As part of the analysis, I will refer to the introduction of gender mainstreaming in the area of development cooperation – how it is or is not being done at the policy and programme formulation stage.163 Next, within this context of the introduction of gender mainstreaming, I identify and analyse representations of the ‘problem’ of gender (in)equality. As explained in chapter 3, this entails an analysis of discourse. Accordingly, I begin this section by exploring definitions, word meanings, binaries, categories, agency, understandings, and underlying assumptions of key words and concepts such as gender, women, empowerment, gender equality, gender inequality, gender mainstreaming and other related terms that appear in policy formulations. I then introduce elements of the discursive and social practice dimensions of discourse analysis such as coherence (in policy practice), intertextuality, interdiscursivity, general trends of change, and effects of problem representations.
Many of the documents and proposals within the area of development cooperation mention gender as a key issue and refer to specific actions aimed towards gender equality. Gender (in)equality is spoken of in connection with different aspects such as employment, health, and education, as well as trade, agriculture, migration, gender-based violence, trafficking, security, and post-conflict situations. The likely causes of gender inequality are also discussed to some extent in policy documents (see, for instance, Council of the European Union 2007; COM(2007) 100 final; SEC(2007) 332).
On the other hand, throughout the material there seem to be discrepancies between stated goals and development practices as well as between negotiation processes and resulting Country Strategy Papers. As stated in the Council Conclusions on the Commission Communication on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Cooperation, ‘Despite the considerable progress made so far, an effective gender perspective still has to be fully mainstreamed into country strategies and in the practice of EU development cooperation’ (Council of the European Union 2007: 5).
163 The evaluation of the implementation of development cooperation policies which are the charge of the Commission’s EuropeAid Co-operation Office is left aside. As said before, when I refer to implementation I do not mean implementation of policies in the field but the introduction of gender mainstreaming at the level of policy and programme formulation.
According to the Commission Communication on Gender Equality and Women Empowerment in Development Cooperation, existing organisational practices and mechanisms within development cooperation still impede the full mainstreaming of gender in policies, actions, and programmes (COM(2007) 100 final: 4). One of the interviewees, a desk officer at DG Development, says that the objectives for DG Development set in the Roadmap fit the policy area well, but that there are obstacles:
For example, it is clear in the Roadmap that gender equality should be part of the political dialog with partner countries. And I know about some good examples because sometimes we get letters or notes from delegations of the Commission, and in these notes I can read that the head of our delegation... I don’t know... in Democratic Republic of Congo told the Prime Minister and said something which is important in terms of gender equality, and then I see that it is part of our political dialog. But, you know, it’s on an ad hoc basis and I can’t really control whether it is regular in the political dialog. But probably even more difficult – issues which I can’t control, but I have a lot of negative feedback – is that in our policies it is clear that when we are preparing these Country Strategy Papers, which I already told you about, which are the basis of bilateral cooperation, and we made for these financial perspectives – these Country Strategy Papers were drafted, including 2006 and which we also commented from a gender perspective, and it is a very clear policy that we should include the civil society of our partner countries when drafting the Country Strategy Paper. And a very obvious reason for this is that of course we are talking about ‘ownership’ of partner countries. But it shouldn’t be only the ownership of the partner government but it should be the ownership, really, of the people, including women, and it should mean that we also include women’s organisations in this dialog.
And very often there are NGOs or NGOs’ representatives, women’s organisations’
representatives, coming here to Brussels. They come from a given country and they say, sorry, but they were never asked or no one asked their opinion. It is a negative feedback.
So I would say that implementation is not always going very easily, even if in terms of policy we have clear policies. So this is something where I say that it may be difficult, the implementation of the Roadmap.164
The interviewee argues that even if the Roadmap set clear objectives for the area of development, the practice of policy formulation within the policy area shows some shortcomings. Most of the time, gender is not an issue systematically included in the political dialog between the EU and partner countries and, consequently, a gender perspective fails to be introduced in CSPs. These kinds of interpretations on the part of policy-makers are very important in terms of coherence (Fairclough 2010: 83–84, 233), as the interviewee evaluates the relation between policy frameworks and specific
164 Interview with administrator working with gender issues at DG Development, May 2008.
policy agreements such as CSPs. Policy-makers and practitioners try to make sense of what the guidelines and proposals say, and those working within these policy frameworks are usually those who write them in the first place.
