slow. In particular, most projects lag behind in achieving a satisfactory OECD/
DAC gender marker score and the gender-sensitivity aspects of projects are
often neglected. Moreover, there is room for improvement with respect to
the allocation of gender-focused aid, gender-related training and regular and
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of programmes and projects. In
light of the above, and taking into account the report’s recommendations,
the Council reiterates that the implementation of the GAP is a shared
responsibility of the EU and its Member States and calls on all concerned to
demonstrate leadership and deliver on their commitments to implement and
report on the GAP
.activities (this is in effect the action plan); and Annex 2 discusses the monitoring and reporting process for the GAP 2016-2020.
The three-pronged approach of policy dialogue, gender mainstreaming and targeted actions is maintained in the new GAP. New in the Gender Action Plan 2016-2020 is a focus on thematic pillars. In the new Gender Action Plan, four pivotal areas have been identified that impact the lives of women and girls if action is taken. The three thematic pillars are:
• Ensuring girls’ and women’s physical and psychological integrity
• Promoting the social and economic rights / empowerment of girls and women
• Strengthening girls’ and women’s voice and participation.
There is also a fourth, horizontal pillar, specifically addressing staff commitment:
• Shifting the institutional culture to more effectively deliver on EU commitments.
Under the new GAP, Delegations will have to choose at least one objective for each of the three thematic areas to focus interventions on, either through targeted gender actions or through mainstreaming gender equality in other actions (at relevant level depending on the type of programme). This leaves scope for different actors to concentrate development assistance in the area or areas most pressing in each context, and allows Member States to
continue support to areas already prioritised in their aid strategies while
contributing to the overall EU effort. Taking action to shift institutional culture is mandatory for all EU actors.
EU actors are expected to report transparently on progress and setbacks every year, for which a new monitoring and accountability framework is provided. Central to the new reporting approach is:
• Annual reporting by all EU actors on the EU’s contribution to the thematic areas, specifically the selected objectives;
• Systematic gender analysis for all new external actions undertaken (e.g. projects). EU actors reporting on these activities will use sex-disaggregated data whenever available. Possibilities for concerted efforts, where needed, to generate data will be explored including for opportunities to build statistical capacity to measure and report gender sensitive information;
• Systematic reporting on the institutional culture shift for all EU actors against the indicators set out in the document.
Regarding the first, the identification of objectives and indicators is to be finalised by mid-2016. It will be informed by the systematic gender analysis for new actions undertaken.
The GAP’s implementation continues to be the joint responsibility of the Commission services and the European External Action Service (EEAS), promoting policy coherence with internal EU policies in full alignment with the EU Human Rights Action Plan. As such, it opens the way for efforts to ensure that what the EU does in the arenas of macro-economic policy, trade, foreign policy, security, migration and climate, for example, promotes and supports gender equality and respect for women’s and girls’ human rights. Some things however remain unclear or weak, as pointed out in reviews of the new action plan by ODI, Concord and Plan. Key concerns from these three actors can be summarised as follows:
• The status of the paper as a Joint Staff Working Document. The status of a Communication would have given it great political weight, as it would be discussed, agreed and reviewed at EU Council level;
• While there is attention for internal institutional culture shift, the plan is weak on building human resource capacity, especially gender analytical capacity. EU Delegations must receive adequate support and gender focal points must have the authority to lead on implementing the GAP as a key priority area;
• While the plan calls for more financial allocation, there is little in the framework to indicate that the EU will review commitments under the current EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020. Without new money forthcoming, the scale of specific initiatives in the three thematic areas may be limited.
• Lack of about who within the EU Delegations will report, and at what level the report will be signed off;
• There should be transparent reporting on implementation with regular discussions with civil society.37
Gender commitments in the Cotonou Agreement
Underlying all relations with the Pacific is the Cotonou Agreement, signed
in 2000 with all 14 PACP countries and building on an earlier cooperation agreement called the Lomé Convention signed in 1975 with a group of newly
independent African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The Cotonou Agreement is based on four main principles, including equality of partners and ownership of development strategies, participation, dialogue and mutual obligations, and differentiation and regionalisation. Political dialogue is one of the key aspects of the arrangements, as well as good governance.
