCO.
Constituents recognized the Education Sector as having systematically mainstreamed work on gender and in having gender-specific tools. It was mentioned that other than the creation of ODG/GE, constituents did not have much sense for recent accomplishments on gender at sectoral or field levels; in particular, linkages between Priority Gender Equality and Priority Africa were not visible. There was a sense that there was some “mission creep” with UN Women, and that UNESCO should stick to its own mandates. Some were openly critical of ODG/GE’s emphasis on representing UNESCO in international fora and commented that time and money should be spent more on the needs within the Organization. There was also a sense that at times UNESCO was not bold enough on gender, and did not tackle the difficult, sensitive issues. Given the moral authority it had been entrusted with, UNESCO could take more risks on promoting gender equality. Links to Priority Africa should be strengthened in a concerted manner to show that results on both priorities could be achieved through cooperation.
With current global financial constraints and in light of UNESCO's particular recent funding issues, maximizing the impact of regular budgets and raising extra-budgetary resources is even more important than ever. There are divergent views on the ease of fund-raising for gender equality. Some UNESCO staff members feel that gender equality is a universally recognized and politically safe issue to promote. Others think that gender equality is a culturally charged issue that is not an easy sell to donors especially as respect for culture is part of UNESCO’s overall mandate. Nonetheless, constituents had the expectation that ODG/GE would spear-head fund-raising for gender. ODG/GE could present a plan for fund-raising on gender issues for discussion with constituents and donors. This could include approaching gender-responsive bi-lateral donors or designing an appeal for voluntary contributions from multiple donors. Creative and pragmatic ways of overcoming resistance from other donors could be found. Much work can be accomplished on gender equality by addressing the issues in different ways, such as embedding gender in poverty alleviation, education and capacity-building.
Information and knowledge management on gender issuesis built on good information flow, and therefore if a premium is not placed on information sharing and knowledge management then gender will suffer as well. There was a sense both from within ODG/GE and outside that information flow needed to be systematic and institutionalized. Other Headquarters units and Field offices did not systematically communicate their work on gender to ODG/GE nor did they share interesting information on gender issues within their areas of expertise with ODG/GE. Web-sites are excellent ways to promote work on gender in any organization as it is inexpensive and provides myriads of opportunities for creating linkages and contexts. The public UNESCO entry page always has professional and gender-sensitive news features. It was suggested that a visible and frequently updated “gender corner” be created on the UNESCO home page so as to immediately position gender as a key organizational priority. As UNESCO is moving to one common content management system for internet, intra-net, and extra-net, proposals were made to take advantage of this opportunity to share more knowledge and information on gender equality. The Culture Sector would stand to strongly benefit in showcasing its work on gender issues in a systematic way on its web-site by creating a dedicated web-page and by paying attention to increase its visibility on gender.
ERI is an important internal partner and its management and staff are committed to championing gender equality both within and outside the Organization. The information and promotional material that is developed by this unit is gender inclusive. There is a close collaboration with ODG/GE including on publications; for example, ODG/GE prepared a short but informative set of Gender Mainstreaming Guidelines for distribution to authors as well as a list of resources for further information. However, author units complained that waiting for approvals on gender content often took a long time and bottlenecks were created at the levels of GFP and/or ODG/GE. On the other hand GFPs complained of the enormous workload that this process has generated.