This does not imply, however, that there are no contradictions in policy practice afterwards. Moreover, as Eyben argues, given the way international aid thinks, in terms of entities rather than relations, those formulating CSPs usually have a hard time trying to fit complex realities into ‘neat categories’
(2010a: 391). This problem has become even worse since the Paris Declaration with its emphasis on donors having ‘a shared diagnosis of a country’s problems, which tends to lead to simplistic statements of the obvious’ (ibid.). The text of the 2007 Council Conclusions also points out:
The Council recognises that real ownership of development processes by partner countries requires the full participation of all actors of civil society, particularly women's organizations, in cooperation with governments. The Council therefore calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure the participation and contribution of civil society in the negotiation process on country strategies with partner countries. (Council of the European Union 2007: 7)
Also important with respect to the elaboration of country-specific proposals is that instead of taking into account context and culture, ‘country ownership’
assumes too narrow an idea of participation and thus has failed to actually engage Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in negotiation processes (Cornwall & Brock 2005: 1052). Cornwall and Brock criticise the meanings and practice of ownership in the context of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) that generate a dynamic of exclusion from participation (ibid.). They find that ‘“Ownership” is created through witnessing an inaudible rendition of problems, and an illegible rendering of solutions’
(ibid.: 1054).
The same interviewee attempts some explanation for this failure to introduce a gender perspective:
I see two major components when I [think about] this problem of implementation. One is probably, which is a problem we have, a lack of commitment from the higher management, the hierarchy. And the other is the training of our own colleagues, because our colleagues, they know that they should mainstream gender but they don’t really know how to do that. So they should be trained. In terms of training we’re doing quite well.165
165 With regard to the reference to training, the Commission working document annexed to the 2007 Communication on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment states: ‘At the European Commission in 2005-2006 more than 1000 persons working in Headquarters or in Delegations received gender training. 25 gender workshops took place in EC Delegations, a package of methodological tools is now available and easily accessible to staff (Toolkit on mainstreaming gender equality in EC development cooperation). The
During the last three years we have trained more than one thousand officials, mainly in delegations, but when I say one thousand it sounds very much, but you should know that we have one hundred twenty-something delegations, and many of these officials in delegations are contracted, so they come for one year, two years. So even if three years I got someone receiving gender training, maybe then it is not working for us anymore. So the one thousand sounds good, it is a big number, but it’s not, not that much in reality. So in terms of training I think that we still are doing quite well. In terms of management commitment it is difficult, but we’re trying to push our management to good examples.
[For] that, we have created recently an inter-service group for gender equality in external relations at director level, so this is a group where we have directors from DG Development, from DG External Relations, from DG AidCo [EuropeAid Co-operation Office], from ECHO [European Community Humanitarian Aid Office] which is Humanitarian Aid [...], from DG Enlargement, and from DG Trade, so basically the RELEX group.166 [...] And one of the aims of this group is to mobilise directors as well.
Because, if I want to be honest, I am here... I’m a small point at the end of the structure, at the lowest level of the structure, and I do my job, but if the management is not supporting it then [it’s worthless]. [...] I would say that [lack of] commitment is the biggest, it’s far the biggest obstacle. And then of course, something which is related to commitment, that is also budget. We have relatively little budget available for gender equality. [...] Coming from commitment is lack of resources, human resources. Actually, each delegation would be good if they had a gender expert, someone who really knows how to mainstream gender into projects, but of course they don’t.167
It should be said that almost all the interviewees refer to these factors (lack of commitment, training, and budget) as the major obstacles to gender mainstream policies in all policy areas. Even the Roadmap is clear about the consequences of the lack of commitment, saying: ‘Gender equality can only be achieved with a clear commitment at the highest political level’
(COM(2006) 92 final: 11). Thus, it is widely accepted within the Commission that commitment, together with budget and training, is a crucial component for the success of the gender mainstreaming strategy and the achievement of gender equality. These three factors are very much interrelated. The fact that those who should be mainstreaming gender may
wide scope of participation provided opportunity for dialogue and exchange of views between the EC and its partners, since the workshops are attended by EC delegation staff, and national counterparts, national institutions for the promotion of gender equality, NGOs, other donors and international agencies. An innovative online course which offers the possibility to learn about mainstreaming gender equality in development cooperation has been launched in 2005’ (SEC(2007) 332: 4).
166 RELEX means ‘External Relations’. The RELEX Group includes all of the six DGs working within the area of External Relations.
167 Interview with administrator working with gender issues at DG Development, May 2008.
not be interested in doing so, or may not have a clear understanding of what that means, obviously influences the way in which the strategy is actually put into action. In this regard, it is relevant to examine how the problem of gender (in)equality is represented.
Within the context of the introduction of gender mainstreaming, I will now analyse the texts to identify and describe different definitions, finding out how different categories and key words are related to each other in constructing representations of the ‘problem’ of gender (in)equality in policy documents. These representations constitute different discourses. The discourse analysis also includes the analysis of elements of the discursive and social practice dimensions.