 I'd like to, in this session, invite those of you who have questions or comments to be able to participate. This would be a very interactive session and it will be a conversation. So what we'll do is I will start to ask two questions, one of each panelist will open the floor for you to ask a few questions. I'll turn back and ask some other questions for our other panelists. So the topic of this discussion is on the future of foreign assistance. How can we make foreign assistance for gender equality results which are core to development results? How can we get that traction, give that traction? What do we do going forward? So I'd like to start with, and let me introduce our panelists before we start. We've got Cindy Clark with the Association for Women's Rights in Development, which is one of the foremost women's rights organizations around the world. Patty O'Neill, who introduced herself earlier as with the OECD DAC gender net with the secretariat. Lucia Hanmer, who's in the gender team at the World Bank, which has done quite a lot of work on gender equality as smart economics over the last few years. And we have Carolina Vennerhorn from Swedish Sida, who has been a model for many, many donors for many years. So we are really thrilled to have all of you as part of this panel. So I'd like to start with Patty, the Busan Agenda. This has been a very interesting process of thinking about how we get gender equality results central to the aid effectiveness agenda. We started in earnest prior to Accra, but certainly in Accra, and then in Busan. And there was really some progress in terms of language and rhetoric. How do we actually get, in terms of we're starting to think about this agenda for the next round, we're thinking about these kinds of policy dialogues, what are we going to do to get traction for implementation? Okay, that's a slightly different question. That's the first question. So that's an important one. And you've been working on this for a long time. That's right. Well, actually what Karen said to me, she was going to ask me, is where will we be? And I thought, oh, that's a really easy question. So I will begin in part with how we're going to get there, because the fantastic post-2015 development framework that we are going to agree on in September 2015 will have a really strong and memorable standalone goal on gender equality and empowering women and girls. Secondly, we will have really well integrated gender equality throughout all other relevant goals, particularly the ones relating to keeping girls in school. Women's leadership, voice and agency will come through. Sexual and reproductive rights with a focus on family planning will come through. If it was good enough for us, it's good enough for every other woman in the world. Violence against women and girls, economic empowerment, as I said, and women, peace and security. So it's going to be a fantastic framework, but it will only work if the partner countries are there loud and clear. At this moment, we've actually got donors standing back saying, we can't pre-empt what countries think, and I think they might just wait too long. The other really important thing that will come about because of that fantastic framework is that developing countries themselves. And by that, I do indeed mean the governments. You didn't need me here when we had the woman from Pakistan here. Development countries will own and they'll lead the agenda for women's rights. And there will be sufficient investment. Donor funds will only be supplementary. They won't be essential. And in fact, the key implementers will be the governments because unless the governments own gender equality and women's rights, we'll never get anywhere. We will remain marginalised forever. And it's really important that we don't. And I'll just share one little anecdote before I give this back, which is I recently worked with UN agencies just a month ago to hold a huge workshop on the post-2015 framework. We received 27 proposals for presentation at that workshop from our donors and from UN agencies. In all but one workshop case study, all but one were implemented by either CSOs or by UN agencies. And I think that that is extremely concerning. It made me raise the question immediately, where are the governments? Where are the governments? Who are the governments that are implementing these? Show us the governments. And I think we donors, this is the one area that I really want to see improvement. Yes, I want improvements to the quality and quantity of aid, but I want us to be really focusing on who's implementing. I think that's really important. And I want to actually pick up on something that you said and maybe we'll invite some comments from the audience on this. You mentioned that you want to see that donor funds will be supplementary and not essential. I think that's actually critical because countries need to own this agenda. Back in 2005 when I was working with the UN Millennium Project, we were asked to do an exercise to cost how much gender equality would be as part of achieving the Millennium Development Goals. And in the process of doing that work, we looked at country-owned resources for this agenda relative to donor resources. And it turns out that a lot of the resources for gender equality and women's empowerment are off budget. They're donor financed. And that less than 3% of countries' own expenditures were going to these objectives as part of their sectoral programs. And that's a very difficult situation. Countries themselves need to commit their own resources. And we have some examples of how we at least follow the money to do that. So for instance, gender budgeting, which is something that has been in Bangladesh, has been in India, has been in many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The evaluation, though, is a little mixed. So it would be interesting to hear from others that experience because that might be one way that country ownership can be improved in terms of this particular agenda. But speaking about money, Cindy and A-Wid have just produced a milestone report called Watering the Leaves and Starving the Roots. And it's tracking the money to women's organizations and women's movements. So Cindy, maybe you can tell us a little bit about your findings. And one thing that's interesting about this report is this is the second report. So what has changed when you first did it? Thanks, Karen. I guess one of the biggest shifts that we see in the report, which just came out in October, is really the context that we've been talking