but provided evidence that gender turned out to be relevant after all. OPS5 concluded that “omitting attention for gender where it is needed may have led to
unintended negative gender-related consequences”. A baseline study undertaken
by OPS5 revealed that many climate action projects were formulated by experts
insufficiently aware of gender issues. On the good side it should be noted that the
same study also revealed projects that tackle gender issues adequately (GEF/IEO
2014, p. 61).
When the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) started in 2008, they did not have an
explicit gender focus – most countries did not include women’s organisations in
investment plan consultations. However, in 2009 and 2010, 15 % of the plans
started declaring gender considerations. Some works remains to ensure that gender
considerations are mainstreamed in CIF planning and carried through to investment
projects in the field. In a positive step forward, the CIF hired a gender specialist to
develop and implement an action plan to support collaboration among MDBs.
Attempts have been made throughout the NICFI portfolio to address gender
issues in REDDþ. However, it is stated by the evaluation that among partners, there
is a lack of understanding of, and low general capacity to address gender. The
strongest contribution has been through the UN-REDD programme, whereby
numerous publications on REDDþ and gender have been produced.
For UN-REDD, the importance and need for gender mainstreaming is reflected
in most of its policy and programmatic documents and guidelines. However, the
implementation of gender mainstreaming activities at the country level is not taking
place in a cohesive and systematic way throughout the programme. The evaluation
(2014) stated that drivers of deforestation will be better addressed if gender
considerations are integrated especially at the local level.
The track record on equity and inclusiveness is even less impressive. While
equity and inclusiveness are essential dimensions of social, economic and environmental sustainability, they are perhaps too far removed from the often technical
nature of the climate actions reviewed in the seven comprehensive evaluations. The
Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF does not mention equity or inclusiveness, while the CIF evaluation only mentions equity in relation to investments and
inclusiveness of stakeholders in consultations. There is indirect attention to the
issues – for example in the attention for local livelihoods, involvement of indigenous peoples and civil society organisations. An example is to be found in the
NICFI evaluation: since 2008, NICFI provided a total of NOK 1 billion or 9 % of its
funding to civil society to generate needed knowledge, for advocacy (international
and political), piloting and facilitating implementation (Frechette etc. 2014, xix).
UN-REDD’s evaluation stated that ‘The Programme provides an enabling platform
for Indigenous Peoples and civil society organisations to influence global discussions on REDDþ. The ability of forest-dependent populations to influence REDDþ
processes has so far proven to be more limited at the country level, and
non-indigenous communities are not well represented in the programme, overall’
(Frechette etc. 2014, vi).
While attention for gender, equity and inclusiveness is on the rise, the evaluative
evidence is overwhelming that these dimensions have not yet been fully included in
30
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen
unintended negative gender-related consequences”. A baseline study undertaken
by OPS5 revealed that many climate action projects were formulated by experts
insufficiently aware of gender issues. On the good side it should be noted that the
same study also revealed projects that tackle gender issues adequately (GEF/IEO
2014, p. 61).
When the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) started in 2008, they did not have an
explicit gender focus – most countries did not include women’s organisations in
investment plan consultations. However, in 2009 and 2010, 15 % of the plans
started declaring gender considerations. Some works remains to ensure that gender
considerations are mainstreamed in CIF planning and carried through to investment
projects in the field. In a positive step forward, the CIF hired a gender specialist to
develop and implement an action plan to support collaboration among MDBs.
Attempts have been made throughout the NICFI portfolio to address gender
issues in REDDþ. However, it is stated by the evaluation that among partners, there
is a lack of understanding of, and low general capacity to address gender. The
strongest contribution has been through the UN-REDD programme, whereby
numerous publications on REDDþ and gender have been produced.
For UN-REDD, the importance and need for gender mainstreaming is reflected
in most of its policy and programmatic documents and guidelines. However, the
implementation of gender mainstreaming activities at the country level is not taking
place in a cohesive and systematic way throughout the programme. The evaluation
(2014) stated that drivers of deforestation will be better addressed if gender
considerations are integrated especially at the local level.
The track record on equity and inclusiveness is even less impressive. While
equity and inclusiveness are essential dimensions of social, economic and environmental sustainability, they are perhaps too far removed from the often technical
nature of the climate actions reviewed in the seven comprehensive evaluations. The
Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF does not mention equity or inclusiveness, while the CIF evaluation only mentions equity in relation to investments and
inclusiveness of stakeholders in consultations. There is indirect attention to the
issues – for example in the attention for local livelihoods, involvement of indigenous peoples and civil society organisations. An example is to be found in the
NICFI evaluation: since 2008, NICFI provided a total of NOK 1 billion or 9 % of its
funding to civil society to generate needed knowledge, for advocacy (international
and political), piloting and facilitating implementation (Frechette etc. 2014, xix).
UN-REDD’s evaluation stated that ‘The Programme provides an enabling platform
for Indigenous Peoples and civil society organisations to influence global discussions on REDDþ. The ability of forest-dependent populations to influence REDDþ
processes has so far proven to be more limited at the country level, and
non-indigenous communities are not well represented in the programme, overall’
(Frechette etc. 2014, vi).
While attention for gender, equity and inclusiveness is on the rise, the evaluative
evidence is overwhelming that these dimensions have not yet been fully included in
30
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen