UNCT Performance Indicators
for Gender Equality and the
Empowerment of Women
Desk Review 2012-2014
18 June 2015
1
UNCT Performance Indicators for Gender
Equality and the Empowerment of Women
Desk Review 2012-2014
Prepared for: UNDG Gender Equality Task Team
Chaired by UN Women
Prepared by: Tony Beck (Consultant)
Managed by: Michele Ribotta (UN Women)
2
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
AP
AS
CAP
CCA
CEB
CEDAW
CHAP
DaO
ECA
ESA
GEEW
GTG
IANWGE
IASC
ILO
NGO
LAC
MDGs
OCHA
OPT
QCPR
RC
RCO
Scorecard
SDGs
SGBV
UN
UNCT
UNDAF
UNDG
UNDP
UNEG
UN-SWAP
UN Women
WCA
Asia Pacific
Arab States/North Africa
Consolidated Appeals Process
Common Country Assessment
Chief Executives Board for Coordination
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women
Common Humanitarian Action Plan
Delivering as One
Europe and Central Asia
East and Southern Africa
Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
Gender Theme Group
Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality
Inter-Agency Standing Committee
International Labour Organization
Non-governmental organization
Americas and the Caribbean
Millennium Development Goals
United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Occupied Palestinian Territories
Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational
Activities for Development
Resident Coordinator
Resident Coordinator Office
UN Country Team Performance Indicators for Gender Equality
and the Empowerment of Women
Sustainable Development Goals
Sexual and Gender-based Violence
United Nations
United Nations Country Team
United Nations Development Assistance Framework
United Nations Development Group
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Evaluation Group
UN System-wide Action Plan on Gender Equality and the
Empowerment of Women
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment
of Women
West and Central Africa
3
Executive Summary
1. Background
The Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for
Development (QCPR) calls for the UN development system to expand and strengthen its
work on gender equality and the empowerment of women including through the use of
the UN Country Team Performance Indicators for Gender Equality and the
Empowerment of Women (the “Scorecard”) as a planning and reporting tool for
assessing the effectiveness of gender mainstreaming by UN Country Teams (UNCTs).1
The review of the MDGs/SDGs and post-2015 framework as well as the UN ‘fit for
purpose’ discussions also reinforce the need to tackle gender inequality, including its
underlying causes, more holistically and with expertise cutting across UN entities; and
also focuses on ensuring the UN works together better to deliver results, evidence based
analysis, and stronger monitoring and evaluation. Standard Operating Procedure
Guidance also makes specific note of the Scorecard in its monitoring and evaluation
framework. The discussions taking place concerning the post-2015 SDG stand-alone
goal on gender equality and the empowerment of women means that new impetus is
needed for mainstreaming gender, including accountability tools such as the Scorecard
and the UN-System Wide Action Plan (UN-SWAP). This context suggests that the
Scorecard is now more important in UN programming than when it was designed and
should be reinvigorated.
For these reasons the UN Development Group (UNDG) Gender Equality Task Team, led
by UN Women, decided to undertake a review of the Scorecard covering the period
2012-2014, building on an earlier review of performance from 2008-2011. The objective
of this review is to:





Analyze trends in UNCTs’ performance on gender since the 2008-2011 review.
Assess strengths and weaknesses of UNCTs vis-à-vis the Scorecard Performance
Indicators.
Make recommendations as to how identified strengths can be built on and how
gaps can be filled.
Identify good practices in the strategic use of Scorecards by UNCTs, and linkages
with common strategic planning at the country level.
Review the Scorecard content and process and determine how this can be
improved.
2. Methodology
Nineteen Scorecards are included in this review, as opposed to 20 for the 2008-2011
period. This review also included interviews with six regional UN Women staff, and 20
others involved with the Scorecard - country office UN Women and Resident Coordinator
Office staff, staff in the UN System Coordination Division of UN Women, and consultants
who have implemented the Scorecard.
1
A/RES/67/226 para 83.
i
3. Quantitative findings
Ten out of 56 UNDAF roll out countries between 2012 and 2014 completed the
Scorecard, or 18 per cent, and a further nine countries completed the exercise from
other roll-out years.
There has been improvement between 2008-2011 and 2012-2104 in the majority of
Scorecard areas, including programming, decision-making, partnerships, quality control,
and accountability; but limited or no progress related to UNCT capacities, budgeting and
monitoring and evaluation. There is also considerable good practice in the UN system.
For example, 13 per cent of ratings for the Scorecard area on the CCA/UNDAF and 10
per cent of ratings for the area on programming exceeded minimum standards.
Delivering as One (DaO) UNCTs have performed better than non-DaO UNCTs in five
Scorecard areas – planning, programming, partnerships, UNCT capacities and
budgeting, with monitoring and evaluation being roughly equivalent. This suggests that
the DaO process has supported gender mainstreaming within UNCTs.
Strengths in performance vis-à-vis the Scorecard indicators
The most notable strength is the improvement related to the UNDAF. Between 2012 and
2014 UNCTs as a whole came close to meeting the following Scorecard indicators:


One UNDAF outcome clearly articulates how gender equality will be promoted.
One third to one half of UNDAF outputs clearly articulate tangible changes for
rights holders and duty bearers, which will lead to improved gender equality.
The formulation of these gender sensitive results statements is also supported by
greater involvement from UN partners in UNDAF planning, particularly from national
women’s machineries and excluded women, although less so from women’s NGOs and
networks. Given that under new planning for DaO UNCTs each UNDAF will be
supported by a results group, that most new UNDAFs include gender related outcomes
and outputs suggests that future performance on gender will be improved.
Other strengths are the inclusion of gender perspectives in joint programming and
programmes; support to national priorities and gender mainstreaming in programme
based approaches and aid effectiveness processes; and UNCT Heads of Agency
meetings regularly taking up gender equality issues more often.
Weaknesses in performance vis-à-vis the Scorecard indicators
Review of the country context remains unsatisfactory in most cases. This is surprising
given the attention to gender equality in UNDAF outcomes and outputs, and may be due
to a disconnect between country analysis and UNDAF development. Capacity
assessment and development declined between the two review periods, and is one of
the worst performing indicators. This is an area that needs urgent attention. There has
also been limited change in gender related budgeting, the most challenging of the
Scorecard indicators.
In sum, over the period 2008-2014, of the four key elements for promoting gender
mainstreaming, there have been improvements in two – accountability and strategic
planning – and reverses in two – capacity development and resource tracking and
allocation.
ii
Regional analysis
UNCTs in the Asia Pacific region rated highest or amongst highest in 16 out of 22
Scorecard indicators, and all of the eight Scorecard areas. Other regions evidenced
similar levels of performance. For regions other than the Asia Pacific there was roughly
similar performance in the areas of programming, partnerships, capacities, budgeting,
but greater variation in decision-making and particularly monitoring and evaluation. No
clear reasons for better performance in the Asia Pacific region could be determined from
stakeholder interviews.
4. Qualitative findings
Several respondents noted the value of the Scorecard rating system, which clearly sets
out a globally agreed set of minimum standards. Other respondents noted, however, that
the Scorecard is an inflexible tool that leaves limited room for interchange and dialogue
about gender mainstreaming.
Five out of 20 of respondents were satisfied with the current process, which had worked
well with their UNCTs or regions. Twelve other respondents suggested two main
changes, as follows:


A more participatory approach involving UNCTs and partners earlier in the
process. This was the view voiced by 65 per cent of regional and country level
respondents.
Implementing the Scorecard when the UNDAF cycle was close to completion,
and at the beginning of the new UNDAF cycle.
Follow-up to recommendations
Five out of 17 UNCTs that implemented the Scorecard in the period 2012-2014
developed a formal management response, mostly with the support of Gender Theme
Groups. This report highlights examples of good practice. The quality of
recommendations has improved between 2008-2011 and 2012-2014. The number of
recommendations has decreased, and there is greater inclusion of the three key
elements for follow-up – resources, timelines and budgets. However, in a number of
cases recommendations are still being expressed too vaguely to be actionable items.
Weak follow-up to recommendations in some cases may be a function of a general lack
of accountability within UNDAF programming and implementation processes.
Making the Scorecard process more participatory
The review points to opportunities for revising the current Scorecard process with a view
to address key challenges, such as:



Encourage higher uptake by UNCTs, including in the context of UNDAF roll-out.
Less than 30 per cent of UNCTs have implemented the Scorecard exercise since
2008, whereas the original intention was to have every UNCT do so
Increasing ownership of the exercise by UNCT
Ensure more systematic follow-up to recommendations
UNCTs and consultants have taken the initiative to adapt the Scorecard methodology
and introduced more participatory practices, as highlighted in Box 1 of this report. The
UNDP Gender Equality Seal offers a more participatory model, some elements of which
the Scorecard may wish to replicate. The Gender Equality Seal resembles the Scorecard
iii
in that it includes a set of minimum standards, but takes a participatory approach
working with UNDP Country Offices over six to eight months to achieve these standards.
Greater participation should lead to more buy-in to recommendations and follow-up.
There is some evidence that this is the case, however, it was difficult to track this
systematically as few UNCTs have rigorous follow-up methods. The disadvantages of a
more participatory process include potentially losing the Scorecard accountability focus,
and a potential need for a greater investment in resources in the Scorecard process.
Adapting the Scorecard for humanitarian settings
Respondents noted that the Scorecard could be adapted to be more relevant for
humanitarian settings, and if it was adapted in this way would be more likely to be used.
Current accountability mechanisms on gender equality and the empowerment of women
The review compared four accountability and learning mechanisms: the Scorecard, the
UN-SWAP, the ILO Participatory Gender Audit and the UNDP Gender Equality Seal.
Given the existence of several accountability and learning mechanisms, the UNDG and
Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (IANWGE) will need to ensure
their complementarity and promote understanding of their different purposes and uses in
particular at country level.
Both the UN-SWAP and the Scorecard, for example, measure performance on gender
mainstreaming, while the two frameworks have different processes, focus, and
audiences. Exploring ways of ensuring further complementarity will be important
including for example archiving the Scorecard data in the UN-SWAP web-based tool, as
well as exchanging lessons on successful implementation.
5. Recommendations
Institutional arrangements within the UNDG
1) Reconfirm the commitment and shared responsibility of all members of the
UNDG Gender Task Team for promoting and supporting greater uptake of the
Scorecard by UNCTs.
2) Feature the Scorecard as a standing item in the work plan of the UNDG Gender
Equality Task Team, specifying deliverables, division of labor and funding
requirements.
3) Promote greater participation of other UNDG entities in Scorecard
implementation
4) Clarify the roles and responsibilities of UN staff at HQ, regional and country
levels, drawing on the analysis in Section 4.8.
5) Liaise with other UNDG Working Groups that are developing new
accountability/performance assessment tools for UNCTs (e.g. the UNDG Human
Rights Mechanism), to ensure consistency across tools and mechanisms, and
avoid overburdening of UNCTs with inconsistent requirements.
6) Liaise with relevant UNDG WGs to ensure that UNDG programming guidance to
UNCTs draws on the Scorecard tool and this global review. This would include
recognizing the implementation of the Scorecard as a key input into UNDAF
monitoring and evaluation by UNCTs, and suggesting that the Scorecard is
carried out at least once towards the end of every UNDAF cycle.
iv
Updating and upgrading the Scorecard tool
7) Revise and update the Scorecard performance areas and indicators to ensure
relevance and applicability by UNCTs, as well as consistency and alignment with
the UN-SWAP. This would include reviewing and piloting the humanitarian
indicators (see Annex 5).
8) Review the Scorecard methodology to make the process more participatory
including by drawing from good practices from the field as well as from
methodologies applied to other existing tools (e.g. the UNDP Gender Equality
Seal).
9) Further explore complementarities and opportunities for aligning the Scorecard
with other existing mechanisms, including the UN-SWAP.
10) Develop a standard template – and related guidance - for Scorecard
recommendations and management response, to ensure timely implementation
of Scorecard recommendations by UNCTs and related review.
Communication and knowledge management
11) Make the current Scorecard review report available to the UNDG and UNCTs.
12) Upload all Scorecard reports implemented over the period 2012 – to date on the
UNDG web site.
13) Update the Scorecard User’s guide available to UNCTs, including a short
description clarifying purpose and focus of different existing tools and
accountability mechanisms currently in place.
14) Prepare a new communication package for RC/HCs reaffirming expectations of
UNCTs to complete the Scorecard exercise, as confirmed in the QCPR, sharing
relevant resources and support available.
15) Ensure learning and experience sharing for relevant UN staff around UNCTs
performance assessment on gender equality, including through webinars with UN
staff and experts who have supported UNCTs with the implementation of the
Scorecard.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background and purpose
1
2. Methodology
 Outline of data set and method of analysis
 Limitations
2
3. Quantitative findings
3.1
Strengths of the UN system at the country level
3.2
Weaknesses of the UN system at the country level
3.3
Regional analysis
3.4
Delivering as One UNCTs
3.5
Percentage of counties meeting minimum standards
in at least half of Scorecard areas
3
5
6
7
9
9
4. Qualitative findings
4.1
The Gender Scorecard process
4.1.1 Should the UNDG introduce a more participatory process?
4.2
Follow-up to recommendations
4.3
Knowledge sharing
4.4
The Gender Scorecard and other accountability mechanisms
4.5
The Gender Scorecard and the UN-SWAP
4.6
Humanitarian settings
4.7
Scorecard content and UNDG Guidance
4.8
Roles and responsibilities
11
11
12
14
15
16
19
20
20
21
5. Recommendations
22
Annexes
Annex 1:
Annex 2:
Annex 3:
Annex 4:
Annex 5:
List of interviewees
UNDP Gender Equality Seal
Examples of good quality recommendations
Overlap between the UN-SWAP and the Scorecard
Draft Performance indicators for humanitarian, emergency,
recovery and post-conflict situations
Tables and Boxes
Table 1:
Scorecard uptake, 2012-2014
Table 2:
Average Scorecard ratings for 39 UNCTs, 2008-2011, and 2012-2014
Table 3:
Scorecard ratings by indicator
Table 4:
Scorecard ratings by region, area and indicator (number of Scorecards),
2008-2014
Table 5:
Rating by area for Delivering as One UNCTs, 2008-2014
Table 6:
Per cent of countries meeting Scorecard minimum standards in four areas
Table 7:
Quality of recommendations, 2008-2011 and 2012-2014
Table 8:
Coherence and complementarity between four accountability and learning
gender mainstreaming mechanisms
Box 1:
Example of participatory practices introduced to Scorecard
implementation
vi
1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The QCPR calls for the UN development system to expand and strengthen its work on
gender equality and the empowerment of women including through the use of the
Scorecard) as a planning and reporting tool for assessing the effectiveness of gender
mainstreaming by UNCTs. The review of the MDGs/SDGs and post-2015 framework as
well as the UN “fit for purpose” discussions also reinforce the need to tackle gender
inequality, including its underlying causes, more holistically and with expertise cutting
across UN entities; and focuses on ensuring the UN works together better to deliver
results, evidence based analysis, and stronger monitoring and evaluation. The
discussions taking place concerning the post-2015 SDG stand-alone goal on gender
equality and the empowerment of women means that new impetus is needed for
mainstreaming gender, including accountability tools such as the Scorecard and the UNSWAP for implementation of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination policy on
gender equality and the empowerment of women (CEB/2006/2). This context suggests
that the Scorecard is now more important in UN programming than when it was
designed and should be viewed in a reinvigorated fashion.
The Scorecard establishes an accountability framework for assessing the effectiveness
of gender mainstreaming by UNCTs, and is one part of the accountability framework that
was developed in response to the UN Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB)
2006 Policy on gender equality and the empowerment of women (CEB/2006/2). This
framework also includes the UN-SWAP, which is discussed in more detail in Section 4.
The Scorecard was developed by the UNDG (UNDG) Gender Equality Task Team, and
endorsed by the UNDG Principals in 2008. It was rolled out in 2008, with a first desk
review of 20 Scorecards undertaken in 2011. Following the first baseline review of
Scorecards, the UNDG Gender Equality Task Team, led by UN Women, has decided to
undertake a second review covering the period 2012-2014.2
The objective of this second review is to:
 Analyze trends in UNCTs’ performance on gender since the baseline review took
place.
 Assess strengths and weaknesses of UNCTs vis-à-vis the performance
dimensions of the Scorecard.
 Make recommendations as to how identified strengths can be built on and how
gaps can be filled.
 Identify good practices in the strategic use of Scorecards by UNCTs, and
linkages with common strategic planning at the country level.
 Review the Scorecard content and process and determine how this can be
improved, including with reference to further alignment with UN-SWAP indicators.
Section 2 of this report sets out its methodology. Section 3 synthesizes results from the
data set for 2012-2014, in comparison to the 2008-2011 results, mainly focusing on
quantitative results. Section 4 complements Section 3 by carrying out a qualitative
analysis examining the Scorecard implementation process and how and why it has been
effective, with a focus on good practice. Section 5 sets out recommendations, including
suggested changes to the Scorecard process.
2
The review was undertaken by Dr. Tony Beck, a consultant to UN Women.
1
2. METHODOLOGY
Nineteen Scorecards are included in this review, as opposed to 20 for the 2008-2011
review, so the samples are roughly comparable (as the first Scorecard was not
completed until late 2008, so in practice the earlier review also covered a three year
period). The countries included in this review can be found in Table 1. Of these 19
countries, the Scorecards for Cambodia and India had not been formally approved by
the UNCT at the time of writing, but were included because they had complete reports. A
similar analysis was applied to the 2008-2011 data set, with the addition of a comparison
to findings from the earlier data set, as well as a regional analysis. This review also
included interviews with six regional UN Women staff, 20 others involved with the
Scorecard - country office UN Women and Resident Coordinator Office staff, staff in the
UN Women Coordination Division, and consultants who have implemented the
Scorecard. A list of interviewees is included as Annex 1. A limitation of this review is that
it proved challenging to conduct interviews with staff from other entities than UN Women.
Attempts were made to set up interviews with staff from other entities and Resident
Coordinator Offices but these were unsuccessful, which is perhaps symptomatic of the
perceived lack of ownership by other entities.
Of the 39 countries for which Scorecard reports are available, the regional breakdown is
as follows:






