sectoral perspectives on gender and social inclusion: irrigation (monograph 5)

7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Irrigation (Monograph 5)

1/104

Sectoral Perspectives onGender and Social Inclusion

I R R I G A T I O N

GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENT 2011

SECTORAL SERIES: MONOGRAPH 5


2/104

Sectoral Perspectives

Gender and Social Inclus

I R R I G A T I O

GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENSECTORAL SERIES: MONOGR


3/104

Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion

A co-publication o the Asian Development Bank, Department or International Dev

UK, and Te World Bank

2012, the Asian Development Bank, Department or International Developmenand Te World Bank

ISBN 978 9937 2 4848 8

Te ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessar

the views o the Asian Development Bank or its Board o Governors or the governm

represent; the Department or International Development, UK; or Te World Bank,

o Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.

Te Asian Development Bank, the Department or International Development, UK,

World Bank do not guarantee the accuracy o the data included in this publication and

responsibility or any consequence o their use.

Rights and Permissions

Te material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the Asian Development B

Department or International Development, UK, and Te World Bank encour

dissemination o their knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in pa

non-commercial purposes as long as ull attribution to this work is given.

Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to

Abakerli, Te World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, US

e-mail: [email protected]

Te Asian Development Bank

Srikunj Kamaladi, Ward No. 31

GPO Box 5017, Kathmandu, Nepal

Te UK Government Department or International Development

GPO Box 106

Ekantakuna Lalitpur Nepal


4/104

Preface

Executive Summary Abbreviations/Acronyms 1. Introduction and Overview 2. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion: Making It Happen in Irrigation 3. Checklist for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

Annexes Bibliography

List of Tables1.1 Inclusive, Pro-poor, and Gender-responsive Percentages of Annual Budget

of the Government of Nepal, 2009-20101.2 Summary Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of

Seven Sectors (Total of Program Budget), Including Direct and Indirect Contributio1.3 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Programs,

Kavre and Morang (%)

2.1 Policy Clauses on Representation of Women and the Excluded 2.2 Programs and the Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Provisions 2.3 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Sectoral Budgets of the

Community-Managed Irrigated Agriculture Sector Project and the IntegratedWater Resource Management Program

2.4 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Sectoral Budgets of District Development Committees, Morang and Kavre

3.1 Analysis of Barriers 3.2 Responses to Exclusion 3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation 3.4 Roles and Timing in Monitoring

List of Figures

Contents


5/104


2.2 Diversity Profile of National Federation of Irrigation Water Users Associations

Nepal, District Committees2.3 Diversity in Civil Personnel in Irrigation Sector 2.4 Diversity of Civil Personnel at Different Levels in Irrigation

List of Boxes

1.1 What is a REFLECT circle? 2.1 Gender Strategy

2.2 Vulnerable Groups Development Strategy 2.3 Livelihood Enhancement Plans

List of Annexes

1.1 Definitions of Socially Excluded Groups 1.2 Step 1 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Framework: Analysis of

Policy, Institutional, Program, and Monitoring and Evaluation Barriers1.3 List of Budgets Reviewed, FY 2009-2010, for Gender Equality and Social Inclus

Budgeting Covering 22 Programs and Annual Plans of Two Ministries2.1 Overview of Programs 2.2 Logical Framework of Selected Programs/Projects on Irrigation 2.3 Gender-responsive Budget Indicators for Divisional Irrigation Office 3.1 Policy Analysis Format 3.2 Format for Disaggregated Diversity Profile 3.3 Program and Budget Analysis Format


6/104

Background and Objectives of GSEA 2011/Sectoral Series: Monograph 5

Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI)have been recognized by the Government ofNepal and its development partners as criticalto equitable development. Particularly followingthe Second Peoples Movement (or Jana AndolanII) of April 2006, the efforts of the government,with the support of development partners, havebeen aimed at transforming the country into aninclusive and just state, with an eye to restruc-turing existing power relations to ensure therights of all citizens, regardless of caste, ethnic-ity, religion, gender, region, age, or class. TheInterim Constitution (2007) guarantees social

justice and affirmative action for women, Dalits,Adivasi Janajatis, Muslims, Madhesis, and otherexcluded or disadvantaged groups. It also pro-poses the future restructuring of the state toinstitutionalize an inclusive, democratic and pro-gressive governance system, maximizing peoplesparticipation based on devolution of power, and

the equitable distribution of resources.The Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment(GSEA), which was jointly produced by theWorld Bank (WB) and the UK Departmentof International Development (DFID), wasdelivered to the National Planning Commission

Preface

graphs with practical guidance on how tstream gender equality and social incluseven key service-delivery sectors: agreducation, forestry, health, irrigationinfrastructure (with an emphasis on roarural and urban water supply and sanitatwhich additional sectors may be addedfuture.

The current process of political transitvides a very significant opportunity forinclusion and equitable developmenInterim Constitution (2007) and the Year Interim Plan (2008-2010) reflect cments made for the social, political and ectransformation of Nepal. For the c

development partners, including DFIand ADB, mainstreaming gender equasocial inclusion in their overall work dated by global and national agency dirFor instance, in its country partnershiegy (2010-2014), ADB recognizes the address gender, ethnic, and caste discrim

through policy reform, targeted invesand the mainstreaming of equal oppmeasures in key sector investments, ato guide and ensure that in all ADB opand sectoral assistance, gender and socision concerns are adequately addressed


7/104


Nepal (World Bank, 2009) and the new strategy

being developed.In Nepal over the last few years there has been

a growing practice of developing gender- andinclusion-sensitive interventions, especially in thegovernments sector-wide programs supportedby multiple donors (e.g., Local Governance andCommunity Development Program [LGCDP],

health, education and rural transport SWAps[sector-wide approach]). Various sectors havealso developed their own GESI strategies (e.g.,forestry, agriculture, health and local develop-ment). This Series attempts to provide coherenceto GESI mainstreaming done by the government,donor agencies and other development actors,and to introduce a tool that can be commonlyapplied across sectors for mainstreaming in poli-cies, programming, budgeting, monitoring, andreporting. The aim of the Series is to help makethe Government of Nepals goal of universalaccess to key public services and resources a real-ity for all Nepali citizens. A major focus has thusbeen on identifying the specific barriers faced by

different groups and the resultant impact of thosebarriers; assessing policies, program modalities,and project mechanisms that have worked bestto overcome these barriers; and identifying themeasures that work best to mainstream GESI insectoral programming.

Process of Developing GSEA 2011/SectoralSeries Monographs

Each of the sectoral assessments consisted ofdocument review, meetings with sector spe-cialists and stakeholders, diversity and budgetanalysis, some fieldwork, wider consultative

mately 30 participants in each w

with key stakeholders, namely,project/program staff, donor agenresentative organizations. Literatua major source of information foment of these monographs; howevwork was also done by team membdistricts.

Draft versions prepared by side (health), Elvira GranerBijaya Bajracharya (agriculture/fore

Jennifer Appave (water supply aand Shuva Sharma (rural infrastwere used as background informaupon where possible. As the GEbegan to emerge as an importantADB, DFID and the World Banthe sectoral assessments should around this framework so that practhe monographs would become the approach. Due to its previousthe development and applicationframework, the Human Resource

Centre (HURDEC), a privateconsultancy firm of Nepal, was by WB/DFID to lead the develsectoral series. Jennifer Appave wasby ADB to work with the HURD

January to June 2010 to prepare tSwiss Agency for Development an

(SDC) provided technical supporadvisers.The team members who prepare

sectoral monographs in this series1) agricultureJennifer Appave anwith inputs from Yadab Chapagai


8/104

Chapagain; 6) rural infrastructureChhaya Jha,

with inputs from Kumar Updhayay (HURDEC)and Shuva Sharma; and 7) water supply and sani-tationJennifer Appave and Chhaya Jha. DeepaShakya and Sara Subba did the research for thesectoral monographs while Dharmendra Shakyaand Ram Bhusal worked on the budget analysisand staff diversity analysis. Sitaram Prasai and

Birbhadra Acharya (HURDEC) did the gender-responsive budget (GRB) assessment in Kavreand Morang districts. Carey Biron edited all themonographs except forestry, which was done byMary Hobley. Chhaya Jha guided the entire pro-cess, and was responsible for the final writing ofall the monographs under the guidance of LynnBennett, the lead researcher for GSEA.

The Sectoral Series Monograph would nothave made it to their current published formwithout the diligence and creativity of the Himal

Books team responsible for the final edito

design support. Led by Deepak Thapa, tincluded Amrita Limbu (editorial assistanChiran Ghimire (layout and design).