37 See ODI, 2015, “The European Union’s new Gender Action Plan 2016-2020 – Gender equality and women’s empowerment in external relations, Plan International, 2015, “Plan International EU Office Response to the Council Conclusions on the Gender Action Plan 2016-2020”, and Concord, 2015, “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment – Transforming the Lives of Girls and Women through EU External Relations 2016-2020 – Policy Recommendations”
The Cotonou Agreement holds commitments to gender equality, specifically Article 31 which reads as follows: ‘Cooperation shall help strengthen policies and programmes that improve, ensure and broaden the equal participation of men and women in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life. Cooperation shall help improve the access of women to all resources required for the full exercise of their fundamental rights.”
All 14 Pacific ACP countries as well as Australia and New Zealand, through the Pacific Islands Forum, adopted the Pacific Plan in in 2005. The Pacific Plan is described as the ‘master strategy’ for driving Pacific regionalism, providing the framework for collective action and defining the structure and functions of the regional organisations of the Pacific. The development of a number of regional sector policies is facilitated through these 9 regional inter-governmental organisations coordinating with each other. Together, these regional organisations are members of the Council of the Regional Organisations of the Pacific (CROP), chaired by the PIFS.
The Pacific Plan mentioned the need to improve gender equality. Initiative 12.6 calls on the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat to assist with the development of strategies to support participative democracy and consultative decision- making and electoral processes, while Initiative 12.5 calls for support for the implementation of human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.
As a response to the Pacific Plan, in 2006 the European Union adopted the EU Strategy for a Strengthened Partnership with the Pacific and in 2012 the new Joint Communication: Towards a Renewed EU-Pacific Development Partnership. Key priorities for the EU-Pacific partnership include: climate change, trade, fisheries, regional integration as well as governance and human rights. A review of the Pacific Plan lead to the adoption of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism, setting out the belief that “deeper regionalism will help increase socio-economic and development prospects, expand market opportunities, improve service delivery, and contribute to security and good governance for Pacific people and for the region as a whole.” 38 Rather than
providing a list of regional priorities, the Framework sets out a process through which regional priorities will be identified and implemented. The new PIF Framework For Pacific Regionalism makes only one mention of gender - as one of six core values: ‘We embrace good governance, the full observance of democratic values, the rule of law, the defence and promotion of all human rights, gender equality, and commitment to just societies’ (p3).
38 Pacific Island Forum Secretariat, July 2014, Framework for Pacific Regionalism, p. 1 http://www. adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/pacific-robp-2015-2017-sd.pdf accessed August 25, 2015
GAP implementation reports over 2011, 2012 and 2013 include submissions by the EU Delegation in Fiji, which covers Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Samoa, Tuvalu, Niue, Nauru, Cook Islands, RMI, FSM, Palau, as well as the Pacific OCTs: New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis et Futuna and Pitcairn. However, relatively little information is available. The only point of information included on the Pacific in the 2014 Implementation Report is the percentage of proposals having equality as a significant or principle objective. The percentage reported by the EU Delegation in the Pacific is 30%, which is lower than percentages reported by most other delegations.39
In this section we provide an outline of what has been done to implement GAP 2010 - 2015 in the region so far based on an overview of bilateral program commitments, regional program commitments and initiatives under thematic instruments.
Bilateral Programmes
In line with new programming guidelines for EDF 11, most EDF 11 MIPS for Pacific countries rely on the Pacific Countries’ own National Development Strategies/Plans. As such, the EU’s development objectives in a partner country have been designed to align with the priorities identified by the partner country. This means that analysis and guidance on gender approaches has also largely come from the partner countries themselves.
When looking at the National Development Strategies for the Pacific one finds significant variation in the level of depth and nuance of gender analysis and commitments. Altogether, these Pacific National Development Strategies provided little direction for donors including the European Union, and where they do include commitments to gender, these were not always included in the MIPs for 2014-2020. With little attention for gender in these policy documents, there has been relatively little incentive for the EU to focus attention on gender. As a consequence, few funds have initially been set aside specifically for gender for 2014-2020; and where such funds existed, they are small compared to the overall size of EU donor assistance. The table below provides an overview of the Pacific countries’ National Development Strategies/Plans, as well as the overall objective of the EU response and its focal sectors and the implementation method. References to gender in the MIPs are also included.40
39 2014 Report on the Implementation of the EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s 40 Source: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/home_en