Asia and the Pacific (AP): 11
West and Central Africa (WCA): 3
East and Southern Africa (ESA): 11
Europe and Central Asia (ECA): 8
Americas and the Caribbean (LAC): 5
Arab States/North Africa (AS): 1
Findings from the regional analysis should therefore be read in light of the relatively
small number of Scorecards having been completed in WCA and AS.
Three of the Scorecards (Colombia, Nepal and Sudan) only provided aggregate rating
by area as opposed to by indicator, and this has been taken into account in the analysis.
As noted in Section 3, 18 per cent of UNDAF roll-out UNCTs completed the Scorecard
between 2012 and 2014, so the question arises as to the representativeness of the data
in this report. While the data set may not be fully representative of all UNCT work on
gender mainstreaming (including other reviews such as gender audits) it does make up
some 25 per cent of countries in which the UN is active. The consistency in Scorecard
ratings over seven years suggests that the findings of this report can be used to assess
UN’s work on gender mainstreaming at country level as a whole.
2
3. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
This Section provides a quantitative analysis of Scorecard results with a focus on a
comparison between the previous and current data set. Table 1 includes countries that
undertook the Scorecard exercise for the 2012-2014 period.
Table 1: Scorecard uptake, 2012-20143
Country
Roll out year
Completed
Albania
Bolivia
Cambodia
Cameroon
Colombia
Guatemala
India
Indonesia
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Malawi
Maldives
Nepal
Rwanda
Sudan
Timor Leste
Vietnam
Zimbabwe
2015
2011
2014
2016
2014
2013
2016
2014
2016
2013
2014
2015
2014
2016
2016
2015
2013
2015
2014
March 2014
April 2013
July 2014
November 2012
February 2013
January 2013
December 2013
June 2012
September 2012
May 2012
March 2014
December 2013
April 2012
December 2013
September 2011
February 2012
May 2013
May 2011
November 2011
International/
National consultant
International
National
International
International
National
National
National
International
National
International
National
Internal
International
International
International
International
International
International and national
International and national
Ten out of 56 UNDAF roll out countries between 2012 and 2014 completed the
Scorecard, or 18 per cent, and a further nine countries completed the exercise from
other roll-out years.
Six Scorecards were completed by national consultants, ten by international consultants,
two jointly by national and international consultants, and one internally; this is roughly
similar to the 2008-2011 data set. Although the Scorecard was set up so that it could be
implemented by national consultants, in order to use and support national capacity, a
majority of UNCTs are using international consultants. This is either because national
consultants are not available or because the profile of an international consultant was
required.
Table 2 shows average ratings across the eight Scorecard areas for 2008-2011 and
2012-2014. The Scorecard uses a six point rating system:
5 = Exceeds minimum standards
4 = Meets minimum standards
3 = Needs improvement
2 = Inadequate
1 = Missing
0 = Not applicable
3
The OPT and Jordan undertook the Scorecard exercise in 2014; the final reports were not available for this
review and are not included in the data analysis, however interviews were carried out with UN Women and
RCO staff in the OPT and Jordan. The UNCTs included in the 2008-2011 review are: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Comoros, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Fiji,
Macedonia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Samoa, Serbia, Somalia, Tajikistan, and Venezuela.
3
Table 2: Average Scorecard ratings for 39 UNCTs, 2008-2011, and 2012-2014
Scorecard area
1. Planning
2. Programming
3. Partnerships
4. UNCT capacities
5. Decision-making
6. Budgeting
7. Monitoring and Evaluation
8. Quality control and accountability
Average rating 2008-11
3.3
3.67
2.95
3
3.4
2.5
2.8
2.7
Average rating 2012-14
3.3
3.92
3.15
2.9
3.7
2.6
2.8
3.2
Table 2 illustrates improvement in the majority of areas including programming,
partnerships, decision-making, and quality control and accountability. However, it also
demonstrates limited or no progress related to UNCT capacities, budgeting and
monitoring and evaluation. A “4” rating is the agreed minimum standard for the UN
system, and UNCTs as a whole do not yet meet this standard in any of the Scorecard
dimensions. At the rate of progress achieved since 2008 it would be many years before
the UN system meets minimum standards in a number of the indicators. However, it is
close to achieving that goal for some indicators (see Table 3 below). This is in contrast
to the UN-SWAP, where the UN system as a whole saw an aggregate increase on
reported UN-SWAP indicators from 31 to 42 per cent between 2012 and 2013. This is
partly due to the UN-SWAP methodology, which facilitates a gradated improvement for
the whole UN system due to the low level of achievement required for certain
Performance Indicators. Activities related to the UN-SWAP, such as introduction of
gender elements into performance assessment, mandatory training, and development of
gender markers will support improvement in the Scorecard.
It should be noted that averages can be deceiving, in particular given the way in which
the Scorecard minimum standards are formulated. This makes meeting some standards
challenging. For example the requirement in indicator 1e that all key data be
disaggregated by sex has been met by almost no UNCTs, which has brought down the
overall average. There is also considerable good practice in the UN system. For
example, 13 per cent of ratings for Scorecard area one on the CCA/UNDAF and 10 per
cent of ratings for area two on programming exceeded minimum standards.
Table 3 provides a disaggregated analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the UN
system by comparing average ratings by indicator for 2008-2011 and 2012-2014.
Table 3: Scorecard ratings by indicator
Scorecard dimension
1.a - Adequate UNCT review of country context related to gender equality
and women’s empowerment
1.b - Gender equality and women’s empowerment in UNDAF outcomes
1.c - Gender equality and women’s empowerment in UNDAF outputs
1.d - Indicators to track UNDAF results are gender-sensitive
1.e - Baselines are gender-sensitive
2.a - Gender perspectives are adequately reflected in joint programming
2.b - Joint programmes
2.c - UNCT support for national priorities related to gender equality and
women’s empowerment
Average
rating
2008-2011
3.3
Average
rating
2012-2014
3.4
3.7
3.3
3.5
3
3.9
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.4
2.7
4
3.8
4.2
4
Scorecard dimension
2.d - UNCT support to gender mainstreaming in programme based
approaches
2.e - UNCT support to gender mainstreaming in aid effectiveness processes
3.a - Involvement of National Machineries for Women / Gender Equality and
women’s departments at the sub-national level
3.b - Involvement of women’s NGOs and networks
3.c - Women from excluded groups included as programme partners and
beneficiaries in key UNCT initiatives
4.a - Multi-stakeholder Gender Theme Group is effective
4.b - Capacity assessment and development of UNCTs in gender equality
and women’s empowerment programming
4.c - Gender expert roster with national, regional and international expertise
used by UNCT members
5.a - Gender Theme Group coordinator is part of UNCT Heads of Agency
group
5.b - UNCT Heads of Agency meetings regularly take up gender equality
programming and support issues
6.a - UNCT Gender responsive budgeting system instituted
6.b - Specific budgets allocated to stimulate stronger programming on gender
equality and women’s empowerment
7.a - Monitoring and evaluation includes adequate attention to gender
mainstreaming and the promotion of gender equality and women’s
empowerment
8.a - CCA/UNDAF quality control
Average
rating
2008-2011
3.4
Average
rating
2012-2014
3.7
3.4
3
3.8
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.3
3.1
2.7
3.4
2.5
3
2.9
In 9 out of
16 cases
3.4
In 9 out of
15 cases4
3.7
2
3.2
2.1
3
2.8
2.8
2.7
3.2
3.1 Strengths of the UN system at the country level
The most notable strength is perhaps the improvement related to the UNDAF. Between
2012 and 2014 UNCTs as a whole came close to meeting the following Scorecard
indicators:


One UNDAF outcome clearly articulates how gender equality will be promoted
(rating 3.9).
One third to one half of UNDAF outputs clearly articulate tangible changes for
rights holders and duty bearers, which will lead to improved gender equality (rating
3.9).
The achievement in relation to the UNDAF results statements is spread regionally. This
means that almost all new UNDAFs where Scorecards have been completed now have
at least one outcome related to gender equality and the empowerment of women
(GEEW), with four UNCTs having more than one gender-related outcome (India,
Indonesia, Rwanda and Vietnam). These outcomes are also being supported by
appropriate outputs. The formulation of these gender sensitive results statements is also
supported by greater involvement from UN partners in UNDAF planning, particularly
from national women’s machineries and excluded women, although less so from
women’s NGOs and networks (Table 3, indicators 3.a, b, and c). This suggests greater
input and ownership by some national actors. On the other hand, indicators and
baselines to track UNDAF results statements (Table 3, 1.d and 1.e) are less evident in
the latter period. Additionally there has been no improvement in monitoring and
4
Data was missing in four cases for both data sets.
5
evaluation, although this may be a consequence of generally poor UNCT monitoring and
evaluation rather than being specific to GEEW.
In DaO contexts, the inclusion of gender related outcomes and outputs in the UNDAF is
likely to be correlated with improved performance on gender, with strategic planning
ensured by joint results groups driving capacities and resources to promote cross-cutting
themes.5
Other strengths are the inclusion of gender perspectives in joint programming and
programmes, with 12 UNCTs in 2008-2011 and 13 in 2012-2014 achieving the minimum
standard. Support to national priorities and gender mainstreaming in programme based
approaches and aid effectiveness processes have also improved, and are above or
close to minimum standards in most cases. Support to national priorities was the highest
rated of any indicator (4.2), with six UNCTs exceeding the standard (Albania, Cameroon,
Indonesia, Kenya, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe). There has also been some improvement in
accountability mechanisms, with UNCT Heads of Agency meetings regularly taking up
gender equality and support issues more often (rating of 3.7 in 2012-14, as opposed to
3.4 in 2008-11), and greater screening of the CCA/UNDAF at the regional level, although
remaining at a relatively low level (increase from 2.7 in 2008-2011 to 3.2 in 2012-2014).
3.2 Weaknesses of the UN system at the country level
Review of country context related to GEEW (1a) remains unsatisfactory in most cases.
Only 6 UNCTs met or exceeded the minimum standard, with 5 of these in the AP region.
This is surprising given the attention to gender equality in UNDAF outcomes and
outputs, and may be due to a disconnect between country analysis and development of
the UNDAF. Capacity assessment and development (4b) declined between the two
review periods, and with a rating of 2.5 is one of the worst performing indicators. This is
an area that needs urgent attention and should be addressed, including through the
rollout of the GEEW e-module led by UN Women with the participation of several UN
entities.
There has also been limited change in gender related budgeting. The indicator on
gender responsive budgeting (6a) has been the most challenging of the Scorecard
indicators, because UNCTs do not function on the basis of joint budget. Allocations to
Resident Coordinator Offices (RCOs), and Joint Programmes budgets could be used for
the analysis. The move towards a Common Budgetary Framework within the UNDAF
may make this indicator more relevant; however as entities introduce their own gender
marker systems under UN-SWAP requirements a decision will need to be made as to
whether there should also be a gender marker for UNDAF budgets (see Section 4 for
further discussion). The decline in the number of specific budgets for GEEW (6.b) is of
particular concern (although the review was not able to determine if the actual figure for
GEEW had increased or decreased), and the inclusion of gender outcomes and outputs
in the UNDAF does not appear to have translated into increased resources.
In sum, of the four key elements for promoting gender mainstreaming, there have been
improvements in two – accountability (5.b and 8.a) and strategic planning (1.b and 1.c) –
and reverses in two - capacity development (4.b) and resource tracking and allocation
5
UNDG (2014) Standard Operating Procedures for Countries Adopting the Delivering as One approach.
New York: UN Development Group.
6
(6.a and 6.b). Resource tracking should improve slowly between now and 2017 as a
result of activity on gender markers generated by the UN-SWAP.
3.3 Regional analysis
This Section covers regional performance between 2008 and 2014 with a focus on the
four regions that have completed five or more Scorecards (AP, ESA, ECA, and LAC).
Table 4 sets out ratings by region for Scorecard areas and indicators.
Table 4: Scorecard ratings by region, area and indicator (number of Scorecards),
2008-2014
Scorecard area and indicator
1.a - Adequate UNCT review of country
context related to gender equality and
women’s empowerment
1.b - Gender equality and women’s
empowerment in UNDAF outcomes
1.c - Gender equality and women’s
empowerment in UNDAF outputs
1.d - Indicators to track UNDAF results are
gender-sensitive
1.e - Baselines are gender-sensitive
Average for area 1
2.a - Gender perspectives are adequately
reflected in joint programming
2.b - Joint programmes
2.c - UNCT support for national priorities
related to gender equality and women’s
empowerment
2.d - UNCT support to gender
mainstreaming in programme based
approaches
2.e - UNCT support to gender
mainstreaming in aid effectiveness
processes
Average for area 2
3.a - Involvement of National Machineries
for Women / Gender Equality and women’s
departments at the sub-national level
3.b - Involvement of women’s NGOs and
networks
3.c - Women from excluded groups
included as programme partners and
beneficiaries in key UNCT initiatives
Average for area 3
4.a - Multi-stakeholder Gender Theme
Group is effective
4.b - Capacity assessment and
development of UNCTs in gender equality
and women’s empowerment programming
4.c - Gender expert roster with national,
regional and international expertise used
by UNCT members
Average for area 4
AP
(11)
WCA
(3)
ESA
(11)
ECA
(8)
LAC
(5)
ASRO
(1)
3.95
3
2.88
3.25
3
3
4.3
4
4
3.15
4
3
3.85
3.5
3.13
3.65
3.5
3
3.75
3
3.13
3.75
3.25
3
3.35
3.84
3
3.3
2.13
3.05
3.35
3.43
2.5
3.35
N/A
3
4.35
3
4.13
4
3.5
2
3.8
2
3.88
3.85
3.75
4
4.25
4.5
4.13
4.1
3.5
3
3.95
3.5
3.88
3.3
3.25
3
3.85
3.5
3.6
3.75
3.75
3
4
3.3
3.9
3.8
3.6
3
3.75
4
3.38
2.75
3
3
3.1
3.5
2.53
2.75
2.5
1
2.3
1.5
3.5
2.9
3
3
3.5
2.68
3.04
2.78
2.87
2.33
3.5
4
3.13
2.6
3.25
N/A
2.85
2.5
2.25
2.6
2.75
2
3.65
3
2.38
3.1
2.75
1
3.3
3.2
2.6
2.8
2.9
1.5
7
Scorecard area and indicator
5.a - Gender Theme Group coordinator is
part of UNCT Heads of Agency group
5.b - UNCT Heads of Agency meetings
regularly take up gender equality
programming and support issues
Average for area 5
6.a - UNCT Gender responsive budgeting
system instituted
6.b - Specific budgets allocated to stimulate
stronger programming on gender equality
and women’s empowerment
Average for area 6
7.a - Monitoring and evaluation includes
adequate attention to gender mainstreaming
and the promotion of gender equality and
women’s empowerment
8.a - CCA/UNDAF quality control
AP
(11)
WCA
(3)
ESA
(11)
ECA
(8)
LAC
(5)
ASRO
(1)
5/8
2/2
4/8
5/8
2/4
0/1
4.1
3
3.5
3.6
3
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.45
1
2.25
2.4
2
1
3.1
3.5
3.13
3.25
2.5
2
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.3
1.5
3.5
2.25
2.25
3.15
3.35
2
4.05
2.25
2.55
2.5
3.35
3
Notable features of Table 4 are:



The performance of AP UNCTs, which rated highest or equal highest in 16 out of
22 Scorecard indicators, and all of the Scorecard areas. As 11 Scorecards have
been included from this region this result is unlikely to be caused by
methodological bias. It was not possible through interviews or other data
analysis to determine why the AP Region performed better than other areas, but
one reason may be greater capacity at Regional and UNCT level in the AP
Region.
Similar performance of the other regions (excluding the AS Regional Office
where only one Scorecard has been completed). Some regions were stronger in
some of the Scorecard areas, but upon aggregation of all Scorecard areas, the
achievement of regions other than AP was similar.
Roughly similar performance in the areas of programming, partnerships,
capacities, budgeting, but greater variation in decision-making and particularly
monitoring and evaluation.
There are at least two implications of these regional findings. The first is that UNDG
Regional staff can use Scorecard findings to tailor support to the country level, e.g.
where a region is scoring poorly in capacity development then the Regional Office can
focus on this area. The second is that there is potential for inter-regional learning and
support, in particular concerning the transfer of good practice. To date a significant
source of knowledge transfer in relation to the Scorecard has been UN Women staff
moving between regions, or through the Scorecard Help Desk. However, there is
significant potential for greater knowledge exchange about both Scorecard process and
results. The potential role of Regional UNDG staff is further defined in Section 4.8.
3.4 Delivering as One UNCTs
It might be expected that the DaO process would improve gender mainstreaming
because it would lead to a more coherent focusing on UNDAF priorities. Of the eight
DaO pilots, five - Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Vietnam –
8
completed the Scorecard. Results for these UNCTs in comparison to the other 34 that
completed the Scorecard between 2008 and 2014 can be found in Table 5.
Table 5: Rating by area for Delivering as One UNCTs, 2008-2014
Scorecard area
1. Planning
2. Programming
3. Partnerships
4. UNCT capacities
5. Decision-making
6. Budgeting
7. Monitoring and evaluation
8. Quality control and accountability
Rating by area for
five DaO UNCTs
3.4
3.97
3.27
3.21
3.2
2.8
2.8
2.4
Rating by area for
non- DaO UNCTs
3.28
3.77
3.01
2.93
3.65
2.58
2.82
3.12
Table 5 demonstrates that the DaO UNCTs have performed better than non-DaOs in five
Scorecard areas – planning, programming, partnerships, UNCT capacities and
budgeting. The results of one area – monitoring and evaluation – are roughly equivalent.
Where there are better results for DaO UNCTs, the differential is consistent across
areas. Table 5 provides evidence to suggest that the DaO process has overall supported
gender mainstreaming within UNCTs.
3.5 Percentage of countries meeting minimum standards in at least half of
Scorecard areas
The QCPR included a tracking indicator related to the Scorecard: “per cent of countries
conducting the gender Scorecard that meet minimum standards (rating 4) in at least half
of the gender Scorecard areas”. Table 6 sets out performance vis-à-vis this QCPR
tracking indicator.
Table 6: per cent of countries meeting Scorecard minimum standards in four
Scorecard areas
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Number of
completed
Scorecards
3
11
6
3
6
6
4
% of countries meeting minimum standards in at least half of
Scorecard areas (country)
33 (Bhutan)
8.3 (Cambodia)
0
33 (Vietnam)
16.7 (Indonesia)
16.7 (India)
0
The overall average for the seven years is 13 per cent. At least three UNCTs have
achieved the QCPR indicator each year since 2008 – except for in 2010 and 2014 when
none did. Achievement by year is irrespective of the number of UNCTs undertaking the
exercise. Perhaps most noteworthy is that all of the UNCTs meeting the QCPR indicator
are in the AP region, again demonstrating the superior performance of UNCTs in that
region. The 2015 Secretary-General report on the implementation of the QCPR
(A/70/62–E/2015/4) has a 52 per cent value for the QCPR (see indicator 36), suggesting
a significant discrepancy between ratings in Scorecard reports and the information
provided by RCs/UNCTs in DESA administered surveys.
9
4. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
4.1 The Gender Scorecard process
When the Scorecard was developed and piloted in 2006-2008 it was mainly
conceptualized as an exercise for holding the RC and UNCT accountable for gender
mainstreaming. This has meant that the Scorecard is usually an external exercise
involving a consultant visiting the UNCT for a week or ten days.
Several respondents noted the value of the Scorecard rating system, which clearly sets
out a globally agreed set of minimum standards. It is not, in the words of one
respondent: “UN Women telling the UNCT what to do”. Other respondents noted,
however, that the Scorecard is an inflexible tool that leaves limited room for interchange
and dialogue about gender mainstreaming. In total five out of 20 respondents were
satisfied with the current process, which had worked well with their UNCTs or regions.
The remainder suggested various changes, as follows:

A more participatory approach involving UNCTs and partners earlier in the
process. This was the view voiced by the majority of regional and country level
respondents - 12 out of 20. One respondent put it as follows: “I would suggest
that the Scorecard emphasize the need for a participatory process, without which
it is unlikely that the UN system will fully support the scoring and the
recommendations. And as with any joint initiative, I would suggest that the
exercise is also presented as a means not only to an end, but to building
capacities and shared thinking on gender priorities.”

Making the Scorecard exercise mandatory to ensure UNCT buy-in and followup—voiced by two respondents. One said: “It needs to have consequences – this
would be unwelcome to the entities but would support compliance – right now it’s
a secondary topic.”

Implementing the Scorecard when the UNDAF cycle was close to completion,
and at the beginning of the new UNDAF cycle. The end of the UNDAF cycle
coincides with the planning phase for the new cycle, which is why it makes sense
to undertake the exercise at that time, because as well as assessing past
performance it will feed into planning for the new cycle.
Making the exercise mandatory was discussed during Scorecard development, and was
also a recommendation of the previous Scorecard review. During Scorecard
development it was decided to not make the process mandatory to ensure that there
was no opposition from within the UNDG. A similar decision was made during the last
QCPR. The advantages of a mandatory process would likely be increased uptake, but
not necessarily greater buy-in from UNCTs. As the idea of making the Scorecard
mandatory was voiced by only a small minority of respondents it has not been followed
through to the recommendations for this report.
In addition to requests for changes from respondents, the UNDG Gender Equality Task
Team should revise the current process for the following reasons:
Level of uptake by UNDAF roll-out countries. Some 25 per cent of roll-out countries
have implemented the Scorecard exercise since 2008 (Table 1 and discussion),
whereas the original intention was that all UNCTs implement it periodically. This was
10
clear in the UNDG Chair’s letter to RCs in 2008: “The indicators are for use by all
UNCTs. In particular, we are asking UN Country Teams that are developing UNDAFs for
2008 and 2009 to establish a baseline using the performance indicators, so that they can
measure changes over the period of the next UNDAF. The UNDG will monitor their use
and make adaptations as needed, based on feedback from the UNCTs. Eventually,
every UNCT should be using these indicators systematically as an internal accountability
mechanism, and to identify where progress is made or additional support is needed.”
Systematic uptake by all UNCTs has not happened for at least six reasons. 1) The
Scorecard exercise is not mandatory; 2) lack of/or limited capacity to implement the
Scorecard; 3) Increasing pressure on UNCTs to deal with competing requests and
expectations, with declining resources available, 4) the Scorecard may be perceived as
an accountability tool through which UNCTs are mainly given (often negative) ratings, as
opposed to using its findings to inform future looking strategic planning, 5) UNCTs may
have decided to adopt other accountability mechanisms such as gender audits, and 6)
the exercise has not been fully integrated into UNCT work-plans and processes.
On the last point one respondent said, echoing the majority view: “The Scorecard has
been seen as ‘UN Women’s business’, so it has been marginalized. Everyone looks at
UN Women as being the gender agency in the region.”
On UN capacity for implementation, there has been relatively limited investment in
Scorecard implementation in staff time and financial resources. Central support to the
Scorecard did not include dedicated full time capacity at UN Women HQ, and one
consultant for approximately 25 days a year. This is in contrast to the UN-SWAP, where
CEB approval and injection of resources from both UN Women and other entities has
bolstered uptake; support to the implementation of the UN-SWAP included full time staff
in UN Women, consultancy services, as well as in-kind support from other entities.
Unsurprisingly the under-investment in the Scorecard has led to limited uptake as
compared to what the UNDG originally envisaged.
Resistance to the exercise at UNCT level. In a minority of cases where there was
agreement to implement the Scorecard, UNCTs did not participate fully, e.g. Heads of
Agencies were not available for interviews and/or there was delayed response to
approval of the Scorecard report and recommendations. This was also partly a result of
staff turnover.
Follow-up and management responses. Follow-up to recommendations has not been
systematic or mainstreamed, and has been largely as a result of UN Women’s initiative.
This is issue is dealt with in more detail in Section 4.2.
4.1.1. Should the UNDG introduce a more participatory process?
The UN accountability landscape on gender equality has changed since the introduction
of the UN-SWAP, which promotes accountability of senior managers. The question now
is whether a specific accountability mechanism at UNCT level is still needed, and/or
whether the Scorecard could become a more participatory exercise.
UNCTs and consultants have taken the initiative to adapt the methodology set out in the
Scorecard Users’ Guide and introduced more participatory practices – see Box 1 for
examples.
11
Box 1: Example of participatory practices introduced to Scorecard
implementation
One respondent noted: “The black and white scoring in the Scorecard meant that the
UNCT was going to look very bad; there was also a negative feeling about the process
because the scoring approach was so dogmatic and there is very little space for
feedback. So we decided to focus much more on the interviews and saw real value in
opening up space for dialogue – during the interviews many respondents realized for
the first time that they needed to take gender equality issues into account.”
In the cases of Cameroon and Paraguay, the UNCT and consultant introduced
participatory workshops with the GTG and other staff to open and close the Scorecard
process. In the introductory workshop participants were divided into four groups, and
each group was asked to self-assess UNCT performance against two Scorecard
areas. This increased understanding of the Scorecard purpose facilitated dialogue
around the UNCT’s performance. The consultant was then able to triangulate ratings
from this exercise with ratings from interviews and the CCA/UNDAF and Joint
Programme review. The process closed with a participatory workshop for developing
the follow-up action plan. This focused on the Scorecard areas that had shown worse
performance and groups in the workshop were given two areas for which they needed
to produce an action plan. This has likely led to improved buy-in to recommendation
follow-up.
In Cambodia a participatory assessment tool was developed through which GTG
members led an internal review process within their entities to generate inputs to, and
build consensus on, their entity's ratings against the Scorecard, validating the final
version with their Country Representatives. Each entity then presented the findings at
the GTG annual retreat, where entities engaged in discussion in groups and in plenary
to identify similarities across entities vis-à-vis strengths and weaknesses, culminating
in the identification of key priorities and recommendations (opportunities/threats; for
the short-term to medium-/long-term), and an action plan for the UNDAF Roll-Out. For
example UN commitment to national priorities for GEEW was assessed against a set
of national priorities, based on CEDAW and a gender analysis of key national issues.
This participatory process enabled the further engagement of UNCT members in
assessing their entity's performance, and contributed towards securing their inputs
and buy-in to recommendations.
In Timor Leste the Scorecard process effectively engaged technical level officials from
several government Ministries, including the Ministries of Defense, Justice and
Finance. In many Scorecard exercises interviews with government are only with the
Women’s Machinery, and other ministries have not contributed.
Respondents noted Scorecard implementation can be an important opportunity to
increase understanding of and momentum towards gender equality, particularly if there
is participation in the process. Greater participation should also lead to more buy-in to
recommendations and follow-up. There is some evidence that this is the case, however,
it was difficult to track this systematically as few UNCTs have rigorous follow-up
methods.
12
The disadvantages of a more participatory process include potentially losing the
Scorecard accountability focus, and a potential need for a greater investment in time and
resources to implement the Scorecard exercise.
4.2 Follow-up to recommendations
The 2008-2011 Scorecard review found that less than 50 per cent of report
recommendations had been followed up. For 2012-2014, five out of 17 UNCTs had a
formal management response (i.e. Albania, Rwanda, Maldives, Vietnam and Timor
Leste).6 In the majority of cases, follow-up depended on the GTG developing a work plan
rather than this being mainstreamed in other UNDAF processes including UNCT work
plans and RC Annual Reports/performance appraisal. Lack of leadership at the highest
level and weak inter-agency coordination structures for the UNDAF are also major
constraints to follow-up in some cases. This again contrasts with the approach of the
UN-SWAP, where it is primarily staff other than gender focal points who are responsible
for action. There was also a lack of structured follow-up, e.g. through a yearly report
discussed at the Heads of Agencies level on progress in implementing
recommendations, although this is happening in a minority of countries.
The management response table included in the Maldives report could be adapted to
become a standard template for ensuring follow-up to key recommendations by UNCTs.
Key
Recommen
-dations
Extract
from the
Scorecard
report.
Management Response
Response
Key Actions
Are the key
recommendations
acceptable? If no,
why not?
What are the
concrete
proposed
actions? Who are
the key partners
in carrying out
the actions?
Time
frame
Tracking
Responsibility
Status
Comments
Who will be
responsible for
implementing
the key
actions?
Completed
e.g., brief
explanation
for any
delays
Partially
completed
Pending
There were examples of good practice, and tying of the Scorecard results to the
common strategic planning process, noted here:
6

In Kenya the Scorecard implementation was funded under the Joint Programme
on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, which included results
statements related to advancing UN coordination and coherence for gender
equality. The Annual Work Plan of the Joint Programme, which was approved
each year by the UNCT, then responded to the recommendations in the
Scorecard report. It was also reported that the Scorecard had focused systematic
attention on gender mainstreaming in the UNDAF development process. Gender
specialists were located in each of the UNDAF outcome groups, although as
there are 10 outcomes the gender specialists were stretched.

In Cambodia in response to the Scorecard findings a Gender Scorecard Action
Plan was developed, which the GTG was responsible for implementing under
In the case of two of the Scorecards reviewed, it was too early in the process for a management response.
13
UNCT leadership. The UNCT reported that it had implemented many of the
Scorecard recommendations related to the 2016-2018 UNDAF. Cambodia is also
of interest as one of the only two UNCTs to undertake the Scorecard exercise
twice (the other is Jordan). Respondents reflected that during the second round
of Scorecard implementation, the process moved from one involving a consultant
working in isolation to a participatory process that strengthened the GTG and
coordination mechanisms, with a shifted focus of the Scorecard towards
supporting and informing strategic prioritization for joint programming. The
introduction of a dedicated UNDAF outcome on gender also aided the second
Scorecard process.

In Albania the Resident Coordinator reviews the Scorecard work-plan developed
by the GTG on a half yearly basis to ensure implementation of recommendations.
Table 7: Quality of recommendations, 2008-2011 and 2012-2014
2008-2011
2012-2014
Five out of 20 reports included timelines,
Nine out of 19 reports included timelines,
responsibilities and budgets with
responsibilities and budgets with
recommendations, as suggested in the
recommendations. The remaining 10
Scorecard Users’ Guide; and a further
reports included two out of three above –
five reports included details on timelines
timelines and responsibilities were
and responsibilities. Overall there were
missing in 6 cases, and budgets in 7
too many recommendations (some
cases.
reports included thirty or more), and a
number of recommendations were not
The number of recommendations per
clearly defined.
report decreased, but recommendations
could still be more clearly defined.
Table 7 demonstrates that the quality of recommendations has improved. The number of
recommendations has decreased, and there is greater inclusion of the three elements
for follow-up. However, in a number of cases recommendations are still being expressed
too vaguely to be actionable items. Examples of clear, concise and feasible
recommendations from the Cameroon and Kenya reports are included in Annex 3.
As part of updating the Scorecard, further guidance should be provided to UNCTs,
GTGs and consultants concerning formulation of recommendations and follow-up plans.
4.3 Knowledge sharing
Country level respondents noted that one main type of support they would like to receive
from Regional Offices and HQ related to comparative experience. That is, how the
Scorecard was conducted in other countries, including examples of good practice,
participatory processes, and follow-up to recommendations. Respondents said that they
needed examples of good practice in order to get buy-in from their UNCT. There is also
now the potential to aggregate Scorecard findings at the regional level, so that regional
level staff can identify areas where UNCTs need the most support. This should include
all relevant UNDG Regional staff and not only UN Women staff.
Up until May 2013 the main source of knowledge sharing was through the Scorecard
Global Help Desk, which was supported by a consultant; the Scorecard process has now
had over 18 months without this central support system, which included bringing in
comparative experience from Scorecard implementation as a whole, providing details on
14
consultants, technical support in Scorecard implementation to UNCTs and consultants,
and reviewing draft reports. Closing the Help Desk has significantly decreased
coherence in Scorecard implementation as well as knowledge sharing.7
Several respondents who had received the 2008-2011 Scorecard report said that they
had found this very useful, particularly in being able to point out the comparative
performance of their UNCT. As this 2008-2011 report was never formally approved and
circulated, the UNDG Gender Equality Task Team lost the opportunity to promote
knowledge sharing between regions and UNCTs.
4.4 The Gender Scorecard and other accountability mechanisms
The review compared use of four accountability and learning mechanisms intended to
promote gender mainstreaming: the Scorecard, the UN-SWAP, the ILO Participatory
Gender Audit, and the UNDP Gender Equality Seal. This was done to provide
recommendations to the UNDG on coherence and potential duplication, given that
UNCTs require a clear understanding of the purposes of each of these mechanisms.
Table 8 provides a summary of the main elements of each of these mechanisms.
Table 8: Coherence and complementarity between four accountability and
learning gender mainstreaming mechanisms
Scorecard
Main
purpose
Main focus
Accountability of
UNCTs, with all
UNDAF roll-out
UNCTs expected
to implement the
Scorecard
UNDAF, joint
programming, joint
processes,
capacity,
budgeting,
monitoring and
evaluation
UN-SWAP
Accountability of
UN agencies at
HQ level, with a
target of the UN
system meeting/
exceeding UNSWAP standards
by end 2017
Internal agency
HQ mainstreaming
functions
ILO Gender Audit
Accountability and
lesson learning,
initially intended
for ILO Offices but
also used more
widely in the UN
and by
counterparts
Establishes a
baseline of
performance
against 12
mainstreaming
focus areas,
assesses progress
made,
recommends way
of addressing
challenges
UNDP Gender
Equality Seal
Accountability and
lesson learning for
UNDP Country
Offices and
Regional Bureaux
A corporate
certification
process that
recognizes good
performance of
UNDP Country
Offices, Regional
Service Centers
and Headquarters
in delivering
gender equality
results
7
Disclosure: the consultant writing this report also developed the Scorecard with the UNDG
Gender Equality Task Team and provided support through the Scorecard Help Desk between
August 2008 and May 2013.
15
Reporting
process
Scorecard
UN-SWAP
ILO Gender Audit
Consultant reports
to the UNCT,
including
recommendations;
finalized reports
archived by DOCO
Agencies selfreport at the HQ
level, with reports
cross-checked by
UN Women.
Results are
aggregated by UN
Women and feed
into the SecretaryGeneral’s Annual
Report on gender
main-streaming
Completed three
times (2012-2014)
by some 90 per
cent of UN
agencies
Audit report
includes
recommendations
Completed by at
least 39 UNCTs
since 2008
Uptake to
date
Used extensively
at ILO HQ and
country offices,
and by some other
agencies at HQ
and country levels
UNDP Gender
Equality Seal
The external
assessment
reports on UNDP
Country Office
performance that
determines their
level of
qualification –
either gold, silver
or bronze.
Piloted in three
UNDP Country
Offices and being
rolled out to the
organization in
2015 - to 31
Country Offices,
the UNDP Pacific
Regional Centre
and the UNDP
Regional Bureaux
for Asia-Pacific
There are important similarities and differences between these accountability
mechanisms. The UN-SWAP and Scorecard focus mainly on accountability, while the
ILO Gender Audit and UNDP Gender Equality Seal are more participatory in approach.
For example, the Scorecard rates UNCTs based on objective criteria, while Gender
Audit uses a qualitative approach, striving to understand the perspectives and
viewpoints of individuals within the organization. The Gender Audit is more subjective in
nature, building on the premise that perceptions need to be changed in order to bring
about improvement. The Gender Audit is structured as a learning tool with a strong
participatory approach, encouraging reflection, analysis and collective thinking on
gender. The self-assessment aspect is key to the whole exercise and marks a significant
difference to the Scorecard.8
The UNDP Gender Equality Seal is the only mechanism to focus on actual development
results as well as gender mainstreaming, and also to facilitate a process that involves
building the capacity of country offices. It offers a more participatory model, some
elements of which the Scorecard may wish to replicate. The Gender Equality Seal
resembles the Scorecard in that it includes a set of minimum standards, but takes a
participatory approach, working with UNDP Country Offices over six to eight months to
achieve these standards. Further details are provided in Annex 2.
The UNDG and IANWGE need to ensure complementarity between these different
accountability mechanisms and promote understanding of their different purposes and
8
ILO (2011) ILO Participatory Gender Audit: Relevance and use for the United Nations and its
agencies, Geneva.
16
uses, including at the country level. As one respondent put it: “as there are several UN
scorecard tools out there it might be helpful to identify these in the preamble to the
Scorecard Users’ Guide to avoid confusion. Two UN entities initially questioned their
participation [in the Scorecard process] as they had recently been involved in other
Scorecard exercises.” This was already considered in the case of the Scorecard and
Gender Audit at IANWGE’s Seventh Session in 2008, where the Gender Audit was
considered to be a positive complement to the Scorecard. Further communications need
to be disseminated by the UNDG concerning these complementary tools.
4.5 The Scorecard and the UN-SWAP
The review looked in particular at the complementarities between the Scorecard and the
UN-SWAP to help ensure that they are aligned and used optimally. The Scorecard was
envisaged as part of a coherent three-point accountability framework for gender equality,
as follows:
1. The UN-SWAP rolled out in 2012, and tied to the CEB system-wide gender equality
policy.
2. The Scorecard rolled out in 2008 and with a focus on joint processes and
institutional arrangements within the UNCT.
3. Accountability for the UN’s contributions to gender equality development results
at country and normative levels. Whereas the UN-SWAP and UNCT
Performance Indicators focus mainly on institutional capacity to deliver results,
this mechanism is planned to focus on actual development results.9
During their development the UN-SWAP Performance Indicators were aligned with the
Scorecard Indicators, using the same language. Although both measure performance on
mainstreaming, the two frameworks, as noted in Table 8, have different purposes,
processes, focus, and audiences. The main differences are:



The UN-SWAP focuses on the individual agency level, while the Scorecard
focuses on UNCT joint processes.
The UN-SWAP process involves a self-assessment while the Scorecard involves
an external consultant.
The audience for the UN-SWAP is heads of agencies at HQ level, while the
Scorecard audience is the UNCT.
Currently there is overlap in two areas – see Annex 4 for full details:

Gender marker system. As all UN entities are required under the UN-SWAP to
develop a gender marker system, all of the programmes making up the UNDAF
should already be covered by such a system, excluding any Joint Programmes.
In terms of resource allocation there is some overlap, although the UN-SWAP
indicator refers to the total agency budget and the Scorecard indicator mainly
refers to a specific budget for gender mainstreaming.

Capacity assessment and development. This is the area of greatest overlap,
as under the UN-SWAP all entity staff should receive gender related training.
9
UN Women (2012) UN System-wide Action Plan for implementation of the CEB United Nations systemwide policy on gender equality and the empowerment of women, pp 1-2, as approved by the Chief
Executives Board for Coordination.
17
Of the total of 21 Scorecard indicators there are 14 with no equivalent in the UN-SWAP,
including in relation to the specificities of UNDAF planning and the UNCT context which
is quite different from the situation at HQ.10 Similarly, a number of UN-SWAP indicators –
performance assessment, organizational culture, gender architecture, knowledge
sharing, and coherence –are not included in the Scorecard.
Given the differences between the two frameworks, a complete merger should be
carefully considered as it may not be the most effective option. However, the Scorecard
indicators on budgeting could be aligned with the UN-SWAP, and the indicators on
capacity could be removed as they duplicate the indicator in the UN-SWAP. Additionally
Scorecard data could be archived in the UN-SWAP web tool, and the processes of UNSWAP implementation could provide useful learning for the future of the Scorecard.
As noted, the UN-SWAP framework sets out plans for developing an accountability
system for gender equality normative and development results. The original plan was to
establish an inter-agency working group, chaired by UN Women, to steer the process
and ensure coherence with the UN-SWAP and Scorecard. However, rather than
developing an additional accountability tool, it may be more effective and practical to
draw on the relevant parts of the SDGs indicator framework that will be finalized within
the context of the post-2015 development agenda.
4.6 Humanitarian settings
Five UNCTs that completed Scorecards between 2012 and 2014 were in countries in
humanitarian or post-humanitarian situations – Colombia, Jordan, OPT, Sudan and
Timor Leste. The 2008-2011 Scorecard review recommended including an Annex to the
Scorecard for such situations. These additional humanitarian indicators were piloted
during the implementation of the Scorecard in Sudan, however, the results of the piloting
were not closely tracked and additional piloting should be considered. These
humanitarian indicators are included again in this report as Annex 5, for consideration by
the UNDG. Pending common guidance on this issue, individual UNCTs are developing
their own indicators related to humanitarian settings, which raises issues of consistency
of rating.
4.7 Scorecard content and UNDG Guidance
Respondents had the following recommendations concerning revisions to the Scorecard
report and indicators:
1.a - Adequate UNCT review of country context related to gender equality and women’s empowerment;
2.a - Gender perspectives are adequately reflected in joint programming; 2.b - Joint programmes; 2.c UNCT support for national priorities related to gender equality and women’s empowerment; 2.d - UNCT
support to gender mainstreaming in programme based approaches; 2.e - UNCT support to gender
mainstreaming in aid effectiveness processes; 3.a – Involvement of National Machineries for Women /
Gender Equality and women’s departments at the sub-national level; 3.b - Involvement of women’s NGOs
and networks; 3.c - Women from excluded groups included as programme partners and beneficiaries in key
UNCT initiatives; 4.a - Multi-stakeholder Gender Theme Group is effective; 4.c - Gender expert roster with
national, regional and international expertise used by UNCT members; 5.a - Gender Theme Group
coordinator is part of UNCT Heads of Agency group 5.b - UNCT Heads of Agency meetings regularly take
up gender equality programming and support issues 8.a - CCA/UNDAF quality control.
10
18

Align the Scorecard minimum standards with CCA/UNDAF guidance, e.g. the
minimum standard for strategic planning in the Scorecard is that at least one
UNDAF outcome and corresponding indicator should be gender-sensitive. This is
not included in the CCA/UNDAF guidance, which has meant that some UNCTs
have argued that they do not need to meet the Scorecard standard.

Include a section in the report on the situation on gender equality in-country, to
provide context for the Scorecard ratings.

Ensure that there is consistency in definitions in indicators 1.a and 2.a as there is
inadequate correspondence between the areas for rating at different levels.

Ensure consistency between indicator 1.d and 1.e, as the measure for 1.d is 3350 per cent, but 100 per cent for 1.e.

Clarify what is meant by key sex-disaggregated data for indicator 1.e, which
currently is almost impossible to meet.

Clarify that for 1.d both requirements need to be met for a minimum standard
rating (i.e. at least one indicator at outcome level, and between one third and one
half of indicators at output level, are gender sensitive).
4.8 Roles and responsibilities
Currently the roles of the different actors implementing the Scorecard are not clearly set
out in the Scorecard Users’ Guide, except for the case of the Scorecard consultant. The
UNDG can consider the following clarifications:
At the UNDG level responsibilities should be for managing the support to UNCTs,
developing a global Scorecard work plan, developing and updating technical tools and
guidance, global reviews, and ensuring alignment with other accountability mechanisms.
UNDG Regional Chairs should contact RCs/HCs concerning Scorecard requirements.
Regional level UNDG staff should disseminate Scorecard information and guidance to
UNCTs, and provide technical support in implementation including names of potential
consultants. They should disseminate comparative experience as needed, carry out
regional level analysis of Scorecard results, and aggregate Scorecard findings to tailor
country level support in weaker areas. Follow-up to Scorecard report recommendations
should be discussed by Regional Peer Support groups.
At country level the UNCT should take the lead on the Scorecard exercise, through the
GTG or equivalent. Funding should be made available from the RC’s budget or joint
entity funding. Agency Heads should make themselves available for interviews, and the
Scorecard findings and recommendations should be promptly discussed by the UNCT.
The UNCT should also develop and track a follow-up plan to Scorecard
recommendations.
19
5. Recommendations
Institutional arrangements within the UNDG
1) Reconfirm the commitment and shared responsibility of UNDG Gender Equality
Task Team members for promoting and supporting greater uptake of the
Scorecard by UNCTs.
2) Feature the Scorecard as a standing item in the work plan of the UNDG Gender
Equality Task Team, specifying deliverables, division of labor and funding
requirements.
3) Promote greater participation of other UNDG entities in Scorecard
implementation
4) Clarify the roles and responsibilities of UN staff at HQ, regional and country
levels, drawing on the analysis in Section 4.8.
5) Liaise with other UNDG Working Groups that are developing new
accountability/performance assessment tools for UNCTs (e.g. the UNDG Human
Rights Mechanism), to ensure consistency across tools and mechanisms, and
avoid overburdening of UNCTs with inconsistent requirements.
6) Liaise with relevant UNDG WGs to ensure that UNDG programming guidance to
UNCTs draws on the Scorecard tool and this global review. This would include
recognizing the implementation of the Scorecard as a key input into UNDAF
monitoring and evaluation by UNCTs, and suggesting that the Scorecard is
carried out at least once towards the end of every UNDAF cycle.
Updating and upgrading the scorecard tool
7) Revise and update the Scorecard performance areas and indicators to ensure
relevance and applicability by UNCTs, as well as consistency and alignment with
the UN-SWAP. This would include reviewing and piloting the humanitarian
indicators (see Annex 5).
8) Review the Scorecard methodology to make the process more participatory by
drawing from good practices, as well as from methodologies applied to other
existing tools (e.g. the UNDP Gender Equality Seal).
9) Further explore complementarities and opportunities for aligning the Scorecard
with other existing mechanisms, including the UN-SWAP.
10) Develop a standard template – and related guidance - for Scorecard
recommendations and management response, to ensure timely implementation
of Scorecard recommendations by UNCTs and related review.
Communication and knowledge management
11) Make the current Scorecard review report available to the UNDG and UNCTs.
12) Upload all Scorecard reports implemented to date on the UNDG web site.
13) Update the Scorecard User’s guide available to UNCTs, including a short
description clarifying purpose and focus of different existing tools and
accountability mechanisms currently in place.
14) Prepare a new communication package for RC/HCs reaffirming expectations of
UNCTs to complete the Scorecard exercise, as confirmed in the QCPR, sharing
relevant resources and support available.
15) Ensure learning and experience sharing for relevant UN staff around UNCTs
performance assessment on gender equality, including through webinars with
staff and experts who supported UNCTs with Scorecard implementation.
20
Annex 1: List of interviewees
Name
Michele Ribotta
Aparna Mehrotra
Monica Dyer
Fumie Nakamura
Janneke van der Graaff Kukler
Themba Kalua
Jayne Adams
Florence Hamimi
Alethia Jimemez
Clara Anyangwe
M. Janviere
Gitanjali Singh
Anastasia Divinskaya
David Saunders
Estela Bulku
Nyambura Ngugi
Flora Macula
Silja Rajander
Joana Urbea
Maria Paulina Garcia
Ailla Edin Ayesh
Marta Gabarino
Michael Schaadt
Maria Machado
Francoise Coupal
Andrea Esser
Entity
UN System Coordination Division, UN Women HQ
Report manager
UN System Coordination Division, UN Women HQ
UN System Coordination Division, UN Women HQ
UN Women Regional Office, ECA
UN Women Regional Office, AP
UN Women Regional Office, ESA
UN Women Regional Office, LAC
UN Women Regional Office, WCA
UN Women Regional Office, AS
UN Women, Rwanda
UN Women, Rwanda
UN Women Nepal
UN Women Timor Leste
UN Women Albania
UN Women Albania
UN Women Kenya
UN Women Kosovo
UN Women Cambodia
UN Women Colombia
RCO, Colombia
UN Women Palestine
UN Women Jordan
RCO, Jordan
UN Women Guatemala
Consultant
Consultant
21
Annex 2: UNDP Gender Equality Seal
The UNDP Gender Equality Seal is a corporate certification process that recognizes
good performance of UNDP Country Offices in delivering transformational gender
equality results. It tracks, measures and certifies the competence and achievements in
advancing women's rights and corporate gender equality goals. It’s a tool for
empowering managers and accelerating changes needed to support countries’ gender
equality goals.
The Gender Equality Seal establishes minimum acceptable quality standards through 44
performance indicators and provides a clear framework to guide senior managers in
linking gender equality in the workplace with development results. The Seal is also a
learning platform that supports critical reflection, learning and innovative thinking on
gender mainstreaming. Unlike gender audits or evaluations the Seal process
creates an inclusive and open space for building a broad-based consensus
around the goals and implications of gender mainstreaming.
The Seal has for four steps:
Step One is a self-assessment over 5 weeks using an online version of the standardized
assessment tool that allows an office or unit to judge for itself where it stands with
respect to the benchmarks, supported by the UNDP Gender Equality Seal Team. After
completing the self-assessment, the Seal Team provides feedback and final results of
the on line assessment to each applicant. Country Offices then receive
recommendations on how to improve their scores and build an action plan for
improvement.
Step Two involves development of an Action Plan for improvement following the
recommendations of the Seal Team during a one-month period. The implementation of
the action plan to improve benchmarks then covers a total of six months with assistance
from the UNDP Regional Service Centre or HQ Gender Team.
Step Three involves a final assessment to identify the level of certification carried out
over 4-5 days and will focus on validation of findings from the online self-assessment, as
well as on assessment of gendered practices and overall impacts of the Country Offices
gender work through interactions with staff, partners, government counterparts, civil
society groups and media. The assessment process concludes with a detailed
debriefing.
In Step 4 a Certification Committee approves the suggested level of certification, and
news of certification is circulated among UNDP colleagues worldwide. The Seal Team
also offers post-certification support for the development of an implementation plan
based on the lessons and strategic recommendations from the exercise. The Seal is
valid for a period of two years, after which Country Offices are invited to apply for recertification.
Source: UNDP Gender Equality Seal. A Guide for Country Offices/Regional Service
Centres/Regional Bureaux.
22
Annex 3: Examples of good quality recommendations
Cameroon
Engage Gender CSOs and Vulnerable Groups
The UNDAF had very limited participation of civil society and vulnerable groups in its
formulation. A number of strategies can be used to give voice to women’s rights groups
and marginalized groups like poor women, persons with disabilities or youth. First, the
Gender Task Force and Senior Gender Platform for Decision-makers recommended
further participation of women rights groups and representation of vulnerable groups to
give voice to their priorities and concerns in programme implementation, monitoring and
evaluation.
Actions to be taken:
 Identify key women’s rights groups and marginalized sectors of the population to
be represented.
 Update TORs for Gender Task Force to include representation from Gender CSOs
 Include women’s rights groups and the marginalized in the Gender Task Force and
Platform for Senior Decision-makers.
Timing: December 2012; Responsibility: UN Women and UNCT; Cost: $ 0
Rwanda
Monitoring and evaluation
The report found that the One Programme reporting on the results framework needed to
be strengthened, and there was a lack of sex-disaggregated and baseline data. The
latter is a common issue across UNCTs and the report recommended:
 Training of M&E Task Force members in the formulation of gender-sensitive
indicators and use of gender impact assessments.
 M&E Task Force to formulate country specific sets of gender sensitive indicators at
output level for tracking progress on gender equality policies and changes over
time.
 Organizing M&E field visits.
 Continuing UNCT support to strengthening national systems for the systematic
production of sex-disaggregated data.
 Undertaking a planned Gender Baseline Survey.
Follow-up was planned as follows:
 Technical assistance: UN Staff College; UNDG; UNEG
 Time frame: 2011-2012
 Responsibility for follow-up: UNCT, M&E and Gender Equality Task Forces
 Resources: US$50,000
23
Annex 4: Overlap between the UN-SWAP and the Scorecard indicators
UN-SWAP Performance Indicators
(meets requirements level)
1. Up to date gender equality and women’s
empowerment, including gender
mainstreaming and the equal representation
of women, policies and plans implemented
2. Assessment of gender equality and the
empowerment of women integrated into core
values and/or competencies for all staff, with
a particular focus on levels P4 or equivalent
and above
3a. Gender analysis in the central strategic
planning document and main country
programme documents; and
3b. The central strategic planning document
includes at least one specific
outcome/expected accomplishment and one
specific indicator on gender equality and
women’s empowerment
4a. Reporting on gender equality and
women’s empowerment results in relation to
the central strategic planning document; and
4b. All key entity data is sex-disaggregated, or
there is a specific reason noted for not
disaggregating data by sex
5. Meets the UNEG gender-related norms and
standards
6. Consultation takes place with the gender
focal point/department on risks related to
gender equality and the empowerment of
women, as part of the risk based audit annual
planning cycle
7. Programme quality control systems fully
integrate gender analysis
8. Financial resource tracking mechanism in
use to quantify disbursement of funds that
promote gender equality and women’s
empowerment
9. Financial benchmark for resource allocation
for gender equality and women’s
empowerment mandate is met
Gender Scorecard Performance Indicators
(meets minimum standard level)
No overlap
No overlap
No overlap; the Scorecard focuses on the
CCA/UNDAF while the UN-SWAP focuses on
the central strategic planning document at
global level. The requirements in the
Scorecard and UN-SWAP are at the same
level.
No overlap
No overlap
No overlap
No overlap
6a. The UNCT has clear plans for
implementing a budgeting system to track
UNCT expenditures for gender equality
programming, with timelines for completion of
the plan noted.
6b. Specific budgets to strengthen UNCT
support for gender equality and women’s
empowerment located for four of the below:
 Capacity development and training of UNCT
members.
 Gender equality pilot projects.
 Support to national women’s machinery.
 Support to women’s NGOs and networks.
 Maintenance of experts’ roster.
 Gender mainstreaming in CCA/ UNDAF
exercises (e.g. for the preparation of
background documentation, gender analysis
capacity building, technical resource
persons, etc.).
24
UN-SWAP Performance Indicators
(meets requirements level)
10a. Gender focal points or equivalent at HQ,
regional and country levels are: a. appointed
from staff level P4 and above for both
mainstreaming and representation of women;
b. have written terms of reference ; c. at least
20 per cent of their time is allocated to gender
focal point functions; and 10b. The entity has
reached the equal representation of women
for General Service staff and also at P4 and
above levels; and 10c. Gender
department/unit is fully resourced according to
the entity mandate
11. Organizational culture fully supports
promotion of gender equality and the
empowerment of women
12a. Entity-wide assessment of capacity of
staff at HQ, regional and country levels in
gender equality and women’s empowerment
is carried out; and 12b. A capacity
development plan is established or updated at
least every five years
13. Ongoing mandatory training for all levels
of entity staff at HQ, regional and country
offices
14a. Knowledge on gender equality and
women’s empowerment is systematically
documented and publicly shared; and
14b. Communication plan includes gender
equality and women’s empowerment as an
integral component of internal and public
information dissemination
15. Participates systematically in inter-agency
coordination mechanisms on gender equality
and the empowerment of women
Gender Scorecard Performance Indicators
(meets minimum standard level)
No overlap
No overlap
4b: Resident Coordinator systematically
promotes, monitors and reports on capacity
development activities related to gender
equality and women’s empowerment
 Regular review of capacity of UNCT to
undertake gender mainstreaming (e.g. once
every two or three years).
 Training on gender mainstreaming takes
place for all UNCT staff (one day every six
months for new staff for first year, minimum
of one day of training once every two years
after this).
 Gender specialists and gender focal points
receive specific training (minimum two days
of training a year on gender equality and
women’s empowerment programming).
See above
No overlap
No overlap
25
Annex 5: Draft Performance indicators for humanitarian, emergency, recovery and
post-conflict situations
9. FOR HUMANITARIAN, TRANSITION, EARLY RECOVERY & POST-CONFLICT SITUATIONS
9.a Humanitarian
Exceeds minimum standards
action: analysis and  The Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP)
planning
and/or Consolidated Appeal includes a detailed
analysis of the differential impact of disasters
Sources:
and/or conflicts on women, men, boys and girls,
IASC (2008); OCHA
and an analysis of their livelihood strategies and
(2011)
how to support these.
 The CHAP and/or CAP strategy, strategic
objectives and indicators reflect the needs
analysis vis-à-vis gender equality.
 The CAP uses the IASC gender marker.
 All data in the CHAP and/or Consolidated Appeal
is sex-disaggregated, or there is a specific reason
noted for not disaggregating by sex.
 Cluster response plans and project sheets identify
and respond to the direct needs of women, girls,
boys and men.
 Joint needs assessment include analysis of the
differential impact of disasters and/or conflicts on
women, men, boys and girls, and an analysis of
their livelihood strategies and how to support
these.
 Joint humanitarian programmes include
marginalized women in planning processes,
implementation and monitoring and evaluation.
 The CHAP and/or Consolidated Appeal include
reference to the IASC policy statement on Gender
Equality Programming in Humanitarian Action.
 The CHAP and/or Consolidated Appeal includes
reference to Security Council resolution 1325 on
women, peace and security.
Meets minimum standard
 The CHAP and/or Consolidated Appeal includes
an analysis of the differential impact of disasters
and/or conflicts on women, men, boys and girls,
and an analysis of their livelihood strategies and
how to support these.
 The CHAP and/or CAP strategy, strategic
objectives and indicators reflect the needs
analysis vis-à-vis gender equality.
 The CAP uses the IASC Gender Marker.
 All data in the CHAP and/or Consolidated Appeal
is sex-disaggregated, or there is a specific reason
noted for not disaggregating by sex.
 Cluster response plans and project sheets identify
and respond to the direct needs of women, girls,
boys and men.
 Joint needs assessment include analysis of the
differential impact of disasters and/or conflicts on
26
9. FOR HUMANITARIAN, TRANSITION, EARLY RECOVERY & POST-CONFLICT SITUATIONS

