Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Rural Infrastructure (Monograph 6)

7/27/2019 Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Rural Infrastructure (Monograph 6)

1/118

Sectoral Perspectives onGender and Social Inclusion

RURAL

INFRASTRUCTURE

GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENT 2011

SECTORAL SERIES: MONOGRAPH 6


2/118

Sectoral Perspectives

Gender and Social Inclus

RURA

INFRASTRUCTUR

GENDER AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ASSESSMENSECTORAL SERIES: MONOGR


3/118

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

UK, and Te World Bank

2012, the Asian Development Bank, Department or International Development, UK,and Te World Bank

ISBN 978 9937 8592 7 1

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

the views o the Asian Development Bank or its Board o Governors or the governments th

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

o Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.

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

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

responsibility or any consequence o their use.

Rights and Permissions

Te material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the Asian Development Bank, th

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

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

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 Stean

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

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

Ek t k L lit N l


4/118

Preface

Executive Summary Abbreviations/Acronyms

1. Introduction and Overview

2. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion: Making It Happen in Rural Infrastructure

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, 2009-2010

1.2 Summary Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of

Seven Sectors (Total of Program Budget), Including Direct and Indirect Contributio

1.3 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Budget Analysis of Annual Programs,

Kavre and Morang (%)

2.1 Programs and Their Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Provisions 2.2 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Analysis of Five Programs

2.3 Infrastructure as Share of Total District Development Committee Budget,

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

1.1 Excluded Groups

1.2 Steps for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

1.3 Domains of Change

Contents


5/118

Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion

List of Boxes

1.1 What is a REFLECT circle? 2.1 Challenges Experienced by Infrastructure Task Teams

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 Barriers

1.3 List of Budgets Reviewed, FY 2009-2010, for Gender Equality and Social InclusBudgeting Covering 22 Programs and Annual Plans of Two Ministries

2.1 Overview of Programmes

2.2 GRB Sub-Indicators

2.3 Logical Framework of Selected Programmes/Projects on Rural Infrastructure

3.1 Policy Analysis Format

3.2 Format for Disaggregated Diversity Profile

3.3 Program and Budget Analysis Format


6/118


7/118


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- and

inclusion-sensitive interventions, especially in the

governments sector-wide programs supported

by multiple donors (e.g., Local Governance and

Community Development Program [LGCDP],

health, education and rural transport SWAps[sector-wide approach]). Various sectors have

also developed their own GESI strategies (e.g.,

forestry, agriculture, health and local develop-

ment). This Series attempts to provide coherence

to GESI mainstreaming done by the government,

donor agencies and other development actors,

and to introduce a tool that can be commonly

applied across sectors for mainstreaming in poli-

cies, programming, budgeting, monitoring, and

reporting. The aim of the Series is to help make

the Government of Nepals goal of universal

access to key public services and resources a real-

ity for all Nepali citizens. A major focus has thus

been 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 best

to overcome these barriers; and identifying the

measures that work best to mainstream GESI in

sectoral programming.

Process of Developing GSEA 2011/SectoralSeries Monographs

Each of the sectoral assessments consisted of

document review, meetings with sector spe-

cialists and stakeholders, diversity and budget

analysis, some fieldwork, wider consultative

mately 30 participants in each w

with key stakeholders, namelyproject/program staff, donor agen

resentative organizations. Literatu

a major source of information fo

ment of these monographs; howev

work was also done by team memb

districts.

Draft versions prepared by side (health), Elvira Graner

Bijaya Bajracharya (agriculture/fore

Jennifer Appave (water supply a

and Shuva Sharma (rural infrast

were used as background informa

upon where possible. As the GE

began to emerge as an important

ADB, DFID and the World Ban

the sectoral assessments should

around this framework so that pra

the monographs would become

the approach. Due to its previou

the development and application

framework, the Human Resource

Centre (HURDEC), a privateconsultancy firm of Nepal, was

by WB/DFID to lead the devel

sectoral series. Jennifer Appave was

by ADB to work with the HURD

January to June 2010 to prepare t

Swiss Agency for Development an

(SDC) provided technical supporadvisers.

The team members who prepar

sectoral monographs in this series

1) agricultureJennifer Appave an

with inputs from Yadab Chapagai


8/118

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. Deepa

Shakya and Sara Subba did the research for the

sectoral monographs while Dharmendra Shakya

and Ram Bhusal worked on the budget analysis

and staff diversity analysis. Sitaram Prasai and

Birbhadra Acharya (HURDEC) did the gender-responsive budget (GRB) assessment in Kavre

and Morang districts. Carey Biron edited all the

monographs except forestry, which was done by

Mary Hobley. Chhaya Jha guided the entire pro-

cess, and was responsible for the final writing of

all the monographs under the guidance of Lynn

Bennett, the lead researcher for GSEA.

The Sectoral Series Monograph would not

have made it to their current published form

without the diligence and creativity of the Himal

Books team responsible for the final edito

design support. Led by Deepak Thapa, tincluded Amrita Limbu (editorial assistan

Chiran Ghimire (layout and design).

The monographs in this series should

sidered as learning documents that w

for sectoral data and analysis to be upda

improved based on sectoral experien

sharing of good practices. The monogrthis series all have a common introduct

a common final chapter outlining the

steps in the GESI mainstreaming proces

is intended as a handy reference guide f

titioners. The sectoral monographs ha

published in alphabetical order, coveri

culture, education, forest, health, irrigatio

infrastructure (roads), and rural and urb

supply and sanitation. Additional sector

included 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 wo

dialogue 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 addre

aspects 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 ma

focus 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.


9/118



10/118

The purpose of this monograph is twofold. First,it assesses the current situation of gender equal-

ity and social inclusion (GESI) in Nepals rural

infrastructure sector, and identifies the barriers

faced by different groups in accessing resources

and other benefits of such infrastructure. It also

considers the policy, legislative and social barri-

ers that some social groups face in accessing these

benefits, and how the various policies, processes

and programs have worked to address these.

