No risk, no gain: invest in women and girls by funding advocacy, organizing, litigation and work to shift culture

Abstract

The new development framework aspires to merge long-term hopes for environmental, political and financial sustainability with international poverty eradication goals. Central to this agenda is the promotion and protection of the human rights of women and girls. Yet national mechanisms, donors and international development agencies often do not fully tackle these issues or confront the accompanying politically sensitive, complex issues intermingling religion, socioeconomic status, social, cultural and family life. The increasing reliance on private investment may further weaken a women’s rights approach. The proposed framework described in the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons Report could further systematize this problem, even though it improves on the MDGs by expanding targets related to women. Success will require support for a potent mix of advocacy, movement building and a complex set of ground-based strategies that shift cultural practices, laws and policies that harm women and girls. Funding for advocacy and interventions that hold firm on human rights is imperative, but given the conflicting loyalties of governments and public–private partnerships, reliance on either sector may be risky. An analysis of the status of women’s rights work, infrastructure and donor support in Bangladesh and South Africa shows the need for vigilance and long-term investment in effective work.

Résumé

Le nouveau programme de développement aspire à fusionner des espoirs à long terme pour la viabilité environnementale, politique et financière avec les objectifs internationaux d’éradication de la pauvreté. La promotion et la protection des droits fondamentaux des femmes et des filles sont au centre de ce programme. Toutefois, les mécanismes nationaux, les donateurs et les institutions internationales du développement échouent souvent à pleinement ces questions ou se heurtent aux problèmes complexes et politiquement sensibles qui les accompagnent, mêlant la religion, le statut socio-économique, la vie sociale, culturelle et familiale. Le recours accru aux investissements privés risque d’affaiblir encore une approche des droits des femmes. Le programme proposé dans le rapport du Groupe de personnalités de haut niveau pourrait systématiser davantage ce problème, même s’il représente un progrès par rapport aux OMD en élargissant les cibles relatives aux femmes. Le succès exigera de soutenir une association puissante de plaidoyer, de renforcement des mouvements et d’un ensemble complexe de stratégies ancrées sur le terrain et propres à changer les pratiques culturelles, les lois et les politiques qui lèsent les femmes et les filles. Il est impératif de mobiliser un financement pour le plaidoyer et des interventions qui ne transigent pas sur les droits de l’homme. Mais, compte tenu des loyautés concurrentes des gouvernements et des partenariats publics-privés, il peut être risqué de se reposer sur ces deux acteurs. Une analyse de l’état du travail, de l’infrastructure et du soutien des donateurs en faveur des droits des femmes au Bangladesh et en Afrique du Sud montre qu’il faut être vigilants et investir à long terme dans des projets efficaces.

Resumen

El nuevo marco de desarrollo aspira a unir las esperanzas a largo plazo de sostenibilidad ambiental, política y financiera con los objetivos de erradicación de la pobreza internacional. Fundamental para esta agenda es la promoción y protección de los derechos humanos de las mujeres y niñas. Sin embargo, los mecanismos nacionales, donantes e instituciones de desarrollo internacional a menudo no abordan estos asuntos totalmente ni confrontan los complejos asuntos políticamente delicados entremezclados con religión, condición socioeconómica y la vida social, cultural y familiar. La creciente dependencia de la inversión privada podría debilitar aún más el enfoque en los derechos de las mujeres. El marco propuesto descrito en el Informe del Grupo de Alto Nivel de Personas Eminentes podría sistematizar aún más este problema, aunque mejora los ODM al ampliar las metas relacionadas con las mujeres. El éxito requerirá apoyo para una mezcla potente de actividades de promoción y defensa, movilización y una serie compleja de estrategias basadas en el terreno que cambien las prácticas culturales, leyes y políticas que perjudican a las mujeres y niñas. Es imperativo financiar las actividades de promoción y defensa y las intervenciones que reafirman los derechos humanos, pero debido al conflicto de lealtades de los gobiernos y alianzas entre los sectores público y privado, la dependencia de cualquiera de los dos sectores podría ser riesgosa. Un análisis del estado del trabajo relacionado con los derechos de las mujeres, la infraestructura y el apoyo de donantes en Bangladesh y Ãfrica meridional muestra la necesidad de vigilancia e inversión a largo plazo en trabajo eficaz.