The monographs in this series shouldsidered as learning documents that wifor sectoral data and analysis to be updaimproved based on sectoral experien

sharing of good practices. The monogrthis series all have a common introducta common final chapter outlining the steps in the GESI mainstreaming procesis intended as a handy reference guide ftitioners. The sectoral monographs hapublished in alphabetical order, covericulture, education, forest, health, irrigati

infrastructure (roads), and rural and urbasupply and sanitation. Additional sectorincluded over time.

Notes

1 For the World Bank, the gender-mainstreaming strategy (2001) and operational policy and Bank procedures (2003) provide the policy framework for promoting gender issues as part of strategically focused analytical wodialogue and country assistance (World Bank 2006). The policy on gender and development (1998), Strategy ADB results framework articulate ADBs commitment to gender, and require that gender inequalities be addreaspects of ADB work (ADB 2010). The principal elements of DFIDs gender policy and strategy are contained(2000, 2002). A twin-track approach based on mainstreaming of gender issues in all areas and sectors, while mafocus on the empowerment of women as a disadvantaged group, has been adopted (Jensen et al, 2006).

2 The UK governments program of work to fight poverty in Nepal, 2009-2012.


9/104



10/104

The purpose of this monograph is twofold. First,it assesses the current situation of gender equal-ity and social inclusion (GESI) in Nepals irri-gation sector. It identifies the barriers faced bywomen, the poor and the excluded in accessingirrigation-related benefits and services. It consid-ers the policy, legislative and social barriers, andhow the various policies, processes and programs

have worked to address them. Second, it pro-vides practical guidance on how to improve exist-ing responses and take further action for moreequitable access to irrigation services and benefitsfor women, the poor and the excluded.

The Agriculture Perspective Plan and gov-ernment policy documents (such as the Tenth

Five-Year Plan, the Three-Year Interim Planand annual budgets) highlight irrigation as keyto raising household income and food securityin rural areas. But delays in improved irriga-tion technology inputs, government focus on bigschemes, and removal of subsidies in groundwa-ter irrigation have been major setbacks for the

poor, women and other excluded groups. Accessto irrigation is defined by issues attached toinvestment made in system construction, whichis available only to those who can invest, and thusexcludes women, the poor and the excluded moreacutely than others.

Executive Summary

of irrigation water is land based, makintion development inherently biased agalandless and land poor. Upstream-dowinequity is a major issue in access to irrIf farmers at the head take all the waneed for water-intensive crops, those the middle and tail end are left largely dof complete information and inability prehend government application forms a constraint for time-strapped rural wompoor and the excluded, who are then deon literate members of the community. policy mandates for inclusion in user there is inadequate voice for the excludedinclude formalization of user associatio

paperwork that gives access only to emembers; the need to participate in wameetings constrains the poor and wodoes night irrigation; caste and ethnicitsocial restrictions impact maintenance wpayment of irrigation fees, the politicizthe process in general, and inequitable lab

tributions. For the very poor, access to crthe installation of irrigation systems candifficult unless collateral-free loans are aTraditional practices of not eating food oing water touched by Dalits prevent thfrom accessing irrigation water.


11/104


(drip or groundwater irrigation) at a farmer or

small-group level is very low. The overall impactof the adoption of drip irrigation technology hasbeen found to be positive for women in termsof reduction of workload, access to food andincome, and bargaining power in intra-house-hold decisions. Irrigation powers, authorities andexpertise are mostly vested in men, and success-

ful performance as a water manager is stronglycorrelated with behavioral characteristics associ-ated more with men than with women.

Recent policies have shifted the sectors focusfrom the completely technical to one that rec-ognizes and addresses human, societal andenvironmental aspects. Issues of remoteness,farmer contributions for rehabilitation or con-

struction of new irrigation systems with govern-ment support, and participation of women andother users in water user associations have beenaddressed. But these policies lack explicit man-dates and mechanisms for ensuring inclusion ateach stage from program development to evalu-ation. Various programs are trying to address

these. Several small, medium and large irrigationschemes have been developed in different partsof the country, for both surface and groundwa-ter resources, with internal and external funding.We discuss three key programs: the Community-Managed Irrigated Agriculture Sector Project,the Integrated Water Resource Management

Program and the Non-conventional IrrigationTechnology Project. The former two focus onactivities that are likely to improve the assets andcapabilities of members of user groups, includ-ing women. The Community-Managed IrrigatedAgriculture Sector Project incorporates specific

structural issues constraining the

of women, the poor and the excludconventional Irrigation Technomeanwhile, complements the wstrategy and National Water Pon community-managed irrigatesystems, non-conventional irrigaogy, and capacity development of

water user associations are based oof social inclusion, regional balancdevelopment seeking the participatthe poor and excluded communiti

Efforts have also been made toportive environment for the pooSocial mobilization, group foinvesting in capacity building ar

interventions that have helped to tural barriers. However, the discotor reflects an assumption that tassociation approach will ensure vices for all group members. Self-eextreme poor and often socially ex(like Dalits) occurs due to time c

inability to make the financial conare generally required. Further, GESI-sensitive planning of activitit is difficult to understand how vices will reach difficult-to-reach gdesign and implementation thus nize that abilities, interests and necertainly vary, based on gender/calocation realities and will subseqflexibility in responses.

There are several practical opethat need to be put in place, incluof different policies to address an


12/104

disaggregated by sex, caste/ethnicity/regional

identity and location. Monitoring and reportingneed to capture information and track changesin access to assets and services, improvementsin voice and influence, and shifts in policy andlegal frameworks and the community-basedgovernance structures. In addition, it is neces-sary to put in place the mechanisms, tools and

organizational and human capacity essential foreffective GESI mainstreaming. Unless there areclear linkages between personal reward struc-tures and performance against GESI criteria, itis going to be difficult to institutionalize these

practices within the sector. Changing c

behaviors and structures requires that the longer-term exclusion issues are adsuch as promoting the conditions for employment in the irrigation sector investment in scholarships, changes to ttent of training courses of governmenand creating more supportive workin

ronments for women professionals. the most important issue to be addrthe positioning of women, the poor excluded as key actors in the sector, rathas passive beneficiaries.


13/104



14/104

ADB Asian Development BankCBO Community-Based OrganizationCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCMIASP Community-Managed Irrigated Agriculture Sector ProjectCOPE/PLA Client Oriented Provider Effi cient/Participatory Learning and ADDC District Development CommitteeDFID Department of International Development

DHS Demographic and Health SurveyDIDCs District Information and Documentation CentresDOA Department of AgricultureDOI Department of IrrigationDPMAS District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis SystemFMIS Farmers Management Irrigation SystemFY Fiscal YearGAD Gender and Development

GESI Gender Equality and Social InclusionGMCC Gender Mainstreaming Coordination CommitteeGRB Gender-Responsive BudgetGSEA Gender and Social Exclusion AssessmentGTZ/GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit/Deutsch

Gesellschaft fr Internationale ZusammenarbeitHURDEC Human Resource Development CentreIDE International Development Enterprises

ILO International Labour OrganizationIPC Integrated Planning CommitteeIWRMP Irrigation and Water Resources Management ProjectLFP Livelihoods and Forestry ProgramLGCDP Local Governance and Community Development ProgramM&E Monitoring and Evaluation

Abbreviations/Acronyms


15/104


MOHP Ministry of Health and Population

MOI Ministry of IrrigationMWCSW Ministry of Women, Children and Social WelfareNFIWUAN National Federation of Irrigation Water Users AssociationNHSP-IP 2 Nepal Health Sector Program-Implementation Plan 2NITP Non-conventional Irrigation Technology ProjectNLFS National Labour Force SurveyNLSS National Living Standards SurveyNPC National Planning Commission

NSCFP Nepal Swiss Community Forest ProjectNWP National Water PlanO&M Operation and MaintenanceOBC Other Backward ClassesPMAS Poverty Monitoring and Analysis SystemPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperSDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SMU Subproject Management UnitSSRP School Sector Reform ProgramSTW Shallow TubewellSWAp Sector-Wide ApproachUN United NationsUNICEF United Nations Childrens FundUNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for WomenVDC Village Development CommitteeWB World BankWCF Ward Citizens ForumWDO Womens Development Offi cerWSS Water Supply and SanitationWUA Water User Associations


16/104

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Overview


17/104



18/104

1.1 Introduction

This introduction and overview chapter definesthe dimensions of exclusion and presents theframework for gender equality and social inclu-sion (GESI) mainstreaming that has been usedfor all the sectoral monographs. It presents anoutline of the current situation of gender equalityand social inclusion in Nepal, and summarizes

the findings of the seven sectoral monographs. Itpresents the barriers that have been identified forwomen, the poor and the excluded, and discussesthe national, international and sectoral policymandates for GESI, the institutional structuresand mechanisms established by the governmentfor women and excluded groups, the sectoralfindings regarding institutional arrangements

for GESI, the diversity of civil personnel in thevarious sectors, and the working environment. Itsummarizes the findings regarding the existingpractice of gender-responsive budgeting (GRB),the results of GESI budgeting that was applied inthe seven sectors, and the monitoring and evalu-ation (M&E) system in use. The good practices,

lessons learned and way forward for the sectoralmonographs are also summarized.