Second, it provides practical guidance on how

to improve existing responses and take further

action for more equitable access to rural infra-

structure resources, services and benefits. The

chapter specifically focuses on rural transport

infrastructure.Rural infrastructure has the potential to bring

about significant changes in the lives of women,

the poor and the excluded. But the impacts of

these vary significantly due to differing social,

cultural, institutional, physical and economic

constraints, many of which are rooted in systemic

bias. These differences have significant implica-tions for how men, women and different social

groups use infrastructure services, what infra-

structure is most useful for them, and the extent

to which this can ultimately provide livelihood

opportunities, save time and reduce geographic

Executive Summary

ment opportunities during constructiongive average earnings of Rs 260/day. Te

construction skills learned on the job are

of future income. There is decreased dep

on moneylenders and increased saving

a labor-based, environment-friendly a

ticipatory (LEP) approach is used. Whe

structure-plus activities are implemente

benefits also occur. But there are sever

dimensions of exclusion faced by wom

poor, excluded groups and remote areas in

ing and utilizing rural infrastructure. E

in these sectors exists particularly due to

that the exact location of the infrastructu

ity or the alignment of roads or irrigatio

tend to ignore the specific needs and pof women, the poor and excluded gro

general, remote areas are often ignored,

accessible areas are prioritized for loca

structure, leaving population groups

Janajatis and Dalits) settled in remote ar

a high chance of being left out from

beginning of project planning. Further, mation of user or construction commit

the election of their executives tend to ig

representation and interests of women

Janajatis and other disadvantaged groups

there has been a recent shift in this due t


11/118


burdens in relation to their overall income and

asset base. Likewise, when infrastructure is con-structed through contractors, local laborers are

sometimes not employed since contractors often

prefer to bring in labor from outside the area. In

addition, a key barrier for inclusion remains poor

governance, lack of accountability of the process,

and corruption in the sector, which inevitably

tends to reinforce exclusion and lack of trans-parency. Because women, the poor and excluded

groups can miss out in representation in opera-

tion and maintenance committees, they can

lose opportunities to be trained as maintenance

workersand again, because contributions for

maintenance are not equitable, the worse-off are

typically forced to share more of the burden rela-

tive to their income.

A number of policy guidelines to regulate

work by building groups and user committees do

exist, including stipulating that these local groups

have priority in construction jobs while limiting

the use of contractors to technically demanding

and complex work. Yet, a key gap is the lack of

any policy directive for a disaggregated analysisand identification of transport needs and travel

patterns of women and men of different social

identities. The District Transport Management

Plan Approach Manual directs that requests for

transport linkages be prioritized against 19 indi-

cators; but while the process does require con-

sultation, the depth of inclusiveness might not be

sufficient to ensure that the genuine priorities of

women, the poor and the excluded are identified

based on their work burden. Significant effort

has been made to increase representation of the

excluded in relevant committees, but decision-

allow the excluded to influence d

level of village/district developmenThere is a lack of clear GESI-re

bilities in the terms of reference of t

of Local Infrastructure Deve

Agriculture Roads, district techni

the various committees; nor hav

made to build their capacity to

issues. More generally, diversity wpersonnel in the sector is also low

personnel in the department only

with just seven in gazetted positio

to the national population, there

sentation of Hill Brahmins, Chhet

in gazetted positions, and of M

Castes/Other Backward Classes (

gazetted positions, with all the under-represented. While governm

to make budgeting and monitorin

sive are to be appreciated, much

done. For instance, gender-respon

practices have been initiated but in

ance and clarity on how to carry it

confusion. The case is similar withinclusive development budgeting

ures are cited in the governments

speech even though concerned sect

engaged in developing them.

Various good practices, such

intensive approach, mandated

of women (including the poor

in committees, affirmative action

equal work and REFLECT-type c

capacity of road-building group

contributing to the empowermen

groups. But sectoral learning


12/118

transporting goods and people. However, there

is little evidence of the long-term impact of suchimprovements on the economic status of women,

the poor and the excluded. The major beneficia-

ries are perceived as being the middle or higher

social groups, the contractors and others who are

better positioned and equipped to take advan-

tage of the changes and improved accessibility

afforded by new roads. The longer-term ben-efits from roads require timeand often access

to information and capitalto be realized and

are unlikely to reach women, the poor and the

excluded without complementary interventions

to build voice and capacity after the infrastruc-

ture is completed, e.g., by follow-on economic

programs.

Gender inequality and social exclusion in ruralinfrastructure are inextricably linked to the wider

socio-cultural and politico-economic context.

Often the barriers we need to remove or work

around in order to provide more equal access are

part of interconnected formal and informal insti-

tutions that structure Nepali society. The process

of identifying formal and informal barriers tobenefits of the sector will have to be followed by

a commitment to develop, budget for and imple-

ment mechanisms to overcome these. There are

a number of key general steps that need to be

ensured during the design and implementation

stage, many of which have become established

practice now in donor-funded programs: forma-

tion of inclusive user committees, with women,

the poor and the excluded in decision-making

positions, and at least one as a signatory of bank

checks; registration of inclusive committees, with

certification and brief constitution, at district

As the key planning document for t

transport infrastructure (RTI), the Transport Management Plan (DTMP

be very carefully formulated, with disagg

evidence and the participation of peop

different social groups, and its scope w

beyond roads and trail bridges to includ

forms of RTI. Disaggregated informatio

be the basis for plan preparation or while existing RTI structures, the pub

orities (including those of women, the p

the excluded), and their transport tasks

the basis for all planning. At the mom

committees and offices responsible for

transport management planning are n

representative, and thus mechanisms

resentation (of the excluded) on the ddistrict-level coordination committees an

implementation committees must be

lished. Targeted gender and inclusion a

will be very important as will capacity bu

increase the ability of these groups to in

decisions and to acquire the skills they

become contractors and bid for jobs theProvision of REFLECT-type classes, c

facilities and establishing GESI-sensitive

cation criteria for contractors, etc, can a

The technical design must involve bene

and stakeholders, including women, t

and the excluded, in surveying, collection

rates and availability of local materials.

allocations have to be specified, especially

geted activities.

As a general rule, the use of heavy m

which take the place of labor, must not

moted even though, as the RTI sect


13/118


In each case, the decision on which modality to

follow is to be made in a transparent manner byrepresentative committees. Criteria and guide-

lines must be prepared for such decisions and

mechanisms established and followed so that

accountability is increased and opportunities

for malpractice lessened. Operation and main-

tenance arrangements that enable user groups

and committees to repair and maintain RTI withlocal support have proven successful and need

to be promoted. The practice of keeping a cer-

tain percentage of budget costs for operation and

maintenance is also well established and has been

useful though the underlying issue of long-term

funding is yet to be addressed.

