Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Anne-Charlott Callerstig
www.genderCoP.eu
Strengthening the support for gender
mainstreaming in the EU: The case of the
ESF institutional mechanisms Advancing Gender Training to Support Effective Gender Mainstreaming
13-14 November 2012, EIGE, Vilnius
Gender Mainstreaming Community of Practice GMCoP.eu
• The European Community of Practice on Gender Mainstreaming in ESF - “GenderCoP”
www.gendercop.eu
• ESF learning networks financed by EC
• “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they
do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly." Wenger
Overarching aim of the CoP
The coherent integration of the EU dual gender equality approach into the European Social Funds in
order to achieve gender equality
Goal of the CoP – January 2013
To produce an ESF standard/minimum approach on how to implement a gender perspective in all phases of ESF Management
… i.e. Gender Mainstreaming should be an integral part of future
ESF management/cycles – from planning, programming, implementing to monitoring and evaluation
1. EU LEVEL (European
Commission, ESF etc)
2. NATIONAL ESF DESIGN
(OP at regional and
national level)
3. REGIONAL & NATIONAL
ESF IMPLEMEN-
TATION
4. PROJECT LEVEL
ESF – 4 crucial levels
Members of the Gender-CoP
ESF Management Authorities Sweden (Lead Member State), Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (French speaking Community), Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Province of Bolzano (Italy), Poland and Spain Intermediary bodies Agency for Gender Equality in the ESF (Germany), Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality (Portugal), National Women´s Institute (Spain), ISFOL (Italy), The European Regional Fund (Sweden), Process Support in GM (Sweden), The Equality Ombudsman, (Sweden)
Contact information
Bengt Nilsson, Project Manager
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +46 (0)8-442 46 48
Anna Tengqvist, Coordinator
Email: [email protected] Tel: +46 (0)8-442 46 32
Anne-Charlott Callerstig, Gender Expert
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +46 (0)731-42 22 31
Renate Wielpütz, Gender Expert
Email: [email protected]
Agenda work-shop 14:30-17:30
14.30 Introduction of Gender-CoP and the work session
14.45 Gender Mainstreaming, Capacity building and the ESF
Anne-Charlott Callerstig
15.00 Three models/experiences on training and capacity building
Renate Wielpütz, Germany
Jenny Charlier, Belgium
Katarina Jacobson, Sweden
16.00 Discussions in groups
17.00 Group reports
What is capacity building?
• Capacity relates to the ability of public structures to identify
and solve implementation problems – a set of functional conditions that allow governments to elaborate and
implement programmes with better performance
• Capacity building is a process that entails institutionalisation
and internalisation of new stages of problem-solving
instruments (know-how, skills, technologies, etc.) developed
in reaction to (or anticipation of) implementation issues.
(Jaenike, 2001).
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/evalsed/sourcebook
s/themes_policy/boxes/inst_and_admin_capacity_def_en.htm
Capacity building on three levels
• Individual level - Capacity-building on an individual level requires the development of
conditions that allow individual participants to build and enhance existing knowledge and skills.
It also calls for the establishment of conditions that will allow individuals to engage in the
“process of learning and adapting to change.”
• Institutional level - Capacity building on an institutional level should involve aiding
pre-existing institutions. It should not involve creating new institutions, rather modernizing
existing institutions and supporting them in forming sound policies, organizational structures,
and effective methods of management and revenue control.
• Societal level - Capacity building at the societal level should support the establishment
of a more “interactive public administration that learns equally from its actions and from
feedback it receives from the population at large.” Capacity building must be used to develop
public administrators that are responsive and accountable.
• United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration (2006). "Definition of basic concepts and
terminologies in governance and public administration". United Nations Economic and Social Council.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan022332.pdf. .