1.2 Gender Equality and SocialInclusion Framework and Definingthe Excluded

For the last 60 years, since the 1951 overthrowof the Rana regime, Nepal has been strugglingto transform its feudal economic and politi-cal system, and to leave behind the ingrainedhierarchies of gender and caste. But thesedeep-seated systems for organizing the worldand structuring power relations do not change

and dependency of women are persist

patriarchal culture where, despite the ftheir labor was critical to the subsistencultural economy, women were little valnot inherit family land, and could be cathe husband favored a younger wife.

Persistent too is the chronic povgroups such as the Dalits at the bottomcaste hierarchy, who, in addition to the htion of being considered impure and thuntouchable, have faced structural baeducation and economic opportunities erations. The Adivasi Janajatis, or indgroups in Nepal, most of whom were ssome 250 years ago during the Gorkquests, have also found themselves placed

the Hindu caste hierarchy. Because of thebers (37% of the population) and their prowess, Adivasi Janajatis were given a the middle of the hierarchy rather thabottom, as they were in India. Ironicalthough it was a system imposed on themsiders, to preserve their own status in t

archy many Janajati groups adopted thdiscriminatory behavior towards Dalitspracticed by the high-caste rulers. Seven the caste Hindus in the plains, or Mof Nepal were looked down upon andas foreigners when they visited Kathmancapital of their own country.

The list of grievances is long and grouhave been historically excluded are mNepal. As development practitioners atoral specialists, we need to know at leasthing of this historical and cultural conthat we can design sectoral interventions


19/104


ways that bring equal benefit to men and women

from all these groups.This monograph is concerned with two major

dimensions of exclusion: economic and social. Asshown in Figure 1.1, when it comes to poverty, oreconomic exclusion, we are concerned with thepoor ofall castes, ethnicities, locations and sexes.

The socially excluded1 groups include women,Dalits, Adivasi Janajatis, Madhesis, Muslims,people with disabilities and people from geo-graphically remote areas. What we also need tokeep in mind is that the dimensions of exclusionare cross-cutting and cumulative. Some of our cli-

ents suffer some dimensions of exclusion but notothersfor example, a poor Brahmin womanfrom Gorkha Bazaar is privileged in terms of hercaste and her fairly well-connected location, butexcluded by her poverty and gender. Other cli-ents suffer from exclusion in almost all dimen-sions: for example, a poor Dalit woman in Jumlamust contend with four dimensionspoverty,caste, gender and remotenessof exclusion. Thefact that these dimensions all interact with eachother in different ways to frame the life chancesof the different individuals we are trying to reachis why we need to look at exclusion in a holistic

As will be elaborated in greater d

out this series, it is essential for each who the excluded in that sector areof their exclusion. The GESI framused for the sectoral monographs rbothformal institutions (the legal fpolicies of the sectoral ministry or eprocedures and components laid ouproject document) and informal intraditional norms of behavior foDalits or the networks of political present barriers to inclusion. Theran eye out for both of these dimenout the GESI process.

The framework follows five keyto mainstream GESI in sectoral

(visualized in Figure 1.2):

i. identifying the excluded andtheir exclusion from access opportunities in the sector;

ii. designing policy and/or responses that attempt to ad

riers in the program cycle;iii. implementation;iv. monitoring and evaluati

whether planned resourcehave reached women, the excluded; and (if M&E findneed)

v. adjustment/redesign and co

First step: Identification. This ping the existing status of womenthe socially excluded in the sectoraggregated qualitative and quantit

Economicallyexcluded

Poor of all Castes Ethnicities

Locations Genders

Dalits Madhesis Third gender

Women Adivasi Janajatis Muslims People with disabilities People of geographically

remote areas

Figure 1.1: Excluded Groups

Sociallyexcluded(context-specificissues of exclusionto be identified)


20/104

works) is necessary to understand

exactly how social inequities basedon gender, caste, religion, ethnic-ity and location have been cre-ated and/or maintained. The keyactors in these existing structuresalso need to be critically assessedin terms of their ability (and incen-tives) to change their behavior andvalues, and to transform processesand mechanisms.

In addition to assessing thebarriers constraining each groupfrom enjoying their rights, weneed to map existing policy andprogram responses (if any), and

assess whether these are address-ing, reducing or reinforcing thesebarriers (see Annex 1.2 for details).As we begin the design process,the situation prevailing in the sec-torthe set of policies and formal and informalinstitutions in placewill almost certainly be

benefiting some individuals and groups morethan others. Thus, we need to understand thepolitical economy of the sector or subsectorboth nationally and locally in the sites3 whereour projects or programs will be implemented.The stated intention of policies and procedureswill always be positive and aimed at deliver-ing services and benefits to all, but how do thepolicies work out on the ground for differentgroups? Do they deliver as intended; if not, whatis intervening to prevent or change the intendedoutcomes? Usually, it is merely gaps in the deliv-ery or communications systems that have been

Second and third steps: Design and

mentation. Once the sociocultural barr

weaknesses in the policy framework or system are understood, the job is to findaddress these through interventions. Trequire changes in policies, program aresource allocations, institutional arrangand staff incentives as well as in the moand reporting systems. Some things are change than others and a single operationot be able to make all the changes nerespond to the diagnosis provided by Steeven the larger, more intractable issuesbe fed into the policy dialogue with goveand other donors and be part of the long

4. Monit5. Adjus

Inputs: resourcreached

and exc Results Outcom

domain

1. Identify

Barriers of the excluded: who are excluded, causes

of their exclusion their existing situation,

barriers in accessingservices and opportuni-ties offered by the policy/project/program beingdesigned

Interventions to address barriers,based on review/assessment of GESIresponsiveness of Sector policy mandates Institutional arrangements &

accountabilities

Program interventions, budgetallocations

Selection criteria, control of deci-sions & funds

Monitoring and reporting

2. Design &3. Implement

Figure 1.2: Steps for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and


21/104


structures and mechanisms for routine work ongender and inclusion by technically competentindividuals; promote diversity in staff composi-

tion; and adopt sensitive human resources poli-cies for recruitment, promotion, transfer andperformance evaluation.

To design a project or program so that it willbe able to deliver real change and lasting progressfor women, the poor and the excluded, it is use-ful to consider the content presented in Figure1.3, which lays out three domains where changecan happen. These are also domains that defineexclusion and inclusion, and most projects andprograms include activities in one or all of theseareas. One important domain is access to assetsand services (i.e., health, education, and employ-

influence. In Nepal,

projects and what thecalls community-drivment approaches place emphasis on organizinto manage resources, dand construct infrastrselves. The way groupthe depth of the sociaprocess and the level ofin people from excludgive them genuine voiceover the group proceanother area where gocareful implementationing can make a major d

final domain where outions can make a differechanging policies, institut

and norms (i.e., the rulewhen intentionally or unintentionagainst the interests of excludenoted above, not every operation

the national policy level; but if ourevealed that certain policies are peexclusion of certain groups from thsector operation intends to deliverto be on the lookout for opportunipolicy changes on the agenda, antheir adoption. Often, even smallpolicies and procedures that are eence can bring about important ch

Nepals weak implementation cthat even positive policy provisinot implemented effectively. Meamal norms, social practices, value

Improving access toLIVELIHOOD ASSESTSAND SERVICE for ALL,including the poor and

the excluded

Supporting moreINCLUSIVE POLICIES ANDMINDSETS; changing the

Rules of the Game

Increasing theVOICE AND

INFLUENCE of ALL,including of the poor

and excluded

Figure 1.3: Domains of Change

Source: World Bank/DFID, 2006.


22/104

who hold power to reflect on and internalize the

need for such shifts. This long-term design-and-implementation commitment to gender equalityand inclusion-related activities is an essential ele-ment of mainstreaming GESI, and it requires aclear commitment from the management level tothis way of doing business.