about all day today. So on the one hand, the original report came out, I believe it was in 2006 after research that we've been doing in 2005. One big shift now is that women and girls are everywhere in mainstream agendas in development agencies and donor agencies in the media. So it's not that we have to be out there saying, what about women, where are the women? Everyone's taken that on, which in itself raises other questions about how are we informing the ways that that gets taken on and picked up. The other big shift that we see in the landscape is what was described earlier today, the huge diversity of new actors that are part of these conversations. So whether that's the corporate sector, whether that's so-called social businesses, again, some media actors trying to engage. So there's a really large diversity of entities that are interested in supporting and investing in women and girls. So that was the other big shift. And I don't think it's new, but I think it's more pronounced in recent years, what we might call the corporatization of some development or really the emphasis on investment over aid. And we can understand some of the argumentation and the rationale for why we would want to see returns on investment and frame it in that way, but it's also been highly problematic in many ways. Jasmine was talking in her presentation about the reductionism. So we see how these agendas are driving very narrow slices of the issues, whether it be a single focus on family planning instead of broader approaches to sexual reproductive health and rights, whether in education it be a very narrow focus on certain approaches, voucher systems or particular scholarships that may not respond to the local community. So those were some big shifts. In terms of the sources of funding, we saw something of an increase, because we do a large survey over 1,000 women's organizations, respond to a survey where we ask them, where is your income coming from and what kinds of work do you do? So between 2005 and 2010, we've seen an increase in the source of funds coming from bilateral and multilateral agencies, which reinforces the important role that these groups are playing for women's organizations. Private foundations stayed around the same at about 15%, but what was particularly interesting, there was a very sizable increase from 11% to 20% in women's organizations receiving support from local governments and country governments. So I think increasingly a lot of what we hear anecdotally is that they're finding that as international funders or aid agencies withdraw from a context they're going more and more to their local governments, there was also an important increase in self-generated resources, membership fees and individual contributions, particularly for smaller organizations. One other important change in terms of the sources was international NGOs with an important decrease. So from 14% down to 7%, which we think is somewhat indicative of trends that we're seeing among international NGOs to do more of the implementation themselves and less to support local partners and women's organizations among them. But one of the things that's maybe most interesting is what hasn't changed very much in this time. So I mentioned the survey that we did, over 1,000 organizations. The median income of these organizations in 2010 was just over 20,000 US dollars. So that's very small. Now that's double what it was in 2005. So on the one hand, that's an important increase, but it's not nearly where we'd like to see it in terms of the important work that these groups are doing and also because we think they are key drivers for change for gender equality and women's rights in the context where they're working. The other thing that hasn't changed very much is who the champions are. And it's a lot of the donors in this room. So the Nordic countries, we see the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark. How can we work together and really bring other donors more on board to support women's rights and women's organizations? Thank you. I'd like to pause. Do we have any questions or comments from the audience? You've all been so silent today and now it's your opportunity to talk. I think I'd like to go to the back of the room and not have the speakers who have been up here speaking. So is there anybody from the participant? Yes, back there, please. Hi, my name is Gro Lindstedt and I am with the Focus Forum for Women in Development in Norway. I just wanted to comment on post-2015 and what we want because the way it really is today we're nowhere near the illusion that you're painting up there. And I think that we seriously have to address what the real situation is and what challenges we have to meet in the next two years to actually have that standalone goal because it's not... I mean, there was someone saying here before that are the Western countries losing kind of their view in this? I don't think that's true at all. I think it's more that different countries are working where it suits them on pulling back on women's issues, bargaining for other things. We're sitting at too many conferences where women's issues are being challenged and are used as bargaining chips, whereas men's issues never are. And I think these are the issues that we seriously need to address here before we do anything else. Important comment. Anybody else want to comment on related to that theme of post-2015 or any of the other issues that Patty or Cindy have raised? Patty, do you want to respond? What can I say? Other than that, I obviously 100% agree. A standalone goal is not in the bag. There is no question about that. And I think what we really have to think about very smartly and very strategically is what absolutely must be in a standalone goal. And when I say that we have to be very strategic, we have to think very hard about, for instance, where we would put family planning. And it's what I really mean by, the question I think we need to ask is, I always get this wrong because I have to double negative it, but it's what could not be achieved anywhere else by the development framework? So I would have thought that becomes issues which are going to be highly contentious, like violence against women and girls. Exactly as you say, the sorts of issues where women's lives and girls' lives are used as bargaining chips. So violence against women and girls. Issues around early marriage. Women's leadership, voice and agency and aspects of women's economic empowerment, such as the control of assets which has come up today. So