MDGs & Gender
GOAL 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Although this proportion has increased in most regions of the world, as Figure MDG8.2 shows, improvements vary greatly within regions. The proportion of gender equality-focused bilateral aid (of donors marking for gender) ranges from over one-third in Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, to under one-fifth in the Middle East and North Africa and East Asia and the Pacific. These regional differences are clearer when considering the proportion of total ODA. As shown in Figure MDG8.3, this proportion has increased in all regions but the Middle East and North Africa, where the proportion of aid focused on gender equality is less than half of that in any other region.

Figure MDG8.2: The Proportion of Aid with a Gender Focus Has Increased in Most Regions Since 2002
Note:See notes in Figure MDG8.1. This graph shows ODA recipients organised according to UNIFEM regional groupings; regions also include commitments on multi-country initiatives for specific regions. ODA with no specified recipients or targeting the countries that are not included in the UNIFEM regional classification are listed as "Multi-country and others". Unspecified multi-country aid represents 90% or more of this group. Estimates are based on ODA disbursements (current US$).
Sources: OECD Credit Reporting System (CRS) database 2008.

Another element to consider is the sectoral distribution of the gender equality-focused aid. As shown in Chapter 6, this category of aid is still concentrated in social sectors, while allocations of gender-marked aid on economic infrastructure and private sector development are relatively small.

Although a great deal of international attention is being paid to aid effectiveness, the importance of addressing gender inequality through aid and governance has not been adequately recognized in the largely technical agenda of the Paris Declaration. To date, no consistent tracking system of investment on gender equality aid exists in multilateral institutions; an exception is the OECD gender marker, but less than half of the funds eligible for 'screening' use this marker. One step toward improving accountability in this area would be for international aid and security institutions – including multilateral agencies – to agree to a coherent monitoring system for marking aid flows by gender, building on the OECD Gender Equality Marker (GEM). Another step would be to intensify support for collection of sex-disaggregated data, at least across all of the MDGs and also in key 'missing' MDG areas such as violence against women. Finally, alliances between gender equality champions within and outside of international institutions must focus their efforts to identify and call for greater accountability of these institutions to unswervingly implement the gender equality commitments embodied in their own policies and strategies.

Figure MDG8.2: The Proportion of Aid with a Gender Focus Has Increased in Most Regions Since 2002
Note: See notes in figures MDG8.1 and MDG8.2
Sources: OECD Credit Reporting System (CRS) database.
PAGE:  1  |  2