Final steps: Monitoring, evaluation, and report-

ing. M&E systems need to be designed to col-lect disaggregated data on outputs, outcomesand development results, and to be linked intomanagement decision-making in such a way thatdata on inclusion failures automatically trig-ger project actions to understand and remedythe situation. At the output level, managementshould be able to ensure that the planned proj-

ect resources and actions have reached women,the poor and the excluded. Yet, disaggregatedintermediate outcomes also need to be tracked,such as the socioeconomic profile of user groupsand executive committees, labor groups, preg-nant women receiving antenatal visits, schoolattendance, new teachers hired, the placement

of water taps, etc. Finally, disaggregated dataon development results need to be collected andanalyzed. This may be done by the project, but insome cases with the right coordination it can alsobe done by periodic national-level sample surveyssuch as the National Living Standards Survey(NLSS), the Nepal Demographic and HealthSurvey (NDHS), or the National Labor ForceSurvey (NLFS), or through the decennial cen-sus. Indicators of results at this level include, forinstance, the time required to reach an improvedwater source or motorable road, primary-schoolcompletion rates, child mortality, increase in

1.3 Current Situation of Gender

Equality and Social Inclusion iNepal

Gender issues have been addressed dupast few decades of Nepals planned dment. Yet, it is only more recently thainclusion has entered the development dileading to recognition of other dimenexclusion in addition to gender.

1.3.1 Sector-wide barriers for women

poor and the excluded

Each of the sectoral monographs in thdemonstrates that economic, political ancultural institutional barriers exist for the poor and excluded groups, restricti

access to assets, services and opportunexercise their voice and influence. Waccess to assets and resources has imconsiderably through many targeted pwhile affirmative action strategies haveto increase their representation in userand committees in all sectors. Forest an

supply and sanitation have been the momendable sectors in promoting womenbership and participation, yet the opespace for women to voice their issues ancise their agency remains strongly restrsocietal rules/norms/beliefs that contdefine how women are valued and what or cannot do (World Bank/DFID 200sectoral monographs all show that womeity to make decisions and benefit from aresources and services (e.g., to take caredecisions when ill, to allocate time for atcommunity meetings, and to engage in liv


23/104


public sector through, for example, free education

and healthcare services have helped to increaseaccess for the poor. However, the need to meettheir daily subsistence needs, low literacy skills,and poor access to information about services andavailable resources limit the poor from benefitingfully from these programs. Further, self-exclusionof the very poor from group-based communitydevelopment activities is common due to lack oftime to contribute as well as lack of agency to influ-ence decisions. Since so many services and oppor-tunities flow through groups, this self-exclusionfurther reduces the access to resources and live-lihood opportunities of those most in need.Similarly, the high opportunity costs incurred inthe initial stages of group formation, with benefits

uncertain and only coming later, also restrict themembership and participation of the very poor inuser groups and committees.

Geographic location is a key determinant ofexclusion across all sectors, influencing the levelof access to public services such as schools, healthposts, agricultural extension agents and finance

institutions. For example, 38% of Janajatis in thehill regions have no access to a health post withinan hours walk. The lowest life expectancy (44)is found in the mountain district of Mugu, com-pared to 74 in Kathmandu. Only 32% of house-holds in Nepal can reach the nearest agriculturecenter within a 30-minute walk, and only 28%can reach the nearest bank in that time. A signifi-

cant part of the problem is that the governmentlacks the human resources necessary to deliverservices or offer effective outreach to the remot-est communitiesand the available governmentstaff are often reluctant to serve in remote areas,

services, resources and assets, and

to have voice and influence in deprocesses. This is particularly sdrinking-water facilities due to tHindu belief that Dalits are impollute a water source. Similarly, opment outcomes in education (e.grate for Madhesi Dalit women is health (e.g., Madhesi Dalit womenlowest health indicators) are a rebination of factors, including poawareness and the discriminatorybehavior of non-Dalits towards DDahal and Govindasamy 2008).

For Adivasi Janajatis, languaaround their cultural rights are th

cant barriers to accessing resourceing from services. These are complow access of the most disadvangroups to information on availablresources and procedures. MuslMadhesi groups, especially womegroups, face linguistic and socio

ers that affect their level of mobilto access services and participatesphere. Although there is greaterthe needs of people with disabilitcontinues to face social discrimintually no disability-friendly serviceavailable, especially in rural areas.

1.3.2 Policy and legal framewor

This section4 discusses the GESIwork and mandates at the internatand sectoral levels.


24/104

Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples, estab-

lish the fundamental rights of women, protectthe cultural rights of Adivasi Janajatis, declareuntouchability a legal offence, protect the rightsof children and establish the rights of the poor,people with disabilities, Muslims and Madhesis.

The Local Self-Governance Act, 1999,empowers local bodies and has made themmore accountable, particularly for local devel-opment activities. It directs local bodies to for-mulate their plans with the active involvementand participation of local people, focusing onthe special needs of the poor, and mandates20% representation of women on village andward-level development committees. But theseprovisions do not address issues of inequity and

vulnerability caused by gender, caste or ethnic-ity. The Local Self-Governance Regulationshave provided for the inclusion and prioritiza-tion of the poor and the excluded in develop-ment activities. At the district developmentcommittee (DDC) level, however, the regula-tions make no distinct provision for the social

and economic promotion of the poor and theexcluded in the duties, roles and responsibili-ties of the DDC. However, the DDC can formsubcommittees to address the needs of womenand the disadvantaged by including membersfrom nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),community-based organizations and civil soci-ety, and other experts.

The Gender Equality and Social InclusionOperational Strategy (2009) of the LocalGovernance and Community DevelopmentProgram (LGCDP) of the Ministry of LocalDevelopment (MLD)5 has provisioned for

tation committees in DDCs, and identi

roles and responsibilities of the GESI seMLD. The DDC expanded block-granlines to make a direct 15% budget allocawomen and 15% for people from excludedat the district level. The Village DevelCommittee Grant Operation Manual difor poor women, 5% for poor children afor other excluded groups in village devecommittees (VDCs) and municipalitimanual has also provided for integratening committees at the VDC level, with irepresentation from Dalit, Janajati andens organizations, from NGOs workinVDCs, school management committeeorganizations, political parties, and line a

It directs that 33% of members must be (This is only a sample of provisions that ative from a gender and inclusion perspeseveral others exist as well.6)

International commitments

Nepal has ratified as many as 16 inter

human rights instruments, including tional conventions and covenants on (United Nations [UN] Convention Elimination of Discrimination against WBeijing Platform of Action), child righConvention on the Rights of the Childenous peoples rights (ILO Conventioand racial discrimination (UN Conven

the Elimination of Racial Discriminathas committed to international agreemtargets (Millennium Development Gofor womens empowerment, education, dwater and sanitation, health, hunger and

S l G d d S l l


25/104


Sectoral policies: Gender equality and social

inclusion policy provisions in the seven sectorsFrom our review, we find that commitments toGESI and progressive policy mandates have beenmade across the seven sectors, albeit to varyingdegrees. Revisions in policies have allowed pro-grams addressing access to services for specificgroups to be developed and implementedforinstance, free primary education, scholarships forgirls and Dalits, multilingual education, incentiveschemes for out-of-school children, universaland targeted free healthcare, safe delivery incen-tive schemes, quotas for women in communitygroups established by all the sectors, agriculture-related subsidies for the excluded, subsidies forpoor households to build latrines, and so on.