Keywords:

• gender equality
• women’s status
• international women’s rights frameworks
• sustainable development goals
• national gender mechanisms
• funding for women’s rights
• customary law
• development aid
• South Africa
• Bangladesh

Governments have made multiple international commitments to finance and promote gender equality and women’s empowerment. These include the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing (1995),¹ the 23rd Special Session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (2000),² the Millennium Summit (2000)³ and the Commission on the Status of Women (2006).⁴ Yet, women continue to bear the burden of poverty and discrimination.⁵ At this juncture, when governments are considering a new development agenda, it is important to examine what these international commitments have led to in countries and the role of donors in the outcomes. Have aspirations for women’s rights been undermined by an overreliance on questionable but politically palatable methods of addressing gender equality, such as gender mainstreaming? Has there been inadequate donor or governmental support for creative work to shift culture and customary law harmful to women and girls, such as “eve-teasing”⁶ and male primogeniture in inheritance laws?⁷ There needs to be greater support for organizations like Women Living Under Muslim Laws, a network whose programme “Women Reclaiming and Redefining Culture” strengthens women’s capacity to document, advocate and intervene to counter the use of culture to deny women’s rights. Or the Puentos de Encuentro consortium in Central and Latin America who managed to get issues related to sexual and reproductive health and rights into public discussion through the use of television and other media outlets.⁸ Or human rights programmes such as the Southern Africa Litigation Centre that challenge customary laws harmful to women.

The thesis of this paper is that homogenized, donor-driven, under-financed, government-generated policies and programmes alone will not ensure the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic, cultural and social rights on the basis of gender equality. It analyses funding, programming and impact related to gender equality and women’s empowerment in two countries: South Africa and Bangladesh.^9–11 These case studies illustrate the importance of support for advocacy and interventions that interrogate patriarchal interpretations of culture and change harmful laws and practices.

National implementation and funding of key international frameworks on gender equality

Over 95% of UN member states — 185 countries — are parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979).^5,12 In its General Recommendations, the CEDAW Committee urges political parties to provide financial resources to overcome obstacles to women’s full participation and representation.^13–15

The Beijing Platform for Action emphasized the multi-sectoral nature of funding necessary for gender equality and empowerment. Governments were to systematically review how women benefit from, or are disadvantaged by, public sector expenditures, adjust budgets to ensure equality of access to public sector expenditures and achieve their gender-related commitments. Sufficient resources were to be allocated to national mechanisms, the private sector, and civil society entities that could contribute to the implementation and monitoring of the Platform for Action. Countries involved in international development were to conduct a critical analysis of their assistance programmes and integrate a gender approach.¹

In 2000, the UN General Assembly asserted the need for continued international financial cooperation to achieve the Beijing goals.² This commitment was reflected in the approved target of utilizing 0.7% of the Gross National Product of developed countries for official development assistance and echoed Beijing’s call for comprehensive gender architecture.^1,2 In 2006, the UN Commission on the Status of Women reiterated these commitments, encouraging further gender-responsive budget processes in all sectors and adequate funding for women-specific measures.⁴

Millennium Development Goals and women’s rights

The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were meant to operationalize the Beijing Platform for Action and UN General Assembly commitments and drive and measure progress at the national level.¹⁶ MDG 3 focuses on gender equality and women’s empowerment¹⁷ and is mainly measured by gains in girls’ education and the numbers of women in elected office.

