|
This e-forum has been established based on a number of ideas, and is in response to the need to be able to assess whether a land tool (that is, a practical method to convert a defined objective in policy and law into implementation) is gender responsive or not. Below are some of the thoughts behind the e-forum process fir us to bear in mind.
|
Brainstorming on criteria
The first weeks of the e-forum (train rides 1 & 2) will be focusing on brainstorming on what we refer to as criteria.
When we talk about criteria, there are a number of things to bear in mind in terms of devising (thinking from new) and establishing (gaining agreement) on criteria.
1. Thinking about new criteria:
- Criteria must have the possibility to be readily understood and accepted by a wider global community and local communities in different contexts.
- The initial question is ‘what is the environment we are measuring when we try to measure gender responsiveness?’
- First, we are measuring the formal institutional environment and participation of civil society in these systems, and
- Secondly, we aim to measure alternative activities not captured in the formal system (that is, informal mechanisms).
- The first thing we need to think about is WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW (for example, how a land intervention impacts on women and men’s access to land differently, or whether both women and men are part of decisionmaking).
- Once we have thought about this, the next step is to ask WHAT WILL TELL US THIS. This is the list of criteria. Criteria act as a checklist, which is useful to take the next step in our journey toward evaluation and ultimately indicators.
- Once we have criteria (and there has already been work done on this, as uploaded on the e-forum) the next question is
- WHAT THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS. This is when we start to articulate indicators that can give us the answer to our criteria. Some criteria will not require an indicator per se, but is rather a yes/no answer or qualitative rather than quantitative.
|
WHAT DO WE WANT TO KNOW?
|
WHAT WILL TELL US THIS?
|
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION?
|
|
For example: How does a land intervention impact on women and men’s access to land differently?
|
Need to think about criteria to be able to answer this.
|
Need to think about how to get the information to answer the criteria in different contexts. That is, is there a specific indicator? Or other measure?
|
- The information needed should ideally be easily obtainable, understandable so that they can be replicated in a variety of countries and be gathered from reliable sources. Once we get to this stage in the e-forum, we will also start to look at which indicators may be those of input, process and output.
2. Gaining a common agreement on criteria:
Through having an e-forum we want to find a commonly agreed framework for these criteria. The criteria will also be used by many different people—for example, land professionals in their work, grassroots both in work and in advocacy, and by evaluators of projects and programmes.
So why do we need this agreement on criteria in the first place?
- Without established criteria we will not know how to judge whether a land intervention is gender responsive or not.
- Criteria, and the information/indicators used, will inform policy makers and practitioners where adjustment in existing and new large scale tools are needed, to ensure they are gender responsive and identify where a change may be needed (that is, an entry-point).
Clustering the criteria
It is likely that, as we brainstorm on criteria, we will get a mix of ideas and leads: some are better classified as activities, others that are more or less measurable.
Once we receive more ideas, we can start looking at how the criteria can best be clustered for easier use. Some clustering has been attempted of the criteria produced at the Lukenya and Bagamoyo Workshops (see e-forum) but we need to see whether this is the best categorization, or are there many more options?
Thinking about indicators
Once we have a good list of criteria as we advance on the e-forum train ride, we will start looking at what kind of indicators there are that can actually answer whether a criteria has been met (yes/no, and in some instances to what extent). Only if this information can be accessible, can the criteria be used for evaluation.
In the 3rd train ride, we will, for example, start to classify the types of criteria as to whether they are input, process or output ones.
| Input |
Process |
Output |
|
What is needed prior to a gender sensitive tool being developed, indicated by the institutional and resources required to produce outputs, such as land and/ or rights registration.
|
Is the tool development process and tool itself gender sensitive so indicators will measure internal operations and actions necessary for outputs to be achieved.
|
What is the impact of the tool on women and men and how this is evaluated
|
The focus of an indicator is determined by clarity in the criteria that selects it, so in order to establish the indicator rides 1 to 3 will focus on considering the structure of the evaluation framework.
Indicators are used as a performance measurement tool for assessment and comparison. They provide an initial benchmark that with frequent repeated data collection can monitor changes over time. Importantly what the underlying source of the indication is, how it is calculated or derived, what the indicator depicts and how it is interpreted must be carefully considered.
Criteria have a strong correlation to the data collection method that will be employed. So, collecting data has to be founded in local realities and grounded in local practices. This has been backed up by examples from the two recently held GLTN Workshop participants own in- country experiences. It is recognized that the most widely collected indicators are based on perception using questionnaires e.g. general population household surveys. Thus to overcome short comings in a variety of methods, the data should be collected with both subjective and objective measures. Moreover, cost and data availability will be a key consideration in the collection of quantitative data, noting that how to overcome the likelihood of the difficulty in obtaining data to support the indicators will remain a problem.
Testing the criteria based on practical experience
By the fourth week (train ride) the e-forum will aim to have a list of criteria, clustered along some sub-headings, and some reasonable indicators and other evaluation considerations to go with it. The questing is now: will it work to use this for an evaluation in practice?
Using the criteria to guide the design of NEW land tools
Our journey now turns to considering the application of criteria to land tools that are currently being developed, i.e. crafted. That is, new tools, rather than the evaluation of ones that already exist. An example of such an ongoing development is the Social Tenure Domain Model.
Essentially this ride aims to view the picture of the process of tool development. The idea is to assist tool development practitioners to apply gender criteria/ indicators to emerging tools. This process is a dynamic operational one. Benefits will also arise from feeding in the lessons learnt from existing tool implementation, but also identifying opportunity’s to use new tools in existing systems.
Dissemination
The e-forum will come to a close on 15 October, after which the moderators will put together the evaluation criteria generated in a flyer for distribution at the Would Urban Forum IV in Nanjing, China in November 2008.
Piloting
Once the set of evaluation criteria has been disseminated, the next stage will be to as practitioners in countries to use the evaluation criteria as they assess whether land tools in their countries are gender sensitive. Feedback will be requested on, for example, to what extend the criteria is realistic, and whether the indicators can be collected and the questions answered.
A desk study testing will also be conducted by the GLTN Secretariat by running the gender evaluation on their land inventory database of land tools worldwide, and see how many can be said to be ‘gender responsive’.
|