SWAp (sector-wide approach) is increas-ingly being followed in Nepal, allowing for donorharmonization and more concerted efforts toaddress gender and inclusion issues. SWApsin health, education, and transportationtheNepal Health Sector Program-ImplementationPlan 2 [NHSP-IP 2] (2010-2015), School

Sector Reform Program (SSRP) (2009-2015),and rural transportation infrastructure SWAp,respectivelyhave directives to address bar-riers experienced by women, the poor and theexcluded. The NHSP-IP 2 includes a specificobjective to address sociocultural barriers, areflection of the governments shift to recogniz-ing the need to address deeply embedded social

norms and practices that affect health outcomes.GESI strategies have been included in theNHSP-IP 2, and strategies have been preparedfor the agriculture and forest sectors thoughthese have not yet been implemented.

these could contribute more effe

resentatives from excluded grouselected by their own communitnisms were available for more inclutation to influence decisions, andbetter monitoring by the relevanPolicy provisions for representatand the excluded in user groupstees, with specific guidance for reppost-holding positions, have also established practice. The rural wasanitation (WSS) national policyhas a mandate of 30% of women and committees, while for Dalitstoo, there are provisions for (e.g., in health facility operation

ment committees, farmer groups,groups, water supply users comwater users associations). The minfrastructure sectors, such as WSand irrigation, have recognized thhave in the operation and managesectors and have developed policie

their participation, especially in tion and management phases. Buopment is weaker in ensuring thpoor and the excluded have voicelocal-level decision-making procnot effectively addressed the roleand elite capture often has in inflto and utilization of resources a

these sectors.Policies for public and social aud

many sectors (health, WSS, rural rappreciated as these increase downability of service providers. Im


26/104

from the audits, and monitoring to ensure that

full and correct processes are being implemented.Many policy revisions have focused on improv-ing access to resources and services, but withoutaddressing the structural issues that cause theexclusion of these groups. Thus, for example,the Agriculture Perspective Plan, the overarch-ing policy framework guiding the agriculture sec-tor, ignores key land-specific issues, and insteaddeals primarily with how to increase immediateproduction outputs rather than with strategicand structural issues related to resource manage-ment, governance and structural agrarian reform.In the forest sector, positive provisions are beingincreasingly implemented in community for-estry, which has become more GESI responsive.

But there is no recognition by decision makersthat 75% of the national forests are barred tociviliansany use is illegal and punitive action isnormal, impacting primarily on women, the poorand the excluded.

Almost all sectors provide specific support towomen but efforts to address the structural causes

of gender-based discrimination are almost non-existent. Only very recently has the governmentdeveloped a national plan of action on gender-based violence, with the health sector recogniz-ing violence against women and girls as a publichealth issue. But these aspects are not integratedin the policies developed in other sectorsforinstance, the seed policy in the agriculture sector

is considered liberal, but does not recognize thatseed transactions are male dominated, and bymen of higher-income groups. Similarly, in theforest and WSS sectors, affirmative action poli-cies are in place to ensure the representation of

bodies and increasing access to sectoral re

with far less recognition of the structurof division of labor, including the implof gender-specific responsibilities of chbreast-feeding and taking care of the illare almost no policies that provide womsufficient support to manage such respties alongside professional growth.

In no sector have government agenciedefined who constitute the excluded, interchangeable use of terminology denoexcluded, the disadvantaged and the alized creates confusion. There are prfor women, Dalits and Janajatis (e.g., for ships, representation and access to fundhave thus been recognized as excluded

but there is hardly any mention of other egroups (e.g., Muslims, other backward clOBCs, and Madhesis) or effort to addcauses of their exclusion. There are onsectoral policies mandating sex- and canicity/location-disaggregated data and aevidence for monitoring. For example, t

cation and health sectors management ition systems (MIS) have limited disaggrthough a pilot for reporting caste/ethniaggregated data is ongoing in health. Test sectors recently revised MIS incoGESI-sensitive indicators, but these stto be implemented. However, positive eand initiatives do exist in several program

in the forest sector, the Livelihoods and FProgram (LFP) has established livelihosocial inclusion monitoring, which ndemands disaggregated data but also anoutcome levels for different social groups



27/104


knowledge, but by other means that build under-

standing and increase the internalization of equal-ity, inclusion and social justice principles. A majorpart of this will need to be based on an improvedunderstanding among policy-makers, administra-tors and sector employees of the specific barrierspreventing different social groups from accessingand using services and resources as well as a com-mitment within the respective sectors to develop,budget, implement and monitor mechanisms andprocesses to overcome these barriers.

1.3.3 National and institutional mechanisms

for gender equality and social inclusion

The government has created various institu-tional mechanisms and structures over the years

to address gender and inclusion issues, from thecentral to the district and VDC levels.

Central level

The National Planning Commission (NPC)has a Social Development Division responsiblefor addressing womens empowerment issues.

NPCs Agriculture and Rural InfrastructureDevelopment Division has the responsibil-ity to work on social inclusion. The Ministry ofWomen, Children and Social Welfare (MWCSW)has been implementing women-focused programstargeted at reaching disadvantaged and marginalizedgroups such as children, senior citizens and peo-ple with disabilities. Through its Department of

Womens Development, the Ministry has wom-ens development offices in 75 districts managedby Womens Development Officers (WDOs).MLD, responsible for social inclusion, has aDalit and Adivasi Janajati coordination commit-

through improved protection o

Finally, while gender focal pointin NPC and all ministries and depmandated to work on gender issbeen unable to deliver effectively dreasons, including their lack of absence of any institutionalized lintheir gender mandate and the maministries as well as having no speor resources for gender-related wo

District level

WDOs are present in each dthe Department of Womens MWCSW, where they head Development Office and are mand

stream gender and child rights inDDCs have a social committee Development Officer, who is aas the gender focal point for thwhole. Various watchdog commitformed, such as the Indigenous ECoordination Committee and

Upliftment District Coordinatiowith representation from polThe Gender Mainstreaming Committee (GMCC), under the Wrepresentation from line agencies,monitoring and coordinating distriwork. The GESI Implementatioformed by the GESI strategy of L

(with the Local Development Othe WDO as vice-chair, the sociaofficer as member-secretary, antion of GMCC, Dalit and Janajatcommittees, and district-level N


28/104

established at higher levels but most have

experienced inadequate resources and weakinstitutional mechanisms, and thus have notbeen effective in protecting and furthering theGESI cause. In addition, there are overlapsbetween MWCSW and the National WomensCommission and only minimal efforts have beenmade to coordinate between the different com-missions and the representative institutions of

women, Dalits and Janajatis for collaborativeefforts on gender and social inclusion.

VDC/municipality level

While there is no institutional mechanism withspecific responsibility for GESI in VDCs ormunicipalities, the representative Integrated

Planning Committees in each VDC are sup-posed to have members representing the inter-ests of women, Janajatis, Dalits and NGOs, asmandated in the VDC Grant Operation Manual,and also have the general responsibility of ensur-ing that these issues are addressed. A potentiallyvery effective new structure, established by the

VDC Grant Operation Manual and GESI strat-egy of LGCDP/MLD 2009, are the village andward citizens forums. These create spaces forall citizens, including women, the poor and theexcluded, to discuss, negotiate, prioritize andcoordinate development efforts, and especiallythe allocation of block grants in their area, ensur-ing that they are both inclusive and equitable.

A supervisory/monitoring committee has beenmandated by the LGCDP/MLD GESI strategy.This mechanism has the responsibility to moni-tor GESI-related aspects of projects/programs.Finally, there are a number of community groups,

Sectoral issues

Responsibility for GESI in the sectorsrently with the gender focal points, discussed above, have not been able teffectively. Some sectors (agriculturcation and forest) have institutionatures to address GESI issues specificainstance, the Gender Equity and EnvirDivision within the Ministry of Agricult

Cooperatives (MOAC) and the GenderDevelopment Section and Inclusive EdSection within the Department of EdThe Gender Equity and Environment Dhas a very narrow focus on gender and,eral, even when their mandate is broacovers other excluded groups these GES

tutional structures do not have much inon the policies and programs of their reministries. For one, the high turnover ernment staff in ministries/departmentin changes in the political will and commtowards GESI issues. For example, thebeen frequent changes of staff charged w

role of coordinating the Gender Equity WGroup which is meant to facilitate thementation of the GESI strategy in the fotor. This constant turnover in the leaderdecreased the effectiveness of this grouMinistry of Health and Population (Mhas planned to establish a GESI unit, bustill in process.

Clearly defined responsibilities for anunit, and routine working procedures lithe main activities in the sector, are essethese structures to be useful. Additionaignated gender focal points, or even th



29/104


planning up to monitoring processes remainlimited. Additionally, systems have not beenrevised to enable them to do their work (e.g.,planning and monitoring processes/formats donot demand GESI mainstreaming). Although

all sectors include GESI issues in their policies,strategies, and procedures, there are no sanc-tions for not achieving or improving GESI out-comes in the sector. The broader institutionalculture might also not encourage (or, indeed,might actively discourage) GESI issues beingraised or taken seriously. In the forest sector, forexample, some government staff reported that

other staff would simply laugh if they broughtup social issues in a meeting. As such, transform-ing institutional culture clearly requires adoptinginnovative ways (e.g., appreciative inquiry, peermonitoring) to internalize and institutionalize

ter serve Ne

including thobeen historic(Social IncluGroup 20098

needed to mafiles more iregard to womfrom excluded

to develop hupolicies that ainclusion sensiof personnel oment in the sevfinds the follow

Diversity sta

there are 41,1bers (of whowomen, i.e., 1

sectors we reviewed. Compared tpopulation,10 there is overreprBrahmins/Chhetris and Newars marily in key decision-making pos

an equal proportion of OBCs (mgazetted technical positions), whigroups are underrepresented (Figu

There are 4,594 staff at the gawhom 7.27% are women. AmonBrahmins/Chhetris comprise th69.22%, and Dalits the fewest atThe highest presence of women12

class non-gazetted positions (a majare in the health sector as assistawives and mother-and-child heFigure 1.5).