Implementation of the MDGs has siloed off complex interrelated areas such as HIV and maternal-child health and overlooked universal access to sexual and reproductive health.^12,18,19 Neither human rights advances or violations, nor the effectiveness of governance and accountability measures in ensuring progress are monitored.^20,21 Nor are inequalities adequately measured; child mortality and maternal mortality targets and indicators measure average reductions, not broken down into quintiles, which would reveal the failure to improve the situation of women in the 4^th and 5^th quintiles in any context.^22,23 Despite the mobilization they have generated, the MDGs represent inattention to the lived experience of the most disadvantaged, defeating their primary purpose. Outcome-based programming, as promoted by donors, has resulted in incentivizing health service provision for those who are not marginalized and easier to reach.²⁴

Women’s rights and aid effectiveness

The 192 member states of the United Nations,²⁵ along with 23 international organizations, agreed upon and supported the MDGs in 2000,²⁶ partly because donor demands had become unmanageable.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC),²⁷ led an aid effectiveness movement in the 1990s with the goal of streamlining donor activities and ensuring more cost-effective aid. Governments and donors involved in the Monterrey Consensus (2002) recognized the importance of a holistic approach to development financing and stressed the need to reinforce national capacity-building efforts for gender budgeting.²⁸ Between 2002 and 2005, the OECD/DAC focused its efforts on creating the Aid Effectiveness Agenda.²⁶ Civil society was heavily involved in the process, particularly the lead-up to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. However, civil society’s role was minimized in the implementation components of the Declaration²⁹ and women’s organizations were excluded from negotiations.

The Paris Declaration (2005), Accra Agenda for Action (2008) and Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (2011) show an evolution in the gender equality and development discourse.⁸ Due to the advocacy of women’s rights advocates,³⁰ while Paris was gender-blind, Accra proclaimed gender equality as a cornerstone of development, and Busan broadened its scope and importance.³¹ The same year, an optional Gender Equality Survey was added to the Paris Declaration’s monitoring and evaluation activities.³² The impact of Accra and Busan, however, remains unclear.^33–35

Despite the many international and regional commitments to gender equality,³⁶ integration of gender equality in many key action areas – mobilization of domestic resources for development, trade, private capital flows, official development assistance, debt and other systemic issues related to the international financial system – is not automatic.^37–39 Further, there is no time-frame or official protocol for incorporating it into other development goals. Women’s rights organizations’ capacity to monitor the implementation of all these agreements has also been severely limited by a lack of financial support, lack of available public data, definitional issues around gender equality projects and sector-specific structures.³⁸

Women’s groups formed the Gender Equality Architecture Reform Campaign in 2008 of over 300 organizations to lobby governments and the UN Secretariat to correct these deficiencies. In July 2010, in response to growing demands for greater focus on gender architecture reform, the Secretary-General created the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), which is headed by an Under-Secretary-General and has a multi-tiered inter-governmental governance framework, which ostensibly creates an opportunity to increase the gender equality activities of the UN system. However, UN Women lacks the funding to implement its mandates. Its budget is only US$235 million per year compared to UNFPA with $934 million and UNDP with $4.8 billion.⁸

Development/fiscal context for implementation of gender equality commitments

There has been limited progress in distributing resources to translate international goals of women’s empowerment and gender equality into reality.^36,40,41 This is related to larger financial trends. The role of donors and questions of accountability are critical here. Several phenomena have shaped the current development environment and financing systems. The 1979 oil crisis had an enduring effect on health services and public services provision, with oil prices increasing significantly during the crisis and loans becoming more expensive.⁴² The International Monetary Fund subsequently increased interest rates, resulting in an inflation crisis that left poor countries heavily indebted. The IMF made access to loans conditional on certain structural readjustments to reduce nations’ public budget deficits.⁴³ High interest loans limited the amount of funds available, and wages were reduced to lower inflation. Currency devaluation attracted private international investment⁴⁴ in sectors that had formerly been public, such as health, education, and transportation.^45–47 As a result, civil servant wages and the number of people employed by the public sector decreased, as did overall investment in public sector services – from infrastructure to health and education.

Private sector resources have long accounted for a significant share of financial flows to developing countries, consistently higher than official development assistance from donor countries, and they have grown significantly in recent years.⁴⁸ Through the 1980s and 1990s, there was vast experimentation with public–private partnerships, as many governments privatized health services, turning government into the regulator of services rather than the provider. These changes in financing mechanisms, the shift in balance between shares of tax revenue, social or private insurance, user fees and external aid have often disproportionately affected women.^37,49,50 In more than 60% of low-income countries, out-of-pocket health spending rose to 40% of total spending on health. There is evidence that out-of-pocket spending related to delivery, for example, is often catastrophic for women.⁵¹ There were also changes in organizing mechanisms, including decentralization, sector-wide approaches and reforms in logistics and supply systems related to privatization, and changes in aid disbursement mechanisms.^43,44

Over the last decades, public–private partnerships have thrived. The public–private partnership platform has provided the pharmaceutical industry with a bargaining chip for implementing Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreements for longer exclusive patents and a prohibition of compulsory licensing of essential medicines by governments on public health grounds.⁵² Partnerships among UN agencies, international financial institutions and the corporate sector have meant greater, often vertical, investment, with an attendant lack of transparency and unwillingness to address rights issues. The relative powerlessness of health and gender ministries compared with finance ministries that actually negotiate loans and allocate national budgets has further confounded realizing gender equality.⁵³

Further, the distributive and social consequences of market liberalization and other economic policies, including trade and foreign investment, lack a gender equality perspective. There is a lack of coherence between economic policies that emphasize low inflation and mobility of capital and social commitments to poverty reduction, environmental sustainability and gender equality. In some countries and contexts, gender-responsive budget initiatives have bridged the gaps between macroeconomics and resource allocation.⁵⁴ Outcomes vary, however, and evaluation is a challenge. Continuing efforts would benefit from a gender analysis throughout the budget cycle that considers revenues and expenditures, and involves a range of actors — finance and sector ministries, national machineries for the advancement of women, statistical and planning bureaus, parliamentarians, media, international organizations, civil society and donors.⁴⁷

There is little scrutiny of how the private sector is influencing development practice. Overall, there is a lack of accountability measures applicable to the implementation of such partnerships and their adherence to human right agreements.⁴²

In the last decade, development funding has continued to shift due to changing economic conditions, development trends, and the diversity of emerging donors. Emerging economies, especially BRICS states, also play a key role in economic, political, and development conversations. Financial crises, such as in 2008, devastated economies in the Global North and South. As gross national incomes (GNI) shrank, so did official development assistance.⁸

“A disproportionate emphasis on gender mainstreaming is considered by some to have resulted in a substantial reduction in resource allocations to women’s empowerment and the elimination of gender-based discrimination. Exceptions are found in individual sectors such as education.” ⁵⁵

Since its introduction in the Beijing Platform for Action, mainstreaming has proven to be a technically confusing tool.³⁸ The OECD/DAC found that 74% of aid marked with gender equality as a principal or significant objective in 2010 to 2011 was dedicated to gender mainstreaming efforts.⁸ Policies addressing gender equality often “evaporate” in budget processes and implementation stages.⁵⁶

In spite of verbal support for the empowerment of women and girls, and acknowledgements that women are essential to economic development and societal advancement, women’s rights work is still grossly underfunded. An Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) 2011 survey of over 1,000 women’s organizations found that only 7% had 2010 budgets of over US$500,000, 48% had not received core funding, and 52% did not receive multi-year funding.⁸

With the private sector as the most influential new player in development and public–private partnerships increasing between international NGOs, bilateral development agencies, and companies, some argue that the trend of “corporatization” in development is also shifting the discourse from aid to investment. Women’s rights organizations refer to the corporatization of the funding community and the adoption of corporate management models. There is an emphasis on both results-based financing and monitoring and evaluation systems and an increased focus on narrow solutions.⁸

In its report Watering the Leaves and Starving the Roots: The status of financing for women’s rights organizing and gender equality, AWID states:

“The steady and essential process of organizing women… helping them to analyse the root causes of their disempowerment, building women’s collective power and collective strategies for change, supporting women to challenge the cultural and social norms that justify their subordination… the core elements of a sustainable long term struggle for transforming the institutions and structures… are considered too slow and difficult to measure… and receive little or no support except from a handful of insightful experienced donors.” ⁸