we'd have to be very careful about which ones we chose. I think we've got a hard road ahead of us. And this is one of the reasons I went out so hard on saying this just now, because I think already we're in a very heavy duty political negotiation. And where, if anything, both the UN agencies and the donor countries in this room are actually standing back saying, we mustn't pre-empt what's going to come through the process. I mean, if you can't see that we're all, people can't see that we're already negotiating and that by the second week of February, the open working group on the SDGs will no longer be open. Its door will be, I would think, firmly closed. And what comes out of that group will be the base below which we probably go. And I am an optimist and I think that is where, you know, whatever comes out of there, we still like you to go down from. Cindy, do you want to add anything to that? No. Roger, you had a question and then I'll answer to the other. My question was a follow up to Cindy. Isn't it good that resources are being mobilized locally because domestic resource mobilization is one of the key goals. So if women's groups are doing it, I think that's fantastic. Absolutely. No, I absolutely, I don't mean to say it's a bad thing. I definitely think it's a good thing. I think it's just an interesting shift to note that that's also happening. And also to appreciate the diversity of resources that are important to mobilize. So I think that this issue of the post-2015 framework is so important. Donors actually work within UN frameworks, use these frameworks. So these negotiations are really quite critical. And I think one issue that we haven't heard so much on, which I think was very important, has been important in all international processes. This was particularly important for Cairo, the agenda that you referred to back in 1994, is funding women's movements and women's organizations to be involved in negotiations. So I think CEDA has historically done some of that. I don't know if you're, Carolina, I'm looking at you and you're making a face. Not to put you on the spot, but maybe you and Cindy could comment a little bit on that. And then I'll turn to you, ask you another question about CEDA. Well, it's a tricky question actually. I think we should do much more in funding women's organizations. And one of the questions we're having to me later on how to do what is happening with our restructuring of the aid and bilateral agencies. And if I may say one aspect of that has to do with this, and that is that even though in the Swedish context, we haven't merged CEDA into the Ministry for Foreign Affairs as some of our other donors have done, we've had a major shift in terms of staff cuts and shifting focus. And not necessarily in terms of gender experts actually, well, they have the number of gender staff has increased and that has to do with the political well. But the fact that we have less people doing the same job or even more job and focusing very much on administration and going more and more into programs, large programs in the name of aid effectiveness. That is a problem because we don't have staff and we can't prioritize that kind of small strategic work, particularly targeted small organizations. I know our colleagues from Netherlands have done an impressive work in addressing this through the MDG fund, the Flow Fund, et cetera. But sometimes we see also from the embassies. What is this? Yeah, we can see it here. But even at the embassies, I hear complaints from the colleagues that they don't have the capacity, they don't have the time simply to do that kind of strategic work. So that is a challenge and we are very aware of that because we see the importance of it. Maybe just to add, I think several presentations earlier today talked about how important contextualizing these debates are and the questions of who's at the table and that really goes to the point around women's organizations' engagement in these processes. And so AWIT has been participating with the Women's Coalition on Post-2015 with the women's major group that's been working around these processes. And as Patty was saying, both interested in seeing that there be a dedicated goal and how we can work to ensure that it's as strong as possible around gender equality, that clear gender equality targets and indicators be cutting throughout the other dimensions or other goals that may emerge from the post-2015 process. And thirdly, that women's organizations and civil society groups be supported to actively engage in the negotiations. Now the challenge with that that we are finding among AWIT is a membership organization and we have members around the world. The processes Patty is describing can be incredibly complex, dense and really is not very compelling for those doing work on the ground that they feel is much more pressing. So one of the reflections that we're making is how do we allow for some division of labor? How do we still keep this issue on the table? Because it's important that women's rights groups know that this agenda is going to influence funding and opportunities for their work well into the future. But how can we break down that information, do information sharing where possible, not expect that we all now dedicate all of our resources into that process? One piece of that I think is also recognizing the timing of Beijing plus 20. So that can be something that I think is much more exciting and engaging for a lot of women's organizations to celebrate. It is a broad agenda that we all fought for and want to be able to appreciate and keep on the table even as some of the debates around post-2015 may narrow and narrow further. So we're trying to put some attention to how we use that to engage women's organizations for the post-2015 agenda as well. I'd like to turn to the floor. Any further questions? Paivi. Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask now when we are discussing, is there any risk that gender equality might not be post-2015 target, a standalone target? Because looking at how, for example, past discussions for eco-soc resolutions have gone. There are lots of government representatives who are saying gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights are Western values. They are not for us. We don't want this kind of, and somebody used word, new rights. And what, and I know that in, for example, in commissioner status of women, women from all around the world are very strong but saying gender equality is goal for everyone and sexual and reproductive health is important for everyone. So what can we do to make sure that also, for example, women from countries but now are saying gender equality is a Western value, get more voice in this decision making. Any risk? Yes, and the risk is considerable in my view. The one and a half days when the open working group will consider gender equality in early February is an incredibly critical moment. The donor or the DAC member countries are quite well represented, that's to say the Western and others group, for those of you who know the processes. The partner developing countries are less so, less well represented. And what I feel sad about sitting here is that I have to look at the three women from Cambodia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and hope that they will be able to influence their governments. So that's immensely important. The other really immensely important key milestone coming up is the commission on the status of women in the middle of March. And for that, the UN women will be preparing two reports on behalf of the Secretary General, one that will look at global trends, and that is on the MDGs, by the way. But it will necessarily, I hope, have lessons learned that will look forward. One of those papers will be global, one of those papers will be based on national reports. But the agreed conclusions from that commission on the status of women will need to be very clear, it will need to be very bold, and it will need to be very ambitious. And getting there will be extremely painful. It's not going to be easy. But it needs to be all of those things. So when we, the people who know about these negotiations will know that probably around the end of the first week of February, we'll see a zero draft that to a large extent UN women is holding the pen on. It's really critical that that zero draft is very, very strong. And we thought, those of us involved in the negotiations last year, that violence was going to be very difficult. And it was. But violence, we were much more concrete with that when you precisely what we wanted in that. Looking at the MDGs and then looking forward to post 2015 is a lot, lot tougher. So I want to make one comment before moving on and asking Lucia and Carolina for another question. Let me just say that this is why I think it's just a strategic to have at the ready targets and indicators for every other likely MDG. So for instance, reduction of extreme poverty. What would be a gendered indicator? The proportion of women in vulnerable work might be a proxy. But we have to have at the ready a short set of indicators that will be quite important or thinking about fragile states and post-conflict reconstruction. What would be the indicators at the ready? I'm gonna actually come back to you. This tomorrow is the 17th of December when the open working group is meeting on precisely this topic. Okay. Sorry. So let me turn the conversation to another theme that we've been talking about all day. To some extent. And it also goes, by the way, this targets and indicators in the other post-millennium development goals are part of mainstreaming. This is what mainstreaming would be in that context. So let's talk a little bit about another dimension of mainstreaming. And there's some things that came out today that really struck me. That make me feel very disappointed in some ways. Syracuse presentation. 1325 being a parallel process and not being integrated in the main processes of transitional justice in the DRC and in Kenya is disturbing to me. The fact that we focus on women in a parallel way as opposed to in our mainstream employment creation approaches. And I wanna say something from my experience at aid and ask you this, Lucia, to think about it from the World Bank experience. My colleagues at USAID, when I was there, would say we can get mainstreaming when it comes to health and education because it's about people. It's about girls and boys and it's about training teachers and so forth. But we don't know how to do mainstreaming when you're talking about the issues that they also talked about earlier. You're talking about tax policy or you're talking about transport. And I would say to them, all issues in all sectors are gendered. Just because they're not necessarily about males or females doesn't mean that they don't have the biases that reflect disadvantage, socially constructed disadvantage embedded in them. So with respect to tax policy, I would turn around and say, what's the composition of the types of taxes that we're encouraging countries to adopt between personal income taxes or corporate taxes or value added taxes or trade taxes. Each of these may have biases embedded in them either explicitly in the sense of personal income taxes where the rules determine what a tax filer is or even in value added taxes where the burden may fall on women and men differently because of their different consumption expenditure patterns. So we have to be thinking about these issues or transport and studies that we've done around the world. We know that women don't own cars and vehicles. They rely much more heavily on public transport and they walk. So how our transport systems to be inclusive, this would be good development, to be inclusive, respond to those needs as much as the development of private cars. And to give you an example of what I did at USAID, a colleague said, we're in construction, we're building a bridge. We had a fabulous gender advisor in the Philippines who insisted that the engineers talk to the women who happened to be shorter, who walked, who carried, who had strollers. And they said the bridges that you're designing don't meet our needs. The steps are too high. There's not wide enough sidewalks. We're in the traffic and we're carrying small children and we can't reach the hand whales and we don't have the right ramps. And the engineers redesigned the bridge. That's inclusive development. It's not doing something separately for women. It's about making main processes work for everybody in important ways. And that for me is mainstreaming. So in 10 years from now, I'd like to see bridges designed like that. I'd like to see our transport policies or our tax policies be reflective of being able to respond to these differential burdens and biases. So how is the bank thinking about that? And where would it go in 10 years from now? And then I wanna ask for Sita as well in terms of how Sita's thinking about this. Okay, thank you, Karen. Yeah, that's a really good question. I think I would like to see gender mainstream throughout bank