Across sectors, the highest pa

Figure 1.4: Diversity Profile of Civil Service Personnel in Seven Sectors

Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; assessment by study team.

Muslim (1%)

OBC (15%)

B/C Madhesi (3%)

Name not mentioned (2%)

Dalit Hill (1%)

Dalit Madhesi (1%)

Janajati Hill (9%)

B/C Hill (56%)

Janajati Tarai (4%)

Newar (8%)


30/104

degree to which government funding foissues is channeled through targeted progintegrated into mainstream programs.

NPC issues guidelines directing ministline agencies in the formulation of their pbudgets. In close coordination with the Mof Finance (MOF), NPC identifies the m

specific and sector-specific budget. Ternments annual budget speech presentypes of analysis of the budget from aand inclusion perspective: expendituresport of inclusive development and targe

tion sector, but have the lowest representation ineducation. Similarly, Hill Dalits have better rep-resentation in rural infrastructure and MadhesiDalits in agriculture as compared to other sectors.

1.3.4 Gender-responsive budgeting and

gender equality and social inclusion

budgetingThis section analyzes allocations/expenditures ofthe government and programs budget to exam-ine the extent to which resources are being spenton sector activities that are expected in some

Figure 1.5: Diversity Profile of Civil Service Personnel by Level, Sex, Caste, and Ethnicity

Note: DHF/MDalit Hill female/male; DMF/MDalit Madhesi female/male; JOHF/MJanajati others Hill female/maothers Tarai female/male; JNF/MJanajati Newar female/male; BCHF/MBrahmin/Chhetri Hill female/male; BCMF/Madhesi female/male; OMF/MOBC Madhesi groups female/male; MF/MMuslim female/male.

Source: Nijamati Kitabkhana, February 2010; grouped for the study based on GSEA caste/ethnic groupings.

DHF JOHF JNF BCMFDMF JOTF BCHF OMFDHM JOHM JNM BCMMDMM JOTM BCHM O

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Gazetted Non-gazetted Gradeless



31/104

p

Indicators are not specified for inclusive devel-opment/targeted programs, but there are indi-

cators for GRB13 and pro-poor budgeting.14Our discussions with Ministry and line agencystaff, however, indicate that the guidelines arenot clear, and that, as noted earlier, it is typi-cally left to the budget officer to categorize andscore the various budget lines to the best of his(it is primarily men) understanding. Some ofthe ministries were not even aware of the inclu-sive development and targeted program analysiswhile at the district level none of the line agen-cies had applied these budgeting processes. Thebudget speech of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010categorized high percentages of expenditures inall sectors as pro-poor and gender responsive, butwith low expenditures for inclusive development

and targeted programming (Table 1.1).Since the scoring and indicators were not

clear for the other two kinds of budgeting, wehave focused on reviewing the governmentsGRB indicators, identifying what sub-indicators

grams and projects, while a GRB been formed within the budget div

with representation from MWNPC and UN Women.

According to the GRB guideliposed program in the sector hasas per the indicators developed bresponsive Budgeting Committee,aspects of gender sensitivity (particity building, benefit sharing, increemployment and income-earning and reduction in womens workloallocated 20 potential marks each. Fitem/activity, the officer doing the assess what percentage of the expenbenefits women. Programs scorinmore are classified as directly respon

those scoring 20 to 50 as indirectlythose scoring less than 20 as neutra

Sector staff categorize all expein the sectoral budget into these thbased on the five indicators of g

Table 1.1: Inclusive, Pro-poor, and Gender-responsive Percentages of Annual Budget of the Governme2009-2010

Sector

FY 2009-2010 budget

(in 000Nepalirupees)

Inclusivedevelopment andtargeted programs

Gender-responsive budget

Allocation %Directly

supportive%

Indirectlysupportive

% Total % A

Agriculture 7,876,587 333,900 4.24 2,015,617 25.59 5,587,704 70.94 7,603,321 96.53 6

Education 46,616,672 18,368,433 39.40 1,300,659 2.79 22,187,486 47.60 23,488,145 50.39 40

Forest 3,449,974 60,453 1.75 71,880 2.08 1,826,637 52.95 1,898,517 55.03 1

Health 17,840,466 - - 7,156,379 40.11 10,243,816 57.42 17,400,195 97.53 10

Irrigation 7,761,390 - - 7,500 0.10 7,103,102 91.52 7,110,602 91.62 6Ruralinfrastructure

35,693,647 4,280,025 11.99 12,996,863 36.41 12,588,029 35.27 25,584,892 71.68 34

Water andsanitation

29,500,624 - - 6,806,427 23.07 18,740,825 63.53 25,547,252 86.60 13

Source: Annexes 8a, 8b, and 8c, Annual Budget, Government of Nepal, FY 2009-2010.


32/104

tend to be better at capturing expenditures for

targeted womens programs than at picking upexpenditures for efforts made in universal pro-grams to mainstream GESI. Finally, of course,the GRB exercise focuses only on gender anddoes not capture expenditures aimed at increas-ing outreach to excluded groups.

Gender equality and social inclusion budget

analysis

While we have assessed the existing GRB practiceand indicators used, and identified possible sub-indicators for GRB analysis in the different sec-tors, we have also developed and applied our owntentative GESI budgeting methodology.17 This isintended to capture expenditures that reach and

support excluded groups and those that supportwomen. Although there is no single rule abouthow to determine whether public expenditureis discriminatory or equality enhancing, thereare some general principles discussed in gender-budgeting literature, which we have adapted.18Our efforts here are intended as a first step toidentifying the approximant resource flows tothese different purposes; but much more workand wider consultation are needed. We hopethat this initial attempt can become the basis forfurther collective work with MOF, the Gender-

responsive Budgeting Committee, secto

istries, donor agencies such as UN WomNGOs which are interested in trackingexpenditures.

Again, the GESI budget analysis what activities have been planned/implethat provide direct, indirect and neutral to women, the poor and excluded sociato address the barriers they experience in

ing resources and benefits from the sechave followed the GRB practice of usincategories but have not followed the GRcators as they have not been very effeapplication across the sectors. The GESIanalysis was carried out at two levels. Fassessed national-level expenditures in th

using the above criteria. We reviewed a22 programs and two annual plans (see1.1 for the list of budgets reviewed). Ourresulted in the breakdown shown in Tab

The next step was to move to the distrto ground both the national-level GRget exercise and our own GESI analysidistricts,19 Kavre and Morang. We firstwith the line agency staff to assess the approach to GRB they were using in etor. In consultations at the district level,shared which indicators were relevant t

Table 1.2: Summary Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Seven Sectors (Total oIncluding Direct and Indirect Contributions

S.N. Sector Total Nepali rupees

(000) (programs)Women Poor Dalits Janajatis Muslims OBCs Location D

1 Agriculture 1,622,500.0 1.64 45.00

2 Education 14,936,192.0 6.91 14.46 5.61 3.52 11.55

3 Forest 3,449,974.0 0.49 4.83 0.63

4 Healtha 13,254,910.0 18.41 15.74 2.72

5 Irrigation 2,411,912.9 4.23 80.04 3.93 3.93 1.72 1.65

6 R l i f t t b 14 279 739 0 9 99 38 27 1 45



33/104

the gender responsiveness of items in the sec-toral budgets. They said that they were awareof a number of positive policy provisions ineach sector mandating that benefits reach girls/women, the poor and the excluded, but they feltthat these automatically ensured that the entirebudget would be responsive to women or specificexcluded groups. In reality, this has proven to bea problematic assumption.

Next, we worked with the line agency staff todo a GESI analysis of the district-level healthbudgets, using directly supportive, indirectlysupportive and neutral categories.20 The resultsare shown in Table 1.3.

