Gender Equality Results in ADB Projects. Juliet Hunt

equality results.(ii)Targets for the participation of women. The loan designs of the CERD project and the DBEP included targets for women’s participation. These directly contributed to women benefiting from project activities. In some components of the CERD project’s design where there were no targets for women’s participation (for example, in decision making regarding infrastructure), there was less participation by women. In the DBEP, project implementers were unaware of some targets, which also led to missed opportunities to enhance gender equality results.(iii)GAP and gender targets included in the loan covenants. In all three projects, the greatest attention was paid to implementing those GAP strategies and gender targets that were included in the loan covenants. However, some covenanted gender provisions for the SCBD project and the DBEP were not routinely monitored or reported on by either ADB or the executing agency.(iv)Capacity building of implementers and ownership of the GAP and gender provisions. The CERD and SCBD projects provided gender training for implementing contractors and staff. This promoted ownership and understanding of GAP requirements in the early stages of project implementation. The DBEP did not provide training for implementing staff, and many of them were not aware of the project’s gender provisions. Comparing the approaches taken by the three projects highlights the importance ofdiscussing the GAP and gender provisions with implementers early in project implementation, of ongoing dialogue, and of monitoring of gender equality results throughout implementation.(v)Gender advisers supported implementation. The CERD gender adviser provided capacity building and support to executing agency staff, implementing agencies, and beneficiaries to enable effective implementation of the GAP. The SCBD project gender adviser assisted with the development of GAPs in the districts. In both cases the project gender advisers helped to ensure that GAP elements were understood. To improve results the project gender advisers could have been used more strategically, by focusing on monitoring and evaluation of overall GAP implementation, addressing GAP implementation challenges, and sharing effective strategies for achieving gender equality results and project outcomes. As the DBEP had no project gender adviser, there was no opportunity to build the capacity of staff to address barriers to the implementation of some gender provisions.(vi)GAP linked to loan disbursement. The SCBD project required that a district GAP be developed for each CBAP as a condition for release of initial CBAP funds. Implementation of CBAP gender provisions and targets was a condition for subsequent releases. This was successful in ensuring that all districts developed a GAP. However, the quality of the CBAP GAPs varied considerably. Ongoing monitoring of compliance with implementation remains important.(vii)Executing agency leadership. In both the CERD and SCBD projects, there was leadership and commitment from district government staff and implementers. This was supported by the capacity building efforts of the project gender advisers.

      Institutionalization of Gender Actions Plans and Gender Provisions

      More effort is needed to ensure that GAPs and gender provisions are institutionalized by both executing agencies and ADB through inclusion of GAP elements and gender-sensitive indicators in RRP DMFs and in the monitoring frameworks for project performance reports. Overall, the collection and analysis of sex-disaggregated data, including baseline and monitoring data, need to be strengthened. More attention must be given to the implementation and monitoring of loan covenants. ADB loan review missions need to engage in dialogue with project implementers on results achieved for women, and executing agencies should provide regular reports on overall GAP implementation, results, challenges, and ongoing relevance of GAP strategies. Another important challenge for both executing agencies and ADB is to move beyond monitoring of women’s participation to monitoring and assessing outcomes such as practical benefits to women and men and positive changes in gender relations, particularly in midterm review, impact assessment, and project completion reports.

      The CERD and SCBD projects benefited from the involvement of the ADB resident mission gender specialist during design and implementation. The ADB resident mission gender specialist has an important role to play in institutionalization, including sharing knowledge on effective GAP strategies across the portfolio and in priority sectors. This requires explicit and active support from resident mission country directors and ADB headquarters and a clear mandate that is understood and supported by ADB team leaders. GAP implementation would be strengthened if the ADB country partnership strategy explicitly identified gender equality results and the links between gender equality and ADB’s strategic areas of engagement in Indonesia. The absence of a GAP in the DBEP highlighted the importance of early engagement by the ADB resident mission gender specialist in project preparation in order to develop activities that are based on sound gender analysis and well integrated into the project design. The limited reporting of gender equality results across all three projects also highlighted the need for involvement of the ADB resident mission gender specialist in more loan review missions.

      Recommendations for Indonesia

      ADB’s Strategy 2020 highlights gender equity as one of five drivers of change and commits ADB to designing gender-inclusive projects and paying careful attention to gender issues across the full range of its operations. For ADB to achieve this goal, the authors make the following recommendations:

(i)	GAPs should be prepared in sufficient detail to provide a road map for implementation and should include strategies and targets for each loan component, project gender advisers throughout implementation, and gender capacity building with executing agencies and other stakeholders.
(ii)	The TOR for project gender advisers should ensure that their inputs are used strategically to (a) build ownership of the GAP and ensure its implementation, (b) analyze the progress and effectiveness of overall GAP implementation, (c) address implementation challenges where women’s participation is limited, and (d) share effective strategies and how gender equality results contribute to overall loan outcomes.
(iii)	Sex-disaggregated baseline data should be collected wherever possible on gender-related targets included in project GAPs and on other DMF indicators.
(iv)	Projects should collect and report on sex-disaggregated data for DMF indicators. Reporting on the GAP and on gender equality results should be integrated into core documents such as annual, midterm review, impact assessment, and project completion reports. They should assess gender differences in participation, access to project resources, and benefits.
(v)	More attention should be paid to GAP implementation and monitoring, including the monitoring of gender equality results throughout project implementation. Enhanced dialogue with executing agencies by ADB on GAP implementation and gender-related loan covenants during review missions should be pursued.
(vi)	The ADB resident mission gender specialist could be more involved in loan design, implementation, and monitoring, including in loan review missions for projects in high-priority sectors where it is possible to demonstrate the impact of a gender-responsive approach and where there are opportunities for lesson learning, replication to other projects, and capacity building of partners.
(vii)	The next Indonesia country partnership strategy should include gender equality results in its results framework. This would enable project GAPs to be aligned with the country strategy and would provide a firm basis for dialogue on gender equality and GAP implementation with executing agencies.