Problem 1

Sector practitioners tend to have a shallow understanding of gender, and gender practitioners are generalists with little sector credibility. 

Consequences

• Gender teams lack credibility; their work is viewed as advocacy

• Non-gender practitioners are able to “tick the gender box” by taking shallow actions on gender, often due to a lack of awareness of what else to do

Problem 2

A lack of technical standards makes it difficult to effectively assess the GM credentials and capabilities of external partners.

Consequences

• It is difficult to screen the capability of a consultant to complete work satisfactorily

• Field teams/offices lack adequate gender expertise

“We haven't mainstreamed gender adequately in the different departments, meaning that there is no dedicated expert in those teams. People still look at us—the central gender team—for the expertise in that area.  I might be an expert in gender, but I might not be an expert necessarily in something more technically specific.”

“At the country level it's also the same thing. Some of the people don't really have comprehensive training nor do they have the experience to conduct a gender analysis. Even with the consultants we don't see a lot of people with this capacity. Most of this you discover after you have given out the consultancy and then you see the work that is done. You know that the consultant did not have the capacity. Most of the time they put it on paper that they can do it, but when you see the reports that are coming out of the work, you know that this is not it.”

“We sometimes have been our own worst enemies. We have  focused so much on capacity strengthening and checklists at a basic level, that sometimes there is a bit of a dismissal of those working on gender. That we're just advocates, that we're not technical enough. Not seeing gender expertise as expertise. There's a perception that anybody can do this work, but can do it at its most basic superficial level.”