projects in ways that we can see and count and see the results of. And I think that's the other part of the equation actually about how the bank is going about this. We have since the WDR 2013, which was a massive deal for the bank. It's the first WDR on gender. And there's a reason for that. There's probably two or three other deep world development reports on agriculture or on poverty or on the other sectoral issues. This is the first on gender. And it was a big step forward. One of the biggest steps for the bank was actually recognizing gender inequality as having to be addressed in its own right because it's integral to development rather than because it is instrumental to it in some way. And that's very big for the bank and you'll find what Jim Kim or any of our other leaders now will say is we're doing gender. We want to promote gender equality because it's the right thing to do. It happens to be smart economics so that's great for us too. But, you know, and that's been a real sea change in the bank that it's shifted away from having to have an instrumentalist is good for growth kind of story to all the investments around gender. But the other kind of spin-off that happened from the WDR where there were a number of commitments which the bank made to report to its board about how it was going to take the gender equality agenda forward in its work. And some of those, this is a long-winded way of coming back to your point about how you get gender into operations. So what, there were five main commitments. One was to get gender into country dialogue and that comes back to your ownership point, Patty, because with the bank, even when it's IDA and they're nearly, you know, 70% grant equivalent or whatever, you will still find that country authorities, country governments have quite strong ideas about what they should use their IDA money for as opposed to their grant money. So to actually say that you need to have gender-informed policies and the gender dialogue or that we should be having gender dialogues about all our lending is a big step forward for the bank. And then there was also using gender analysis in the data, in the diagnostics, using gender analysis in the lending or using gender-informed lending programs, addressing knowledge gaps and leveraging up partnerships. Those were the five main things and they're reported to the board every year and all the reports are online. So the big kind of changes since in the last five years that the amount of gender-informed operations has kind of moved up to from about 54% overall to now up to 98%. And a lot of that has been led by the IDA lending which had gender targets very much as a result of a lot of the bilaterals in this room here. It's a gender target. Oh, it had the gender targets. It had particular components of the lending had to be related to gender equality goals and the gender targets were about improving certain sorts of outcome indicators like primary enrollment or like particular health indicators. So the IDA deputies introduced those kind of gender criteria for the IDA and that actually spilled over into the rest of the bank's lending as well. So it means that this is why we've got to the position where all the IBRD lending and the IDA lending is now 98% gender-informed. Now gender-informed can be stretched in some way because it means that the loans have either had some gender analytic work behind them that the country assistance strategy has drawn on a country gender diagnostic or it can be the components that actual loans or programmatic loans have gender, have a gender content or it can be that there's some sort of gender monitoring. But we want to move more to looking at the gender content of lending, the gender actions and the gender monitoring. Monitoring is the next step of kind of pushing those performance criteria for the bank. I think the other aspect in terms of how we look across the sectors is if the bank has been really quite successful in some of the hardest sectors of introducing gender into the lending and what has really worked, I think, because a lot of the people in the bank who do the operational work or economists is having quite a clear result and quite a clear line of analysis and to have the buy-in from country partners and ministers. So for instance, in China, the presentation I went to from the transport sector there, one of the big changes was having a consultation with Chinese women in one of the towns that they were doing urban infrastructure and having a consultation which was a separate women only one and the local government official came to that consultation and the women all bombarded him for more street lighting, more safety, better sidewalks, all the things that we can predict will come up but the actual, the story is that the official being there having the women say things to him directly and being able to meet them because those components are tiny compared to, they don't cost very much to do compared to doing big trunk roads or something like that, putting in decent sidewalks, walks and street lighting and security around bus stops or transport interchanges are actually quite a small component of a million dollar loan for transport lending. So once you get that sort of demonstration effect then other task team leaders who control the loans who negotiate with the officials will move on and do the same things and that's where also the work on looking at results and knowing what happens when you lend money and how you make real, how you get improvements on the ground which deliver real changes in women's lives on a day to day basis, I think is very important in all of this. What you said is really striking in a certain way which is that to achieve gender equality and women's empowerment in what we care about it's not very costly in some ways. That goes back to the money that we were talking about that significant, that secondary category should be much larger because that's where you're effectively getting the results. How are you thinking about this now? How do you think about this in the context of the kinds of changes? I'm now moving to Carolina. The kinds of changes that are, eight agencies are going through. There's several agencies, Sweden, Norway, Canada now, Australia, all struggling with this. What are some lessons that you think we could take away? Well, as I said, we haven't had exactly the same process but actually we have a new minister for development corporations since a few months back and she actually got the question in Swedish television on whether we were