Since the National Planning Commission

(NPC) monitoring guidelines and formats arenot fully disaggregated and do not ask for quali-

tative information, GESI-sensitive monitoring is

difficult. Policy advocacy with the commission is

thus necessary for future revisions such as: pub-

lic and social audits of projects after each install-

ment, and final audit at project end for a review

of financial, technical and social progress; regu-lar periodic reporting of project progress against

targets, with disaggregation; standard formats

for disaggregated information; periodic moni-

toring by technical teams and representatives of

coordination committees, including women and

representatives of excluded groups; consultations

with labor groups, coordination committees and

stakeholders as part of the participatory evalua-

tion of progress and for feedback; and database

and management information systems at district

development committees for better reporting on

disaggregated information.

All monitoring and reporting

have disaggregation by poverty, snicity and location. GESI-related

monitoring and reporting in

domains: changes in assets/ser

in voice and ability to influence

in informal and formal policies

As explained earlier, budget mon

GESI perspective has to be establmuch allocated budget is being sp

supportive, indirectly supportive o

ities in relation to women and o

groups. While these are essential

perspective, the effort to develop

maintain such systems and mech

sustained effort. Some of the mo

programs also need to pilot a mevaluation system that is GESI re

which the subsector can work t

such a system.

Well-designed, appropriately

affordably priced infrastructure c

erful tool for gender equality an

sion. Mainstreaming GESI will remphasis on the analysis of so

infrastructure needs of different gr

the sector can respond to the issu

the poor and the excluded. In

address these barriers need to be

adequately funded, while disagg

toring of inputs, outputs and outc

to ensure a more systematic and

infrastructure. In addition, pol

along with mechanisms/tools and

and human capacity, are all essent

GESI mainstreaming.


14/118

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADDCN Association of District Development Committees of Nepal

BGs Building Groups

COPE/PLA Client Oriented Provider Efficient/Participatory Learning and Action

CSOs Civil-Society Organizations

DDC District Development Committee

DDG Deputy Director GeneralDFID Department for International Development

DG Director General

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

DICC District Implementation Coordination Committee

DIDCs District Information and Documentation Centres

DoLIDAR Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agriculture Roads

DPMAS District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis SystemDRCC District Road Coordination Committee

DRILP Decentralized Rural Infrastructure and Livelihood Project

DRSP District Road Support Programme

DTCO District Treasury Controllers Office

DTICC District Transport Infrastructure Coordination Committee

DTMP District Transport Management Plan

DTO District Technical Office

EmPLED Employment Creation and Peace-building through Local Economic Deve

FSRP Food Security and Rehabilitation Support

FY Fiscal Year

GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

GMCC Gender Mainstreaming Coordination Committee

Abbreviations/Acronyms


15/118


IGAs Income Generating Activities

ILO International Labour OrganisationIPC Integrated Planning Committee

IRAP Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning

LBT Labour-Based Technology

LED Local Economic Development

LEP Labour-based, Environment-friendly and Participatory

LFP Livelihoods and Forestry Program

LGCDP Local Governance and Community Development ProgramLIDP Local Infrastructure Development Policy

LSGA Local Self-Governance Act

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MIS Management Information Systems

MLD Ministry of Local Development

MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

MOF Ministry of Finance

MOFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil ConservationMOHP Ministry of Health and Population

MUAN Municipal Association of Nepal

MWCSW Ministry of Women, Children, and Social Welfare

NAVIN Nepal Association of Village Development Committees

NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

NHSP-IP 2 Nepal Health Sector Program- Implementation Plan 2

NLFS National Labor Force SurveyNLSS National Living Standards Survey

NPC National Planning Commission

NSCFP Nepal Swiss Community Forest Project

O&M Organisation and Management

OBC Other Backward Classes

PIU Programme/Project Implementation Unit

PLC Participatory Learning Centers

PMAS Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

RAIDP Rural Access Improvement and Decentralization Programme

RAP Rural Access Programme


16/118

RRN Rural Road Network

RRRSDP Rural Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Sector Development ProgramRTI Rural Transport Infrastructure

RTMIS Rural Transport Management Information System

RWSS Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SSRP School Sector Reform Program

SWAp Sector-Wide Approach

TBBSP Trail Bridge Building Support ProgrammeToR Terms of Reference

UCs User Committees

UGs User Groups

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund

UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women

VCDP Vulnerable Communities Development Plan

VDC Village Development CommitteeVICCC Village Infrastructure Construction Coordination Committee

VRCC Village Road Coordination Committee

VTICC Village Transport Infrastructure Coordination Committee

WB World Bank

WCF Ward Citizens Fora

WDO Womens Development Officer

WFP World Food ProgrammeWSS Water Supply and Sanitation


17/118



18/118

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Overview


19/118



20/118

1.1 Introduction

This introduction and overview chapter definesthe dimensions of exclusion and presents the

framework for gender equality and social inclu-

sion (GESI) mainstreaming that has been used

for all the sectoral monographs. It presents an

outline of the current situation of gender equality

and social inclusion in Nepal, and summarizes

the findings of the seven sectoral monographs. It

presents the barriers that have been identified for

women, the poor and the excluded, and discusses

the national, international and sectoral policy

mandates for GESI, the institutional structures

and mechanisms established by the government

for women and excluded groups, the sectoral

findings regarding institutional arrangements

for GESI, the diversity of civil personnel in thevarious sectors, and the working environment. It

summarizes the findings regarding the existing

practice of gender-responsive budgeting (GRB),

the results of GESI budgeting that was applied in

the 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 overthrow

of the Rana regime, Nepal has been struggling

to transform its feudal economic and political

system, and to leave behind the ingrained hierar-

chies of gender and caste. But these deep-seated

systems for organizing the world and structuring

power relations do not change easily. Despite

persistent in a patriarchal culture where

the fact that their labor was critical to tsistence agricultural economy, women w

valued, and did not inherit family land.

Persistent too is the chronic pov

groups such as the Dalits at the bottom

caste hierarchy, who, in addition to the h

tion of being considered impure and th

untouchable, have faced structural ba

education and economic opportunities

erations. The Adivasi Janajatis, or ind

groups in Nepal, most of whom were s

some 250 years ago during the Gorkha co

have also found themselves placed wit

Hindu caste hierarchy. Because of their n

(37% of the population) and their milit

cultural prowess, Adivasi Janajatis wereplace in the middle of the hierarchy rath

at the bottom, as they were in India. Ir

even though it was a system imposed o

by outsiders, to preserve their own statu

hierarchy many Janajati groups adopted t

discriminatory behavior towards Dalits

practiced by the high-caste rulers. Seven the caste Hindus in the plains, or M

of Nepal were looked down upon and

as foreigners when they visited Kathma

capital of their own country.

The list of grievances is long and gro

have been historically excluded are m

Nepal. As development practitioners a

toral specialists, we need to know at leas

thing of this historical and cultural con

that we can design sectoral interventions

that are sensitive to the dense systems o

sion that often still prevail in the comm


21/118


This monograph is concerned with two major

dimensions of exclusion: economic and social. Asshown in Figure 1.1, when it comes to poverty, or

economic exclusion, we are concerned with the

poor 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 to

keep in mind is that the dimensions of exclusion

are cross-cutting and cumulative. Some of our cli-

ents suffer some dimensions of exclusion but not

othersfor example, a poor Brahmin woman

from Gorkha Bazaar is privileged in terms of hercaste and her fairly well-connected location, but

excluded by her poverty and gender. Other cli-

ents suffer from exclusion in almost all dimen-

sions: for example, a poor Dalit woman in Jumla

must contend with four dimensionspoverty,

caste, gender and remotenessof exclusion. The

fact that these dimensions all interact with each

other in different ways to frame the life chances

of the different individuals we are trying to reach

is why we need to look at exclusion in a holistic

way. This is particularly true for gender, as prior

efforts have taught us that it is far less effective

who the excluded in that sector are

of their exclusion. The GESI framused for the sectoral monographs

bothformal institutions (the legal f

policies of the sectoral ministry or e

procedures and components laid ou

project document) and informal in

traditional norms of behavior fo

Dalits or the networks of political

present barriers to inclusion. Ther

an eye out for both of these dimen

out the GESI process.

The framework follows five key

to 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 evaluatiwhether planned resource

have reached women, the

excluded; and (if M&E find

need)

v. adjustment/redesign and co

First step: Identification. This

ping the existing status of women

the socially excluded in the sector

aggregated qualitative and quanti

assessment of the available eviden

existing policies (in the sector and

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)


22/118

nicity and location have been cre-

ated and/or maintained. The keyactors in these existing structures

also need to be critically assessed

in terms of their ability (and incen-

tives) to change their behavior and

values, and to transform processes

and mechanisms.

In addition to assessing the

barriers constraining each group

from enjoying their rights, we

need to map existing policy and

program responses (if any), and

assess whether these are address-

ing, reducing or reinforcing these

barriers (see Annex 1.2 for details).

As we begin the design process, thesituation prevailing in the sector

the set of policies and formal and

informal institutions in placewill

almost certainly be benefiting some

individuals and groups more than others. Thus,

we need to understand the political economy of

the sector or subsector both nationally and locallyin the sites3 where our projects or programs will

be implemented. The stated intention of poli-

cies and procedures will always be positive and

aimed at delivering services and benefits to

all, but how do the policies work out on the

ground for different groups? Do they deliver as

intended; if not, what is intervening to prevent

or change the intended outcomes? Usually, it

is merely gaps in the delivery or communica-

tions systems that have been set up, or failure

to understand the real needs of certain kinds

of consumers, or other economic or social con-

weaknesses in the policy framework or

system are understood, the job is to find

address these through interventions. Trequire changes in policies, program a

resource allocations, institutional arran

and staff incentives as well as in the mo

and reporting systems. Some things are

change than others and a single operatio

not be able to make all the changes ne

respond to the diagnosis provided by Ste

even the larger, more intractable issues

be fed into the policy dialogue with gove

and other donors and be part of the long

sector strategy. At a minimum, policies

be put in place that provide for the budg

4. Moni5. Adjus

Inputs: resourcreache

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


23/118


individuals; promote diversity in staff composi-

tion; and adopt sensitive human resources poli-

cies for recruitment, promotion, transfer and

performance evaluation.To design a project or program so that it will

be able to deliver real change and lasting progress

for women, the poor and the excluded, it is use-

ful to consider the content presented in Figure

1.3, which lays out three domains where change

can happen. These are also domains that define

exclusion and inclusion, and most projects and

programs include activities in one or all of these

areas. One important domain is access to assets

and services (i.e., health, education, and employ-

ment opportunities), which almost all of our

interventions seek to increase. What does your

development approach

deal of emphasis on ormunities to manage res

services and constru

ture themselves. The w

formed, the depth of th

lization process and th

to bring in people f

groups and give them

and influence over th

cesses constitute anoth

good design and care

tation and monitoring

major difference. The

where our sector opera

a difference is through

cies, institutional structu(i.e., the rules of the

intentionally or uninte

work against the intere

groups. As noted above, not every

do this at the national policy le

analysis has revealed that certai

perpetuating the exclusion of cfrom the benefits our sector ope

to deliver, then we need to be on t

opportunities to get such policy c

agenda, and to push for their ad

even smaller project-level polici

dures that are easier to influence c

important changes.

Nepals weak implementation c

that even positive policy provis

not implemented effectively. Mea

mal norms, social practices, value

officials and service providers fr

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


24/118

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 a

clear commitment from the management level to

this way of doing business.

Final steps: Monitoring, evaluation, and

reporting. M&E systems need to be designed

to collect disaggregated data on outputs, out-

comes and development results, and to be

linked into management decision-making in

such a way that data on inclusion failures auto-

matically trigger project actions to understand

and remedy the situation. At the output level,

management should be able to ensure that the

planned project resources and actions have

reached women, the poor and the excluded.Yet, disaggregated intermediate outcomes also

need to be tracked, such as the socioeconomic

profile of user groups and executive commit-

tees, labor groups, pregnant women receiv-

ing antenatal visits, school attendance, new

teachers hired, the placement of water taps,

etc. Finally, disaggregated data on develop-ment results need to be collected and analyzed.

This may be done by the project, but in some

cases with the right coordination it can also be

done by periodic national-level sample surveys

such as the National Living Standards Survey

(NLSS), the Nepal Demographic and Health

Survey (NDHS), or the National Labor Force

Survey (NLFS), or through the decennial cen-

sus. Indicators of results at this level include,

for instance, the time required to reach an

improved water source or motorable road, pri-

mary-school completion rates, child mortality,

1.3 Current Situation of Gender

Equality and Social Inclusion iNepal

Gender issues have been addressed du

past few decades of Nepals planned d

ment. Yet, it is only more recently th

inclusion has entered the development di

leading to recognition of other dimen

exclusion in addition to gender.

1.3.1 Sector-wide barriers for women

poor and the excluded

Each of the sectoral monographs in th

demonstrates that economic, political an

cultural institutional barriers exist for

the poor and excluded groups, restricti

access to assets, services and opportunexercise their voice and influence. W

access to assets and resources has im

considerably through many targeted p

while affirmative action strategies have

to increase their representation in user

and committees in all sectors. Forest an

supply and sanitation have been the momendable sectors in promoting women

bership and participation, yet the ope

space for women to voice their issues an

cise their agency remains strongly restr

societal rules/norms/beliefs that cont

define how women are valued and what

or cannot do (World Bank/DFID 200

sectoral monographs all show that wome

ity to make decisions and benefit from a

resources and services (e.g., to take care

decisions when ill, to allocate time for at

community meetings, and to engage in liv


25/118


public sector through, for example, free education

and healthcare services have helped to increaseaccess for the poor. However, the need to meet

their daily subsistence needs, low literacy skills,

and poor access to information about services and

available resources limit the poor from benefiting

fully from these programs. Further, self-exclusion

of the very poor from group-based community

development activities is common due to lack of

time to contribute as well as lack of agency to influ-

ence decisions. Since so many services and oppor-

tunities flow through groups, this self-exclusion

further reduces the access to resources and live-

lihood opportunities of those most in need.

Similarly, the high opportunity costs incurred in

the initial stages of group formation, with benefits

uncertain and only coming later, also restrict themembership and participation of the very poor in

user groups and committees.

Geographic location is a key determinant of

exclusion across all sectors, influencing the level

of access to public services such as schools, health

posts, agricultural extension agents and finance

institutions. For example, 38% of Janajatis in thehill regions have no access to a health post within

an 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 agriculture

center 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 government

lacks the human resources necessary to deliver

services or offer effective outreach to the remot-

est communitiesand the available government

staff are often reluctant to serve in remote areas,

services, resources and assets, and

to have voice and influence in deprocesses. This is particularly s

drinking-water facilities due to

Hindu belief that Dalits are im

pollute a water source. Similarly,

opment outcomes in education (e.

rate for Madhesi Dalit women is

health (e.g., Madhesi Dalit wome

lowest health indicators) are a re

bination of factors, including po

awareness and the discriminatory

behavior of non-Dalits towards D

Dahal and Govindasamy 2008).

For Adivasi Janajatis, langua

around their cultural rights are th

cant barriers to accessing resourcing from services. These are comp

low access of the most disadvan

groups to information on availabl

resources and procedures. Musl

Madhesi groups, especially wome

groups, face linguistic and socio

ers that affect their level of mobito access services and participate

sphere. Although there is greate

the needs of people with disabilit

continues to face social discrimin

tually no disability-friendly service

available, especially in rural areas.

1.3.2 Policy and legal framewor

This section4 discusses the GESI

work and mandates at the internat

and sectoral levels.


26/118

Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples, estab-

lish the fundamental rights of women, protectthe cultural rights of Adivasi Janajatis, declare

untouchability a legal offence, protect the rights

of 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 them

more accountable, particularly for local devel-

opment activities. It directs local bodies to for-

mulate their plans with the active involvement

and participation of local people, focusing on

the special needs of the poor, and mandates

20% representation of women on village and

ward-level development committees. But these

provisions do not address issues of inequity and

vulnerability caused by gender, caste or ethnic-ity. The Local Self-Governance Regulations

have provided for the inclusion and prioritiza-

tion of the poor and the excluded in develop-

ment activities. At the district development

committee (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 form

subcommittees to address the needs of women

and the disadvantaged by including members

from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),

community-based organizations and civil soci-

ety, and other experts.

The Gender Equality and Social InclusionOperational Strategy (2009) of the Local

Governance and Community Development

Program (LGCDP) of the Ministry of Local

Development (MLD)5 has provisioned for

tation committees in DDCs, and identi

roles and responsibilities of the GESI seMLD. The DDC expanded block-gran

lines to make a direct 15% budget alloca

women and 15% for people from excluded

at the district level. The Village Devel

Committee Grant Operation Manual di

for poor women, 5% for poor children a

for other excluded groups in village deve

committees (VDCs) and municipaliti

manual has also provided for integrate

ning committees at the VDC level, with i

representation from Dalit, Janajati an

ens organizations, from NGOs workin

VDCs, school management committee

organizations, political parties, and line a

It directs that 33% of members must be (This is only a sample of provisions that

tive from a gender and inclusion perspe

several 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 W

Beijing Platform of Action), child righ

Convention on the Rights of the Child

enous peoples rights (ILO Conventio

and racial discrimination (UN Conven

the Elimination of Racial Discriminathas committed to international agreem

targets (Millennium Development Go

for womens empowerment, education, d

water and sanitation, health, hunger and

S t l P ti G d d S i l I l i


27/118


Sectoral policies: Gender equality and social

inclusion policy provisions in the seven sectorsFrom our review, we find that commitments to

GESI and progressive policy mandates have been

made across the seven sectors, albeit to varying

degrees. Revisions in policies have allowed pro-

grams addressing access to services for specific

groups to be developed and implementedfor

instance, free primary education, scholarships for

girls and Dalits, multilingual education, incentive

schemes for out-of-school children, universal

and targeted free healthcare, safe delivery incen-

tive schemes, quotas for women in community

groups established by all the sectors, agriculture-

related subsidies for the excluded, subsidies for

poor households to build latrines, and so on.

SWAp (sector-wide approach) is increas-ingly being followed in Nepal, allowing for

donor harmonization and more concerted

efforts to address gender and inclusion issues.

SWAps in health and educationthe Nepal

Health Sector Program-Implementation Plan 2

[NHSP-IP 2] (2010-2015) and School Sector

Reform Program (SSRP) (2009-2015), respec-tivelyhave directives to address barriers expe-

rienced by women, the poor and the excluded.