Gender mainstreaming is about learning and change - a process that needs strong active steering and support
Gender mainstreaming
needs:
• Knowledge and know-how
• Specific budget resources
• Active ownership and
dedicated practitioners
• Accountability
• Steering and Monitoring
• Evaluation and feedback
• Learning environment
(Mary Braithwaite ,Mieke Verloo,
Sylvia Walby, Judith Squires, Joan
Acker, Kristina Lindholm et al)
Individual and organizational learning
• […]organizations are products of the ways that people in them
think and act. Organizational learning results from individuals
participating in activities that embody new ways of thinking and
acting and relating together, leading to an increasing and
enduring organizational capacity for change.
Senge et al 1999
• Capacity building for individuals must be combined with an
organizational strategy in order to endorse and sustain change
Callerstig 2012
Implementation problems of Gender Mainstreaming within the ESF
• The implementation gap is substantial - importance of gender mainstreaming is
recognized in theory but not always in practice and…
…a gender perspective is often lacking on the policy level where many ESF
objectives
are seen as gender-neutral
• The “red thread” from policy (objectives and targets) throughout implementation
and monitoring to results and evaluation is missing and…
• Many member states implement the strategy mainly on the final stage of the ESF
process – on project level
• Gender mainstreaming needs knowledge and know-how and this is often lacking
• Gender mainstreaming is a strategy to reach Gender Equality, but what is meant
by gender equality and what constitutes the current gender gaps to address is
seldom defined
• ….there is a lack of mechanisms ensuring coherence and sustainability - in
many cases no permanent structures to implement GM have been developed or
they are only partly endorsed leading to a patch-work approach to GM
How have the “implementation issues” of GM been dealt with so far?
• Evaluation of the European Social Fund’s support to
Gender Equality, EC, January 2011
• Gender equality institutional infrastructure
• Gender equality competences among the ESF actors
Gender equality institutional infrastructure? “ in only one third of the Member States there appears to be (at least to some
extent) what we could refer to as a long-term organisational investment in
setting up a gender infrastructure in the form of a permanent office (i.e. a
dedicated officer with additional staff).”
5 main types of gender institutional structures in an ESF context:
• dedicated officer with supporting staff
• dedicated officer only
• specific and ad hoc gender-equality Committees
• reference for advice from already existent ‘gender networks’
• reliance on external experts
Gender-equality competences among officers
• “the effort towards upgrading internal competences and skills
appears to vary greatly among Member States and a
significant number of them are still not investing sufficiently to
increase their internal capacity in terms of gender equality “
Gender training
Recommendations from the evaluators
for MS Direct recommendation:
• Permanent structure should be organized, or an existing office
should be endorsed taking the lead on gender-equality issues
in OP activities.
Indirect recommendations:
• Structured reflection to be focussed on the application of the
gender mainstreaming
• Close watch on how monitoring systems and data collection
are working in practice, to provide a clear representation of
how the OPs are proceeding with respect to the GE objective
• Improve GE competence among ESF actors
GM Support structures
• Context specific (no universal models)
• Top-down and botton-up perspective needs to be balanced
• Active support from management and politicians
• Clear visions and targets
• Balance ESF and Gender competence
• Recognize and include room for development (individual and organizational
development process)
Designing support structures- what should be the guiding principles?
• General knowledge for all or in-depth knowledge for a few?
• Outside or inside expertise?
• Everybody's responsibility or responsibility for a few?
• SOPs (guides, checklist etc) or coaching?
• Top-down or bottom-up?
• Obligatory or voluntary ?
• One time effort or on-going process?
• etc
Questions for discussions Tables 1-3 (examples of capacity building)
• What are the main benefits of the capacity building set-up / method? What added
value can be identified?
• What are the limits of the capacity building set-up / method? How can they be
overcome?
• Suggest two main recommendations for further action on capacity building for GM in
the ESF/EU.
Table 4 (finding deeper insights on capacity for GM)
• Capacity building should be developed in reaction to (or anticipation of)
implementation issues. From what you have heard - What’s missing from this
picture so far? What is it we’re not seeing? What do we need more clarity about?
• What’s the next level of thinking we need to do?
• Suggest two main recommendations for further action on capacity building for GM in
the ESF.
Thanks for your attention!