moving into that same process of merging into the minister of foreign affairs and she said very clearly no, that will not be the case in the Swedish context. But then we've had other challenges as I was mentioning earlier with cuts in staffing, et cetera, et cetera. But actually during the last years, in parallel to these cuts, our aid budget has increased and in terms of addressing gender equality that has been strengthened and that has only to do with political will. We've had female ministers for development corporation before but suddenly with this new minister that came into power in 2007 with a shift of government and which also was, it was not, I think one of the presentation was saying that one more left wing government would be more proactive to gender equality. Actually this was a right wing government and she became, she was very decisive on that gender equality was one of three thematic priorities and she has been so strong on that. So that's the single most important thing that we can see in the increase and how people also address these issues because I've been following and working in gender equality in the Swedish corporation for 20 years and if we just go back five, seven years, we will always have the struggling, we'll always have to convince that why is gender equality important, et cetera, et cetera. I don't have to do that fight anymore. People agree, this is important. We have the evidence even though we always can learn more. This is now how and in terms of and I would also like to comment on what we are doing. As you, I think you saw one of the charts that we are, we have a very high level of integration of gender equality in terms of the policy markers, 85%. We know that from with the new minister now, she wants to see how we can reach 100%. So we, and that we were actually planning to look at what is happening with those last 15% why is that these are not related to gender equality because my response when I get these questions is how do we do the bridge? I say, well, everything that has to do with development is about human beings and who are the human beings? Start looking around you, all sorts of different kinds with gender cuts across everything. So there is always a link there. So we're going to look at that but we also know that in this 85%, there is a big gap in terms of the quality and we need to look at the quality. So, and one of the things we want to do then as a third step is to shift the focus on not only looking at how are the different projects and programs in terms of policy, in terms of saying if it's significant or principle but rather look on the results. It will take time but we're just in the middle of that dialogue and seems that our management wants to introduce that. So one quick question that comes from earlier, I'm going to open it up to the floor. We've had, when you think about results, do you specify what the results are? Do you ask your partners to define what the results are? How do you think about the issue of setting targets or having indicators to monitor that one? We've talked about indicator, what is it? Indicatorism and so forth and the challenges and the tensions around targets. How do you think about that? That's an extremely important and difficult question which we are working on. We actually, I have tomorrow morning, I have to sit and work with a group on the issue of indicators because our management wants us to have standard indicators beforehand of the 2015, which is an extremely difficult question and we have to tackle that somehow. But since we are discussing this, I couldn't give a clear cut answer but it would have to do with what the implementing partners, how they are addressing and then see what is it that we have achieved by the end of the day. But it will be a very interesting process to develop that work. The floor is open for some comments. I'm going to start with Atya and then Mina and Nels and others from the back. Yeah, Atya. Thank you very much. I have four short questions. One I want to compliment the World Bank and the World Bank on your WDR report. It's come late, but thank God it's come. My question to you is that how are you putting the findings, the four critical findings regarding women into the PRSP documents? The in-country PRSP documents because those are the strategies of the national governments. So that's one. The second is on the centrality of gender in the framework which we reached at the post 2015 and the centrality of gender and the need for transformational targets. Patti looked at three of us here. I would like to tell you that we are considered as noisy females. And what our strategy in Pakistan is quiet conversation with the strong men and try and persuade them. So this is my comment to you. We've heard a lot and I want to compliment the OECD DAC on the gender equality policy markers which are used very extensively. My suggestion to you is that when you come into countries and where we are partners in development, unfortunately you don't share or give orientations on what this gender equality policy framework is which DAC and OECD are using. And it's a very important document for you but the recipient countries over there people who are concerned need to know more about it. So if you could share this and there could be the orientation of the country, recipient country that is getting the assistance from OECD DAC countries. If you could incorporate that because you mentioned embassies and their role in this work. Is it possible in this very good methodology which has been developed to incorporate the environment, employment and agriculture? Because these are the three emerging issues relating to women which I think are important. And then the last, there was a lot of, number of times the question was raised about the BRIC countries. And how do we work with them and what do we do? I would simply suggest to you they are there to stay. And is it not possible, you talked about the Paris Declaration, Paris Principles, sorry, which are four. And I think that the dialogue with the BRIC countries is very much an order on the Paris Principles and everything else. You have to bring them into the tent. And maybe you and Weider can do that for us. Yeah, Nina. Thank you. I have three quick points. The first one is related to what Leonce talked about in the morning that there is not enough focus on institutions or no focus on institutions. But that's really problematic because if that country starts focusing on institutions they are giving aid on the one hand and then China is giving