The NHSP-IP 2 includes a specific objective

to address sociocultural barriers, a reflection of

the governments shift to recognizing the need to

address deeply embedded social norms and prac-

tices that affect health outcomes. GESI strate-

gies have been included in the NHSP-IP 2, andstrategies have been prepared for the agriculture

and forest sectors though these have not yet been

implemented.

Policies shifting control from centralized

tively if representatives from ex

were to be selected by their own if mechanisms were available fo

sive representation to influence

if there were better monitoring b

authorities. Policy provisions fo

tion of women and the excluded

and committees, with specific gui

resentation in post-holding posit

become a well-established pract

water supply and sanitation (W

policy, for instance, has a mand

women in user groups and commi

Dalits and Janajatis, too, there are

representation (e.g., in health fac

and management committees, f

road-building groups, water suppmittees, and water users associatio

technical infrastructure sectors,

rural roads and irrigation, have r

role women have in the operation

ment of these sectors and have dev

that promote their participation, e

construction and management phadevelopment is weaker in ensurin

the poor and the excluded have vo

in local-level decision-making pro

not effectively addressed the role

and elite capture often has in infl

to and utilization of resources a

these sectors.

Policies for public and social audmany sectors (health, WSS, rural r

appreciated as these increase down

ability of service providers. Im

of these audits, however, remain


28/118

full and correct processes are being implemented.

Many policy revisions have focused on improv-ing access to resources and services, but without

addressing the structural issues that cause the

exclusion 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 instead

deals primarily with how to increase immediate

production outputs rather than with strategic

and structural issues related to resource manage-

ment, governance and structural agrarian reform.

In the forest sector, positive provisions are being

increasingly implemented in community for-

estry, which has become more GESI responsive.

But there is no recognition by decision makers

that 75% of the national forests are barred tociviliansany use is illegal and punitive action is

normal, impacting primarily on women, the poor

and the excluded.

Almost all sectors provide specific support to

women 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 public

health issue. But these aspects are not integrated

in the policies developed in other sectorsfor

instance, the seed policy in the agriculture sector

is considered liberal, but does not recognize that

seed transactions are male dominated, and bymen of higher-income groups. Similarly, in the

forest and WSS sectors, affirmative action poli-

cies are in place to ensure the representation of

women on user group committees, but gendered

with far less recognition of the structur

of division of labor, including the impof gender-specific responsibilities of ch

breast-feeding and taking care of the il

are almost no policies that provide wom

sufficient support to manage such resp

ties alongside professional growth.

In no sector have government agencie

defined who constitute the excluded,

interchangeable use of terminology deno

excluded, the disadvantaged and the

alized creates confusion. There are pr

for women, Dalits and Janajatis (e.g., for

ships, representation and access to fund

have thus been recognized as excluded

but there is hardly any mention of other e

groups (e.g., Muslims, other backward clOBCs, and Madhesis) or effort to add

causes of their exclusion. There are on

sectoral policies mandating sex- and ca

nicity/location-disaggregated data and a

evidence for monitoring. For example, t

cation and health sectors management i

tion systems (MIS) have limited disaggthough a pilot for reporting caste/ethni

aggregated data is ongoing in health. T

est sectors recently revised MIS inco

GESI-sensitive indicators, but these st

to be implemented. However, positive e

and initiatives do exist in several program

in the forest sector, the Livelihoods and F

Program (LFP) has established livelihosocial inclusion monitoring, which n

demands disaggregated data but also an

outcome levels for different social groups

The personal commitment of policy



29/118


understanding and increase the internalization

of equality, inclusion and social justice principles.A major part of this will need to be based on an

improved understanding among policy-makers,

administrators and sector employees of the spe-

cific barriers preventing different social groups

from accessing and using services and resources

as well as a commitment within the respective

sectors to develop, budget, implement and moni-

tor mechanisms and processes 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 responsible

for addressing womens empowerment issues.

NPCs Agriculture and Rural InfrastructureDevelopment Division has the responsibil-

ity to work on social inclusion. The Ministry of

Women, Children and Social Welfare (MWCSW)

has been implementing women-focused programs

targeted at reaching disadvantaged and marginalized

groups 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 managed

by Womens Development Officers (WDOs).

MLD, responsible for social inclusion, has a

Dalit and Adivasi Janajati coordination commit-

through improved protection o

Finally, while gender focal pointin NPC and all ministries and dep

mandated to work on gender iss

been unable to deliver effectively d

reasons, including their lack of

absence of any institutionalized li

their gender mandate and the ma

ministries as well as having no spe

or resources for gender-related wo

District level

WDOs are present in each

the Department of Womens

MWCSW, where they head

Development Office and are man

stream gender and child rights inDDCs have a social committee

Development Officer, who is a

as the gender focal point for th

whole. Various watchdog commit

formed, such as the Indigenous E

Coordination Committee and

Upliftment District Coordinatiowith representation from pol

The Gender Mainstreaming

Committee (GMCC), under the W

representation from line agencies,

monitoring and coordinating distr

work. The GESI Implementatio

formed by the GESI strategy of L

(with the Local Development Othe WDO as vice-chair, the socia

officer as member-secretary, an

tion of GMCC, Dalit and Janajat

committees, and district-level N


30/118

established at higher levels but most have

experienced inadequate resources and weakinstitutional mechanisms, and thus have not

been effective in protecting and furthering the

GESI cause. In addition, there are overlaps

between MWCSW and the National Womens

Commission and only minimal efforts have been

made to coordinate between the different com-

missions and the representative institutions of

women, Dalits and Janajatis for collaborative

efforts on gender and social inclusion.