Effort has been made by the different minis-tries/programs to address the barriers for womenand poor groups but for other groups the assump-tion seems to be that benefits will automaticallyreach them through implemented activities. The

structural issues that constrain theindicates that a more conscious the need to address such socioculerment and governance issues, altechnical sector services, is require

The key issues are the criteria, process of budget review. Governclassifies a majority of activities indirectly contributing to women,ernment directives regarding serA deeper analysis, however, indactivities are budgeted to addregender-based barriers women expare necessary even within a univer

order that structural barriers are amore even playing field createdGESI be considered to have been mThis also highlights the need for aanalysis so that the budget speech

Table 1.3: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Programs, Kavre and Moran

S.N. Sector

Total Nepali

rupees(Morang, Kavre)

Women Poor Dalits Janajatis Muslims OBCs Location Disabil

1 Agriculture 63,355,341 12.46 1.35 0.29 0.15

2 Education 1,336,366,884 14.20 5.08 0.08 0.09 0.

3 Forest 2,874,100 39.65 22.50

4 Healtha 78,720,450 53.05

5 Irrigation 72,695,000 1.32

6Rural

infrastructureb 142,369,146 - - - - - - -

7Water andsanitationc

132,054,576 0.59 1.59

Total 1,828,435,497 13.25 0.08 3.73 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.

Notes:a Excluding contribution of 0.34-0.42% to Janajatis, Muslims, Madhesis.b All items were found neutral, with the district staff arguing that the infrastructure is for everyone and hence cannot be targetedtrue that we cannot build roads for Dalits, for women, etc.c Excluding contribution of 0.10-0.16% to Dalits, Janajatis, adolescents, elderly, disabled.Source: Kavre and Morang annual programs, FY 2008-2009.


34/104

address the fact that it is mostly the extreme poor

and often socially excluded groups such as Dalitswho are either excluded or exclude themselvesfrom joining groups. While groups are indeed apowerful mechanism to improve access to servicesand inputs, relying solely on this model withoutassessing its suitability for all presents a significantrisk that those most in need will not gain access.Overall, our work on gender and inclusion budg-

eting indicates that for effective and systematicbudgeting, more rigorous work has to be done, inparticular with the Gender-responsive BudgetingCommittee. There has to be a consensus to takegender and inclusion budgeting together; exist-ing indicators and sub-indicators for GRB needto be revised and sharpened; unique issues of

social groups need to be addressed; and the pro-cess must be improved, so that it is not left to theunderstanding of just one desk officer.

1.3.5 Program responses: Gender equality

and social inclusion approaches

This section highlights the program responsesand efforts across the sectors to promote andmainstream a more inclusive service-deliveryapproach. We also discuss measures and prac-tices that have been found to be effective and suc-cessful in improving access to sector services andlivelihood opportunities for women, the poorand excluded groupsincreasing their voice andinfluence and supporting changes in the rules of

the game.

Increasing access to assets and services

Significant progress has been made in theservice-delivery sectors in increasing outreach

and equity, enhance quality and impro

ciency through scholarships and incentgirls, Dalits and Adivasi Janajatis. Still, ing challenges include effective implemeof the multilingual education policy, ming of scholarship distribution, and efunding to meet the opportunity costspoorest and most disadvantaged commThere is also a need to look more carefu

the selection procedures and internalnance of the school management commiensure that they fulfil their potential foparents from all groups a say in the runtheir local school.

Likewise, in the health sector, goveinitiatives of pro-poor targeted free he

policies and the Aama (Mother) Progmaternity services have had considerablein reducing the economic constraints of tand the social constraints of women, andally improving health indicators. The developed NHSP-IP 2 has various actiaddress the barriers of women, the poor excluded, and has made very impressivwith disaggregated objectives and indicat

In the infrastructure-related sectors, awater supply has improved substantially past few decades. However, the low prioresources accorded to sanitation have resuneven coverage, especially for the very pin the Tarai, where lack of land poses a

tional challenge. The construction of rurhas improved access to markets, schoolsposts, government offices, and so forth, aprovided work opportunities for womenpoor in road-building groups. In the irriga



35/104

efits from community forestry management and

agricultural extension services and support.

Building voice and influence of excluded groups

Across the sectors, social mobilization as a pro-cess has been one of the main tools for organizingpeople for easier and more efficient transfer ofassets and services, and also for improving reachand access. Groups (forest users, farmers, moth-

ers, water and sanitation users, etc) are mobilizedfor their labor and financial contributions to sup-port the implementation, delivery and manage-ment of services. Policy directives setting quotasfor women and excluded groups have improvedtheir representation in user groups and executivecommittees, which has been important in creat-

ing operational space for the voice and interestsof these groups to be addressed.

However, evidence from the sectoral assess-ments indicates that these groups are, in manycases, still highly exclusionary of the extremepoor and socially disadvantaged groups, oftenreflecting and even reinforcing existing powerstructures. In addition, although representa-tion of women is generally high in user groupsand executive committees, their active involve-ment in decision-making processes is not com-

mensurate with their formal prese

group-based approach to developincreased access to assets and serinsufficient understanding of andbarriers faced by excluded groupsbuild their capacity to influence ing processes. In many of these wthe approach is more transactionformational,21 and only in those

REFLECT-type processes (see Bbeen adopted has there been effecting of voice (e.g., Participatory Leby GTZ/GIZ, COPE/PLA [CProvider Efficient/Participatory Action] process by Support for SafProgram/UN Population Fund an

by CARE/Nepal Family Health PSome notable networks and fe

been able to advocate successfullytheir members. The Federation oForest Users has become an impcal player throughout the counFederation of Water and SanNepal and Nepal Federation ofAssociation are additional examplety groups organizing and mobilito voice their interests, influence psion makers as well as demand and transparency from service pUnited Nations Childrens Fundsupported womens federations

committees are a force to be reckmany districts. Still, even in these ond-tier organizations, importantregarding inclusion and diversitybership, decision-making positio

Box 1.1: What is a REFLECT circle?

REFLECT circle is a forum where the disadvantaged are

brought together to identify, analyse and take actions on issues

that directly affect them. The main purpose of the circle is the

empowerment of the poor and the excluded. The facilitator ofthe circle helps educate members on their rights and support

them to take actions to ensure access to services. It helps build

the capacity of members to advocate and lobby for their rights.

The circle not only takes up issues of the disadvantaged, it also

encourages members to fight for the rights of the community


36/104

face in accessing assets and services. The forest

sector, for instance, has made notable progress inthis area by addressing GESI issues in sector pro-gramming and operational practice. LFPs pro-poor and social inclusion strategy has been effectivein developing a common understanding of socialexclusion issues as well as strategic approaches todeal with them. Similarly, the health and educa-tion sectors have been progressive through the

previously mentioned NHSP-IP 2, Educationfor All and SSRP policies. However, the infor-mal rules of the gamethe sociocultural values,beliefs and attitudes that underlie and shape dis-criminatory behavior and normscontinue toplay a strong and influential role in creating barri-ers for women, the poor and excluded groups. It is

in this area that substantive efforts are needed toovercome deep-seated resistance to changing dis-criminatory practices, both in the workplace andin community groups. Behavior change withoutsystemic structural change in sector institutions,communities and families will continue to repro-duce the current gap between good policies andpoor implementation. Unfortunately, however,sufficient and sustained work along these lineswas not evident in any sector.

1.3.6 Monitoring and reporting

Ministries, including MLD, report on M&Eformats issued by NPC (specifically the PovertyMonitoring Division, which has the key respon-

sibility to work in this area). For effective GESImainstreaming, integrating gender and socialinclusion into M&E systems is crucial. NPChas established a system of gender coding for the10th Plan/PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy

in 22 districts and could potentially be for poverty monitoring in the new federonce these are determined. But, at presether system is actively used.

To a certain extent, the education ansectoral information management systprovide disaggregated information. Thetion sector has the most well-establishedof monitoring and reporting, providin

prehensive, high-quality and disaggregatby sex and caste/ethnic group on, amonthings, student enrolment and numbers, and non-teaching staff, student attendascholarship allocation. However, it only dgates social groups by Dalit and Janajati differentiating the subgroups within whi

are more disadvantaged than others. Morecategories do not capture groups like the Mother backward classes/OBCs or Muslimof which have low education outcomes ato be tracked. Similarly, the current momechanisms of the health sector collect age-disaggregated data, but informationvice utilization by the poor and the excnot integrated. The sector is piloting canicity-disaggregated data but managing suamounts of data has been challenging.