aid on the other hand and then they say we don't want to focus on institutions who are doing just business, guess who's going to lose? Both the recipient countries and that countries will not have lots of credibility there towards the recipient countries. More importantly, China has high gender inequality. India has high gender inequality. The Arab world has high gender inequality. All these regions, well, China and India, they give aid, right? But then in the Arab world there are some countries that receive a lot of aid from the Arab Gulf countries but the Arab Gulf countries are not going to say here, take aid, it's for gender equality and power women. It's not going to happen. So really by not bringing everybody together and this is a question for you really because you represent it, but also the World Bank, the DAC member countries have to make a serious effort to bring China on, India and the Arab countries, the Arab Gulf countries, the oil producing countries. Because if they don't do that, I think women at the end in these regions will really suffer. So that's the first point. The second one is that was the finding by Kai this morning that really kind of disturbed me even though I was aware of this by looking at the data because they used the same data. I saw that there was a high, that money was going to the countries that already had higher share of women in parliament and then it turned out that actually the donors were rewarded in countries. So if they are rewarded in countries after they have women in parliament, who's going to take care of those women in the countries where there is very low share, low empowerment of women. That's really, so what they're doing is they're just keeping things as they are and that's not good. So they have to find a way and I don't know how this works but there should be a way of actually contributing to promoting women's participation in political arena. And the third one is this and I have to stand up for this to look because there are many men in the country. Men not only need to support the efforts to promote gender equality, not just because women are their sisters, mothers, wife or daughters, but because in 50 or 60 years when the tide shifts and there is gender inequality going the other way, if they invest today in the instruments and the policies that work to reduce gender inequality then we would have learned lessons and so in the tide shifts and the other ones who are discriminated against it's very easy to go to the books and say oh yeah we use this policy, it works, let's use it again. So really it's an investment in your future as well, not just ours, thank you. Nina stole my thunder, my actually last question was gonna be at the role of men because we have to talk about men as champions of change for women, but for themselves as well. So, Leonce, up to you. Now you can see why I'm here. No, my questions are going to be very, very simple and actually addressed to panelists but also to the coordinators of the project, you and you either. One is about how we measure aid and the dataset that people have been referring to is the one we all use and it has two types of aid measures. Aid commitment and aid disbursement. To me, aid commitment means nothing. So if you had available data on aid disbursement, I don't see why you're using aid commitment. The second is on within the same data is the gender marker. When I saw the gender marker and I was starting that I really jump up and I say, wow we have now an indicator, direct indicator of aid allocation to gender, it doesn't work. Because again, it's a wishes and you don't know what gender is, you don't know, it relates to the point that Karen was saying that gender is affected by directly, indirectly, by many things. You have gender implications of infrastructure development. You have gender implications of school building. You have gender implications of clinic building. So if you're going to do a gender marker, I don't know where you start and where you end. And I don't know whether you're talking about money that actually went up to improve gender or whether it was a declaration in a document because I know if I'm a loan, if I'm a project officer and I want my project to be approved, if you want to say that it's gonna improve gender, I'll mark it, I'll check, I'll mark the box. But did money actually go to help girls and women? How about fungibility? So I'm very, very concerned about the implications we're going to draw about from very, very imperfect data. Very important question. Shireen, you have the last comment and then I'm gonna ask each of you for one concluding comment. You're not allowed to answer all questions, but just one. Go ahead. Yeah, Shireen. Thank you, Karen. Since we are discussing the future of aid and gender equality, so I would just like to say that the stakeholders, whoever would be involved in the process of planning and shaping the future of aid have to carefully weigh the possibilities of the global discourse that is ongoing on framing the SDGs. And if we have gender equality there as one of the SDGs, we are dealing with developed countries as well as developing countries. So even if it is gender equality, the socioeconomic context will vary and it cannot be a homogenous policy. So in how do we actually address the different needs, the different concerns and the priorities of the different countries, even if we are talking about gender equality and how the aid will then be designed in accordance with that, that is something which needs to be taken into account. Thank you. So Carolina, you have your final word and then we'll just go this way. You have anything? So there were many interesting things, but actually what I want to say is that the reason that we want to focus on measuring results in the framework is a complement to the problems with the DAC markers. That's the reason we're moving into that, even though it's difficult. I'm just gonna go straight to all of you. Okay, here's your comment. Yes, just to respond to Atty's comment in terms of the four policy priorities that came out of the World Bank 2012 word to reduce the gender gaps in human endowments to close earnings and productivity gaps between men and women to limit the intergenerational transmission of gender equality and to shrink gaps in voice and agency. So there's a number of ways that they come into both PRSPs and country assistance strategies. The PRSPs are actually the government's document. They engage with the bank and other donors a lot about them. Where the bank has