VDC/municipality level

While there is no institutional mechanism with

specific responsibility for GESI in VDCs or

municipalities, the representative Integrated

Planning Committees in each VDC are sup-posed to have members representing the inter-

ests of women, Janajatis, Dalits and NGOs, as

mandated in the VDC Grant Operation Manual,

and also have the general responsibility of ensur-

ing that these issues are addressed. A potentially

very effective new structure, established by the

VDC Grant Operation Manual and GESI strat-egy of LGCDP/MLD 2009, are the village and

ward citizens forums. These create spaces for

all citizens, including women, the poor and the

excluded, to discuss, negotiate, prioritize and

coordinate development efforts, and especially

the 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 t

effectively. Some sectors (agricultur

cation and forest) have institutiona

tures to address GESI issues specifica

instance, the Gender Equity and Envir

Division within the Ministry of Agricult

Cooperatives (MOAC) and the Gender

Development Section and Inclusive Ed

Section within the Department of Ed

The Gender Equity and Environment

has a very narrow focus on gender and

eral, even when their mandate is broa

covers other excluded groups these GE

tutional structures do not have much inon the policies and programs of their re

ministries. For one, the high turnover

ernment staff in ministries/department

in changes in the political will and comm

towards GESI issues. For example, the

been frequent changes of staff charged w

role of coordinating the Gender Equity WGroup which is meant to facilitate the

mentation of the GESI strategy in the fo

tor. This constant turnover in the leader

decreased the effectiveness of this grou

Ministry of Health and Population (M

has planned to establish a GESI unit, bu

still in process.

Clearly defined responsibilities for anunit, and routine working procedures li

the main activities in the sector, are esse

these structures to be useful. Additiona

ignated gender focal points, or even th



31/118

p

planning up to monitoring processes remain

limited. Additionally, systems have not been

revised to enable them to do their work (e.g.,

planning and monitoring processes/formats do

not 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 institutional

culture might also not encourage (or, indeed,

might actively discourage) GESI issues being

raised or taken seriously. In the forest sector, for

example, 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 adopting

innovative ways (e.g., appreciative inquiry, peer

monitoring) to internalize and institutionalize

ter serve Ne

including thobeen historic

(Social Inclu

Group 20098

needed to ma

files more i

regard to wom

from excluded

to develop hupolicies that a

inclusion sensi

of personnel o

ment in the sev

finds the follow

Diversity sta

there are 41,1bers (of who

women, i.e., 1

sectors we reviewed. Compared t

population,10 there is overrepr

Brahmins/Chhetris and Newars

marily in key decision-making pos

an equal proportion of OBCs (m

gazetted technical positions), whi

groups are underrepresented (Figu

There are 4,594 staff at the ga

whom 7.27% are women. Amon

Brahmins/Chhetris comprise th

69.22%, and Dalits the fewest at

The highest presence of women12

class non-gazetted positions (a maare in the health sector as assista

wives and mother-and-child he

Figure 1.5).

Across sectors, the highest p

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%)


32/118

degree to which government funding f

issues is channeled through targeted prog

integrated into mainstream programs.

NPC issues guidelines directing minist

line agencies in the formulation of their p

budgets. In close coordination with the M

of Finance (MOF), NPC identifies the m

specific and sector-specific budget. Ternments annual budget speech presen

types of analysis of the budget from a

and inclusion perspective: expenditures

port of inclusive development and targe

tion sector, but have the lowest representation in

education. Similarly, Hill Dalits have better rep-

resentation in rural infrastructure and Madhesi

Dalits in agriculture as compared to other sectors.

1.3.4 Gender-responsive budgeting and

gender equality and social inclusion

budgetingThis section analyzes allocations/expenditures of

the government and programs budget to exam-

ine the extent to which resources are being spent

on 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

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Gazetted Non-gazetted Gradeless



33/118

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 agency

staff, however, indicate that the guidelines are

not clear, and that, as noted earlier, it is typi-

cally left to the budget officer to categorize and

score the various budget lines to the best of his

(it is primarily men) understanding. Some of

the ministries were not even aware of the inclu-

sive development and targeted program analysis

while at the district level none of the line agen-

cies had applied these budgeting processes. The

budget speech of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010

categorized high percentages of expenditures in

all sectors as pro-poor and gender responsive,

but with low expenditures for inclusive develop-

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

clear for the other two kinds of budgeting, we

have focused on reviewing the governments

GRB 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 guideli

posed program in the sector ha

as per the indicators developed b

responsive Budgeting Committee

aspects of gender sensitivity (partic

ity building, benefit sharing, incre

employment and income-earning

and reduction in womens worklo

allocated 20 potential marks each.

get item/activity, the officer doin

had to assess what percentage of t

directly benefits women. Progra

points or more are classified as

sive to women, those scoring 20 rectly responsive, and those scorin

as neutral.16

Sector staff categorize all exp

in the sectoral budget into these th

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.


34/118

tribute to the indicators. Also, GRB indicators

tend to be better at capturing expenditures fortargeted womens programs than at picking up

expenditures for efforts made in universal pro-

grams to mainstream GESI. Finally, of course,

the GRB exercise focuses only on gender and

does not capture expenditures aimed at increas-

ing outreach to excluded groups.

Gender equality and social inclusion budgetanalysis

While we have assessed the existing GRB practice

and indicators used, and identified possible sub-

indicators for GRB analysis in the different sec-

tors, we have also developed and applied our own

tentative GESI budgeting methodology.17 This is

intended to capture expenditures that reach andsupport excluded groups and those that support

women. Although there is no single rule about

how to determine whether public expenditure is

discriminatory or equality enhancing, there are

some general principles discussed in gender-bud-

geting literature, which we have adapted.18 Our

efforts here are intended as a first step to identify-

ing the approximant resource flows to these dif-

ferent purposes; but much more work and wider

consultation are needed. We hope that this initial

attempt can become the basis for further collec-

tive work with MOF, the Gender-re

Budgeting Committee, sectoral ministrieagencies such as UN Women, and NGO

are interested in tracking budget expendit

Again, the GESI budget analysis

what activities have been planned/imple

that provide direct, indirect and neutral

to women, the poor and excluded socia

to address the barriers they experience in

ing resources and benefits from the sechave followed the GRB practice of usin

categories but have not followed the GR

cators as they have not been very effe

application across the sectors. The GES

analysis was carried out at two levels. F

assessed national-level expenditures in th

using the above criteria. We reviewed a22 programs and two annual plans (see

1.1 for the list of budgets reviewed). Our

resulted in the breakdown shown in Tab

The next step was to move to the distr

to ground both the national-level GR

get exercise and our own GESI analysi

districts,19 Kavre and Morang. We first

with the line agency staff to assess the

approach to GRB they were using in e

tor. 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



35/118

the gender responsiveness of items in the sec-

toral budgets. They said that they were aware

of a number of positive policy provisions in

each sector mandating that benefits reach girls/

women, the poor and the excluded, but they felt

that these automatically ensured that the entire

budget would be responsive to women or specific

excluded groups. In reality, this has proven to be

a problematic assumption.