women, men, boys and girls, and an analysis of
their livelihood strategies and how to support
these.
Joint humanitarian programmes include
marginalized women in planning processes and
implementation.
Needs improvement
Five or six of the above (under Meets Minimum
Standards) are met.
Inadequate
Less than five of the above (under Meets Minimum
Standards) are met.
9.b Humanitarian
action:
implementation,
monitoring and
evaluation
Sources:
IASC (2008); OCHA
(2011)
Missing
Not applicable
Exceeds minimum standards
 There is good intra- and inter-cluster sector
coordination and information management on
gender equality issues.
 Consultation with local women’s machinery,
organizations and women is promoted in the
definition of priorities for joint humanitarian
assistance and the design, delivery and monitoring
of joint assistance programmes.
 Sufficient funding is allocated for activities to
enhance capacity for integrating gender equality
into policies and programmes
 Sufficient funding is targeted to programmes to
address gender inequalities such as activities to
empower women and girls.
 Monitoring and evaluation of joint humanitarian
programmes includes gender analysis.
 All monitoring data is sex-disaggregated, or there
is a specific reason noted for not disaggregating
by sex.
Meets minimum standards
 There is adequate intra- and inter-cluster sector
coordination and information management on
gender equality issues.
 Sufficient funding is allocated for activities to
enhance capacity for integrating gender equality
into policies and programmes.
 Sufficient funding is targeted to programmes to
address gender inequalities such as activities to
empower women and girls.
 Monitoring and evaluation of joint humanitarian
programmes includes gender analysis.
 All monitoring data is sex-disaggregated, or there
is a specific reason noted for not disaggregating
by sex.
27
9. FOR HUMANITARIAN, TRANSITION, EARLY RECOVERY & POST-CONFLICT SITUATIONS
Needs improvement
Three or four of the above (under Meets Minimum
Standards) are met.
Inadequate
Less than three of the above (under Meets Minimum
Standards) are met.
Missing
Not applicable
9.c Transition and
post-conflict:
analysis and
planning
Exceeds minimum standards
 Analysis of structural and proximate causes of
conflict in the UN Transitional Strategy includes a
detailed analysis of gender equality and causes
which have impacted women, men, boys and girls
UNDG (2007); UNDG
differently.
and World Bank
 The UN Transitional Strategy disaggregates target
(2007).
groups by sex with a rationale for the relative
attention to women, men, boys and girls.
 Post Conflict Needs Assessments and
Transitional Results Frameworks delineate the
differing needs and livelihood strategies of
women, men, boys and girls, and support the
design of gender-proactive programming.
 All data in the Post Conflict Needs Assessments
and Transitional Results Frameworks is sexdisaggregated, or there is a specific reason noted
for not disaggregating by sex.
 More than 50 per cent of the results statements in
the Transitional Results Frameworks are gendersensitive, and linked to specific budgets.
Meets minimum standards
 Analysis of structural and proximate causes of
conflict in the UN Transitional Strategy includes an
analysis of gender equality and causes which have
impacted women, men, boys and girls differently.
 The UN Transitional Strategy disaggregates target
groups by sex with a rationale for the relative
attention to women, men, boys and girls.
 Post Conflict Needs Assessments and
Transitional Results Frameworks delineate the
differing needs of women, men, boys and girls,
and support the design of gender-proactive
programming.
 All data in the Post Conflict Needs Assessments
and Transitional Results Frameworks is sexdisaggregated, or there is a specific reason noted
for not disaggregating by sex.
28
9. FOR HUMANITARIAN, TRANSITION, EARLY RECOVERY & POST-CONFLICT SITUATIONS

Between 30 and 50 per cent of results statements
in the Transitional Results Frameworks are gendersensitive, and linked to budgets.
Needs improvement
Three or four of the above (under Meets Minimum
Standards) are met. Where there is no UN Transitional
Strategy or equivalent, at least two of the other
standards should be met. Where there is no Post
Conflict Needs Assessment, at least two of the other
standards should be met.
Inadequate
Less than three of the above (under Meets Minimum
Standards) are met. Where there is no UN Transitional
Strategy of equivalent, one of the above is met. Where
there is no Post Conflict Needs Assessment, one of the
above is met.
Missing
Not applicable
9.d Early recovery
CWGER (2008)
Exceeds minimum standards
 Support to policy development includes adequate
attention to gender equality.
 Capacity development for national authorities and
UN agencies for early recovery includes capacity
development and targets for improved capacity in
gender mainstreaming.
 Early recovery programming builds the capacity of
women and women’s organizations to ensure their
active and equal participation in all aspects and
sectors of early recovery and longer-term
recovery and development.
 Joint early recovery needs assessments, strategies
and plans include an analysis of the differential
impact of disasters and/or conflicts on women,
men, boys and girls, and an analysis of their
livelihood strategies and how to support these.
 Joint early recovery programmes include
marginalized women in planning processes,
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.
 Joint early recovery programmes include adequate
attention to gender equality.
 Baseline and other early recovery data should be
sex-disaggregated, or there is a specific reason
noted for not disaggregating by sex.
Meets minimum standards
 Capacity development for national authorities and
UN agencies for early recovery includes capacity
development in gender mainstreaming.
29
9. FOR HUMANITARIAN, TRANSITION, EARLY RECOVERY & POST-CONFLICT SITUATIONS





Early recovery programming builds the capacity of
women and women’s organizations to ensure their
active and equal participation in all aspects and
sectors of early recovery and longer-term
recovery and development.
Joint early recovery needs assessments, strategies
and plans include an analysis of the differential
impact of disasters and/or conflicts on women,
men, boys and girls, and an analysis of their
livelihood strategies and how to support these.
Joint early recovery programmes include
marginalized women in planning processes and
implementation.
Joint early recovery programmes include adequate
attention to gender equality.
Baseline and other early recovery data should be
sex-disaggregated, or there is a specific reason
noted for not disaggregating by sex.
Needs improvement
Three to five of the above (under Meets minimum
standards) are met
Inadequate
Less than three of the above (under Meets minimum
standards) are met
Missing
Not applicable
Sources:
CWGER (Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery) (2008) Guidance Note on Early Recovery.
UNDP: Geneva.
OCHA (2011) Consolidated Appeal 2012 Guidelines. Geneva: OCHA.
IASC (2008) Gender Equality Programming in Humanitarian Action. IASC Policy Statement.
June.
UNDG (2007) UN Transitional Strategy Guidance Note. New York: UNDG.
UNDG and World Bank (2007) Joint Guidance Note on Integrated Recovery Planning using Post
Conflict Needs Assessments and Transitional Results Frameworks, draft.
30
10. FOR INTEGRATED MISSIONS11
10. Integrated
Mission strategic
planning,
coordination and
monitoring
Sources: DPKO
(2010)
Exceeds minimum standards
Integrated Strategic Framework or equivalent
 Situation analysis includes the main gender
equality issues in relation to conflict (e.g. SGBV,
HIV/AIDS, land holding, displacement, access to
natural resources).
 All data in the Integrated Strategic Framework is
sex-disaggregated, or there is a specific reason
given for not disaggregating by sex.
 Gender equality is a central area of discussion in
the Integrated Strategic Framework retreat.
 Strategic objectives integrate the main gender
equality goals of the UN.
 Results statements integrate the main gender
equality objectives of the UN.
Coordination
 There is a separate thematic group on gender
equality, and other thematic groups pay adequate
attention to gender.
 Women’s machinery consulted on ISF.
Monitoring
 A dedicated report is produced on gender equality.
 Monitoring processes include attention to the main
gender equality strategic objectives and results
statements.
Meets minimum standard
Integrated Strategic Framework or equivalent
 Situation analysis includes the main gender
equality issues in relation to conflict (e.g. SGBV,
HIV/AIDS, land holding, displacement, access to
natural resources).
 All data in the Integrated Strategic Framework is
sex-disaggregated, or there is a specific reason
given for not disaggregating by sex.
 Strategic objectives integrate the main gender
equality goals of the UN.
 Results statements integrate the main gender
equality objectives of the UN.
Coordination
 Either there is a separate thematic group on gender
equality, or other thematic groups pay adequate
attention to gender.
 Women’s machinery consulted on ISF.
Monitoring
11
Integrated missions refer to peacekeeping or special political missions that take place
alongside a UNCT presence.
31
10. FOR INTEGRATED MISSIONS11

Monitoring processes include attention to the main
gender equality strategic objectives and results
statements.
Needs improvement
Four to six of the items above (under Meets Minimum
Standards) are met
Inadequate
Less than three of the items above (under Meets
Minimum Standards) are met
Missing
Not applicable
Sources: IMPP Guidelines: Role of the Field. Integrated Planning for UN Field Presences.
DPKO, January 2010.
32