more, has complete direct or more direct control is over the country assistance strategies that we have for each country. And so with the country assistance strategies, these are strategies are reviewed, they're reviewed by the unit that I work in. We look at them, we make recommendations. But more broadly, I think the bank has a big role to play in terms of producing the knowledge and the analytics that anyone can draw on to use in any context at a global level and at a country specific level. And I think I really liked what you had to say about women's empowerment being the 21st century goal. That's what women of this century want. And I think the voice agency and participation is essential to that and should be our driving force forward into the next century. And as Patty has already said, I think that's the real importance of gender-based violence as being a central goal for the MDGs. And I really agree with you on that, Patty. And the World Bank does as well. This is supported by the bank. So I think one of the things that I'm working on at the moment is that our unit is producing a report on voice agency and participation to see what we know globally about how women wear and when women are empowered to make decisions. That's a global knowledge tool. So that is available everywhere. So that's our small contribution to pushing this debate forward. Do you want me to say something about the gender action lab because that's so important. Oh, yes. The other thing is that, which you were going to ask me, but you didn't. So I was to talk about the Gender Innovation Lab, which is a great initiative that we have a couple of initiatives going on going forward. There's a Gender Innovation Lab, which is specifically concerned with Africa and is working in the Africa region. So they have really been looking at the impact of policies and programs on the ground. So that we have much more kind of up our sleeves as a donor community or as a national community to know what works. So one of the examples when I talked to my colleague before I came here was in Rwanda. He said that one of the good things about it was that it's a very good dialogue tool, both for economists and for talking to ministers and ministries, and particularly our counterpart is quite often in the Ministry of Finance. So for example, they did a study of the pilot land registration program in Rwanda. And the first results in the first two pilot areas showed that actually women who were not in formal marriages were losing out on registration. Because whilst they designed the registration, so that a husband and wife had a place on the form to register the land, they missed out on women who were living as domestic partners with men. So that was a result of the impact evaluation study, which was done in partnership with the Ministry of Lands and the Ministry of Women and the Family, I think it is in Rwanda. Anyway, so after the pilot study as a result of that, the government of Rwanda have changed the way that the administration is done and that unmarried women can also be registered on forms. So you get very concrete results in these impact evaluations, but you also have to be there over the long haul as well. The results come out because the impact evaluations, this is not at the time of the design of the project or at the time of the funding. You have to be there to look at what actually happens during implementation. And I think that's where we have to be in the donor community to be able to be much more certain about what the implications are for women and men who are living in countries, whether we are actually the resources that are reaching them to start with and having a result and an outcome which improves gender equality, secondly. I think we know too little about that. I had planned my last word to be about the Busan Global Gender Equality Indicator and our success with that. But of course, Leon says rather dumb for me with that. So I'm really forced to talk about the Gender Equality Indicator. It's not a marker, rather. It's not designed to measure the impact or the quality of aid. It's not an accurate reporting tool. And it's a measure of its success, actually, that it's causing Swedish seeder to have a discussion tomorrow about results. Because the marker, rather, can't do all of the things that so many people want it to do. It's the best tool we have to compare the sectoral and the country focus of aid within agencies and to compare gender equality focused aid and sectoral and geographic focus across donors. It's fully integrated into the reporting requirements for DAC members. And it has been for 20 plus years. They have to go right down to activity level. It's owned by the statistical reporters, which I think is actually a strength. And most importantly, the published data has allowed for comparison between donor countries. But I actually think the most important thing is now that we have published. What we've seen going on, I know it's reporting, is aid going up. I think we've opened up a fiscal space that's going to be incredibly important come post 2015. Because aid to gender equality, as it's reported, has gone up by 12% when sector-allocable aid has actually risen in the same period, which is from 2002 to 2011 by only 5%. Thank you, Patty. So on this theme of the future of aid and gender equality, I just want to mention that Avid has done some complimentary research to what I talked about earlier with Mama Cash and with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs looking at some of these new initiatives. So corporate sector actors coming into partnership with traditional development actors and NGOs. There's not time to speak to the findings of that now, but it's intriguing. The results will be out in January. And it's clearly, let's say, not the solution. And I think the concerns that it poses are how the impact of some of these actors will eventually narrow the agenda of traditional development actors. So I think there's a huge opportunity there, especially when, as we saw in one of the presentations earlier, who's positioned as experts on the issues of gender equality are the consulting firms like Pricewaterhouse, Coopers. And not necessarily those that have been in the field for many years. So that's going to be a key area for future collaboration and dialogue going forward. Thank you so much. I'm so sorry that time constraints prevented us to have a longer conversation. And thank you for your patience in sitting through this, but we'll now move into the concluding session. Finn? Thank you.