Next, we worked with the line agency staff to

do a GESI analysis of the district-level health

budgets, using directly supportive, indirectly

supportive and neutral categories.20 The results

are shown in Table 1.3

Effort has been made by the different minis-tries/programs to address the barriers for women

and poor groups but for other groups the assump-

tion seems to be that benefits will automatically

reach them through implemented activities. The

structural issues that constrain the

indicates that a more conscious

the need to address such sociocul

erment and governance issues, al

technical sector services, is require

The key issues are the criteria,

process of budget review. Govern

classifies a majority of activities

indirectly contributing to women,

ernment directives regarding ser

A deeper analysis, however, ind

activities are budgeted to addre

gender-based barriers women exp

are necessary even within a univer

order that structural barriers are amore even playing field created

GESI be considered to have been

This also highlights the need for a

analysis so that the budget speech

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

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.


36/118

address the fact that it is mostly the extreme poor

and often socially excluded groups such as Dalits

who are either excluded or exclude themselves

from joining groups. While groups are indeed a

powerful mechanism to improve access to services

and inputs, relying solely on this model without

assessing its suitability for all presents a significant

risk 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, in

particular with the Gender-responsive Budgeting

Committee. There has to be a consensus to take

gender and inclusion budgeting together; exist-

ing indicators and sub-indicators for GRB need

to 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 the

understanding of just one desk officer.

1.3.5 Program responses: Gender equality

and social inclusion approaches

This section highlights the program responses

and efforts across the sectors to promote and

mainstream a more inclusive service-delivery

approach. We also discuss measures and prac-

tices that have been found to be effective and suc-

cessful in improving access to sector services and

livelihood opportunities for women, the poor

and excluded groupsincreasing their voice and

influence and supporting changes in the rules of

the game.

Increasing access to assets and services

Significant progress has been made in the

service-delivery sectors in increasing outreach

and equity, enhance quality and impro

ciency through scholarships and incent

girls, Dalits and Adivasi Janajatis. Still,

ing challenges include effective implem

of the multilingual education policy, m

ing of scholarship distribution, and e

funding to meet the opportunity costs

poorest and most disadvantaged comm

There is also a need to look more carefu

the selection procedures and internanance of the school management commi

ensure that they fulfil their potential fo

parents from all groups a say in the run

their local school.

Likewise, in the health sector, gove

initiatives of pro-poor targeted free he

policies and the Aama (Mother) Progmaternity services have had considerable

in reducing the economic constraints of t

and the social constraints of women, an

ally improving health indicators. The

developed NHSP-IP 2 has various acti

address the barriers of women, the poor

excluded, and has made very impressiv

with disaggregated objectives and indicat

In the infrastructure-related sectors, a

water supply has improved substantially

past few decades. However, the low prio

resources accorded to sanitation have res

uneven coverage, especially for the very p

in the Tarai, where lack of land poses

tional challenge. The construction of rurhas improved access to markets, schools

posts, government offices, and so forth, a

provided work opportunities for women

poor in road-building groups. In the irriga



37/118

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 organizing

people for easier and more efficient transfer of

assets and services, and also for improving reach

and 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 quotas

for women and excluded groups have improved

their representation in user groups and executive

committees, 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 many

cases, still highly exclusionary of the extreme

poor and socially disadvantaged groups, often

reflecting and even reinforcing existing power

structures. In addition, although representa-

tion of women is generally high in user groups

and executive committees, their active involve-

ment in decision-making processes is not com-

mensurate with their formal prese

group-based approach to develop

increased access to assets and se

insufficient understanding of and

barriers faced by excluded groups

build their capacity to influence

ing processes. In many of these w

the approach is more transaction

formational,21 and only in those

REFLECT-type processes (see been adopted has there been effect

ing of voice (e.g., Participatory Le

by GTZ/GIZ, COPE/PLA [C

Provider Efficient/Participatory

Action] process by Support for Saf

Program/UN Population Fund a

by CARE/Nepal Family Health PSome notable networks and fe

been able to advocate successfully

their members. The Federation o

Forest Users has become an im

cal player throughout the coun

Federation of Water and San

Nepal and Nepal Federation of

Association are additional exampl

ety groups organizing and mobil

to voice their interests, influence p

sion makers as well as demand acco

transparency from service provide

Nations Childrens Fund (UNICE

womens federations and paraleg

are a force to be reckoned with in Still, even in these successful sec

nizations, important issues rem

inclusion and diversity in the mem

sion-making positions and govern

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


38/118

face in accessing assets and services. The forest

sector, for instance, has made notable progress in

this area by addressing GESI issues in sector pro-

gramming and operational practice. LFPs pro-

poor and social inclusion strategy has been effective

in developing a common understanding of social

exclusion issues as well as strategic approaches to

deal 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 to

play 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 and

in community groups. Behavior change without

systemic structural change in sector institutions,

communities and families will continue to repro-

duce the current gap between good policies and

poor implementation. Unfortunately, however,

sufficient and sustained work along these lines

was not evident in any sector.

1.3.6 Monitoring and reporting

Ministries, including MLD, report on M&E

formats issued by NPC (specifically the Poverty

Monitoring Division, which has the key respon-

sibility to work in this area). For effective GESImainstreaming, integrating gender and social

inclusion into M&E systems is crucial. NPC

has established a system of gender coding for the

10th Plan/PRSP (Poverty Reduction Strategy

in 22 districts and could potentially be

for poverty monitoring in the new feder

once these are determined. But, at prese

ther system is actively used.

To a certain extent, the education an

sectoral information management syst

provide disaggregated information. The

tion sector has the most well-established

of monitoring and reporting, providin

prehensive, high-quality and disaggregatby sex and caste/ethnic group on, amon

things, student enrolment and numbers,

and non-teaching staff, student attenda

scholarship allocation. However, it only d

gates social groups by Dalit and Janajati

differentiating the subgroups within whi

are more disadvantaged than others. Morecategories do not capture groups like the M

other backward classes/OBCs or Muslim

of which have low education outcomes a

to be tracked. Similarly, the current mo

mechanisms of the health sector collect

age-disaggregated data, but information

vice utilization by the poor and the exc

not integrated. The sector is piloting ca

nicity-disaggregated data but mana

Documents

Sectoral Perspectives on Gender and Social Inclusion: Rural Infrastructure (Monograph 6)