The WSS, forest and agriculture maintain disaggregated data on membersparticipation of women in the user groumittees and key decision-making positio

also disaggregating user-group data byethnicity. The MOFSC also incorporatetoring indicators sensitive to gender, povsocial equity in its MIS, but this needs to bmented more systematically. In the fores



37/104

lack of disaggregated indicators or inclusive objec-tive statements. Only in the recent NHSP-IP 2(health) is there consistent demand for disag-gregated data at the results level, or for measur-ing any shift in sociocultural behavior. In SSRP(education) there is a gap, with very little demandfor disaggregated measurements of progress asthe indicators are mostly quantitative and neutralfrom a GESI perspective. Still, many programs do

have indicators for representation by women andexcluded communities in various groups and com-mittees. Nepal Water and Health, for instance,has very well-disaggregated indicators, e.g., Atleast 90% of completed projects [in which 90% ofthe beneficiaries are the poor and the excluded]remain fully functional 3 years after the projects

completion.The sectoral M&E review indicates that thereare efforts at collecting disaggregated data andthat sex-disaggregated data are most commonlyrequested. But consistent disaggregation againstall social groups with regional identities (womenand men of Hill and Madhesi Dalits, Adivasi

Janajatis [except Newars], Newars, Muslims,OBCs, Hill and Madhesi Brahmins/Chhetris)is not followed. There are very few sectors withexamples of an information management systemthat can handle such data (probably only LFPand NSCFP in forestry, and rural WSS). WithNPC formats still not demanding such disaggre-gation nor asking for progress against outcomes

in disaggregated forms, monitoring and report-ing are a key area for more intense mainstream-ing of gender and inclusion.

1.3.7 Good practices and lessons learned

Good practices

Improved targeting and inclusion

well-being rankingand proxy meancator targeting) provide a powerfidentifying the poor and the excgram interventions. Community ally carry out such rankings theeconomic and social indicators households. In education, this is

by proxy means testing to target tertiary scholarship and work-sEvidence that this combination his still to come in, but there is conpractitioners that it can bring togand subjective rankings. This istarget resources and services, and

equitable distribution. The foresttesting a combined community-bameans testing approach to identifyhouseholds, with independent verto standardize approaches and reconfusion at the local level.

Empowerment and community ed

mobilization based on individual empowerment through efforts to utransform the unjust structures theveryday lives and livelihoods hastive in building the voice of the expoor as well as their capacity to sions. Where communities have bto reflect on the social norms th

untouchability, gender-based discviolence against women, there has bin access to services and greater icommunity-level planning for thesREFLECT-type approaches have


38/104

lack of access to information about entitlements,services and procedures to obtain availableresources is a major component of the exclusionfaced by women, the poor and excluded groups.Knowledge is power and more educated elitegroups who have time to network in the districtcenters and create contacts with local politiciansare more likely to know the details of incomingdevelopment programs or new government poli-

ciesand to use this information to their advan-tage. Setting quorums for key meetings has beeneffective in ensuring that all households are ade-quately represented and informed. If a quorumis not met, project staff members are requiredto cancel meetings until the required number ofhouseholds is present.

Building a strong civil society able to representand advocate for changes in the rules of thegame, has been a major advance in some of thesectors (e.g., Federation of Community ForestUsers, Nepal in the forest sector). However,these organizations and federations also need toaddress issues of diversity and inclusion withintheir own structures, where representation ofexcluded caste and ethnic groups is typically low.Another danger with such NGOs or second-tiergroups is that they can be captured by politicalparties.

Policy directives for representation/participation.Setting quotas for women and excluded groupsin user groups/committees, along with creating

training opportunities, has ensured their rep-resentation and participation in developmentactivities as well as strengthened their access toresources and benefits. Still, further efforts areneeded to reach socially excluded groups and

entry. These policies (such as those aby NSCFP) have improved inclusiveindividual organizations and among pidentified groups to be prioritized, estabenchmarks for diverse representationcategories, and followed up with affiaction to recruit people from discrimgroups until their representation in staff categories, committees and workin

is ensured, reflecting their representaNepals population.

Changing internal budgeting and mo

systems to track resource allocation effwomen, the poor and the excluded hsuccessfully employed by a number grams. This has positively evolved the

which these institutions allocate andservices and enabled programs to idencauses of changes in livelihood and sociasion outcomes. LFP (through its livand social inclusion monitoring) uses thdomains (see Figure 1.3) of change tchange in voice, influence and agency, aassets and services, and also whether tand excluded have been able to change and institutions in their favor.

Social accountability mechanisms. Sociaand similar tools have provided increasingtunities for civil society, including comgroups, to press for greater accountabiresponsiveness from service providers. Th

become accepted tools and processes, need to be implemented more effectivemeaningful participation of the women, tand the excluded, and with follow-up actidemonstrate the value in participation.



39/104

require coherence of interventions at many lev-els and across many sectors. For example, simplyproviding low-quality leasehold land is insuf-ficient to bring people out of poverty when theinitial investments to improve productivity arelarge and require time to deliver benefits. For theextreme poor, this could lead to an increase inlivelihood insecurity and vulnerability.

Behavior change is required to overcome deep-

seated resistance to changing discriminatorypractices in both the workplace and communitygroups among those who have benefited fromthese practices. But changes in the behavior ofa small number of well-meaning individualswill still leave gaps between well-intentionedpolicies and actual implementation. Changes

in incentives for staff working in the sectorsare also needed. Overcoming deep-set informalresistance to social inclusion and changing dis-criminatory and indifferent attitudes of serviceproviders remain two of the greatest challengesfacing all sectors.

Social mobilization and facilitation processesneed to focus on empowerment not only onincreasing access to assets and services. There isa need to build understanding of the rights andresponsibilities of individuals as citizens to havea voice in decisions and a share in benefits. Whenthis approach is used, groups are more sustain-able and generally continue functioning after theproject or program intervention is over to take up

new activities of concern to members.Sociocultural constraints on women are strong

and thus it is necessary to work on shifting gen-der-based power relations both in the workplaceand in communities at large. Compared to men,

resources and associated benefits. be based on analysis rooted in an of the unequal power relations crcaste, ethnicity and gender, whiaddressed by any support provide

Policy mandates and affirmativ

sions are necessary for resources tothe poor and the excluded along wcal commitment required for im

During the implementation proneed to be understood and addrreasons causing the failure need toand acted upon.

Increased formal representation

matically lead to increased voice. Ahas been significant representatio

user groups/committees, they stisufficient voice in these groups. This limited at meetings, they rarelyand when they do, they are ofteto. The same is often true of Daexcluded groups whose presence idonor or government funding requreal change, capacity building andshifts in discriminatory practicesand need to be directed not only abut all members of the group/usAlso necessary for any effective formal structures such as user groand power-focused analysis to unthese structures interact with infor

and systems.Targeted interventions are impor

needs to be integrated into mainst

and services. Though equity-relateextent, inclusion issues are capt


40/104

tion, the focus remains solely on disability and isseparated from the gender equality section. Thisreveals a limited understanding of what it meansto mainstream GESI in a sectoral program.

Institutionalizing gender and inclusion in bud-

geting requires further clarity and capacity. Themethodology and process for the governmentsgender-responsive budgeting are not clearenough. The current indicators are not adequate

for analysis across sectors and it is not clear thatthe current post-allocation analysis adds valueat either the sectoral or MOF level. There alsoseems to be an implicit bias in the point alloca-tion system towards smaller, targeted, women-only projects and programs rather than genuineintegration of womens needs and constraints

into mainstream sector programs. In addition,the approach lacks a wider inclusion dimensionthat, with very little additional effort, could allowit to track expenditures benefiting other excludedgroups using the same basic process. Clear, con-sistent guidelines on process and analytical cat-egories are urgently needed.

Institutional structures for GESI need to be made

functional and integrated into the core products and

services provided by the sector. Institutionally,just creating structures is insufficient, as dem-onstrated by the position of the gender focalpoints within the sectoral ministries. Rather,for any such position to be influential, it mustbe integrated into the sectors core systems and

organizational structure. The GESI functionshould be assigned to the planning and monitor-ing division of each ministry and ultimately bethe responsibility of its chief. The responsibilityshould be backed with resources to bring in or

services, other actions are required insuch as education (e.g., building awarenesinfrastructure (e.g., road and trail netmodes of transport services (e.g., availastretchers, public transport), water andtion, and access to finances (e.g., comlevel emergency funds).

1.4 Mainstreaming Gender Equali

Social Inclusion: The Way ForIn Section 1.2 we discussed the steps omainstreaming and the three domains ofand explained any questions or queriessection, common measures on main

sectoral perspectives on gender and social inclusion: irrigation (monograph 5)

Documents