The funding landscape is nevertheless not devoid of innovation. In 2008, the Netherlands Ministry of Development Cooperation created an MDG 3 fund that awarded 82 million to 45 gender equality projects over four years.⁴² With a focus on political involvement, preventing violence against women, and economic empowerment, this fund’s multi-year funding of women’s rights organizations achieved meaningful change. Research shows across 70 countries the “autonomous mobilization of feminists in domestic and transnational contexts — not leftist parties, women in government, or national wealth — is the critical factor for achieving policy change.”⁸

The post-2015 development framework

The recently released High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons report on the post-2015 development framework raises complex questions about the future of women’s rights work.⁵⁷ Asked by the UN Secretary-General to make recommendations, this 27-person panel called for a single, sustainable development agenda with a limited number of high priority goals supported by measurable indicators for 2015 to 2030.⁵³

The report forecasts the emergence of a new framework that aspires to merge long-term hopes for environmental, political and financial sustainability with international poverty eradication goals.⁵⁸ The Panel asserts that gender equality should be “integrated across all of the goals, both in specific targets and by making sure that targets are measured separately for women and men, or girls and boys, where appropriate.”⁵³

This level of vagueness is never good news. The recommended targets are: to prevent and eliminate all forms of gender-based violence; end child marriage; ensure the equal right of women to own and inherit property, sign a contract, register a business and open a bank account; eliminate discrimination against women in political, economic, and public life; and ensure universal sexual and reproductive health and rights.⁵³

While the report should be lauded for including crucial issues ignored by the MDGs, such as gender-based violence, it again offers a piecemeal and incomplete list. History shows that unless the human rights principles of universality, non-discrimination, participation and accountability are explicitly embedded in the strategy, neither gender discrimination nor environmental degradation and poverty will be ameliorated.⁵⁹ These narrow targets may do little to rectify gender inequality.³⁵ Moreover, the report relies heavily on public–private partnerships between UN agencies, companies, and multilateral and bilateral donors as a critical component of this new scheme without mention or interrogation of potential limitations.⁶⁰

Case studies

The dynamics and manifestations of gender inequality and its intersection with a range of power structures are highly contextual but through these case studies, some patterns emerge.

Bangladesh

While Bangladesh has achieved success in improving the lives of women and girls, interventions focusing on access to justice lack adequate support, particularly in the realm of customary law and culture shifts. Bangladesh is often cited for great success in improving the lives of women, but measuring and attributing the sources of the gains in gender equality and empowerment is complex. The World Bank has called Bangladesh “the shining new example in South Asia of a poor country achieving impressive gains in gender equality,”⁹ and notes the country has halved its total fertility rate between 1971 and 2004. Girls’ attendance at secondary school exceeds boys’ in many parts of the country, and the infant mortality gender gap has closed.⁹ The Bank states that the micro-credit revolution contributed to women’s equality through facilitating women’s organizing and increasing their earning potential yet there is vast criticism^61–63 of micro-credit loans and the crippling debts they can incur.⁹

The Government of Bangladesh has endorsed international agreements on women’s rights and has enacted various legislative measures to protect women from discrimination and consequent harm. Bangladesh is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women,⁵ Children’s Rights Convention,⁶⁴ Beijing Platform for Action,¹ and recently the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, among others. Legislation to protect women and prohibit discrimination includes the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and the Protection of Victims, the Bangladesh Acid Control Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the Acid Crime Control Act.^65–67

Despite these commitments, gender inequality and gender-based discrimination are pervasive. The CEDAW Committee notes that discriminatory laws and provisions, especially around marriage, guardianship and nationality still exist.⁶⁸ Indeed, while the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees equal enjoyment of rights for men and women under the law in the public sphere, this protection does not extend to the private sphere. Despite acceding to CEDAW, Bangladesh only withdrew its last reservation on Article 2 in 2011.⁶⁹ Article 2 obliges governments to ensure that women have the same rights as men in all spheres of life, and to eliminate discrimination against women within marriage and family relations.⁵

Gender inequality is far-reaching in Bangladesh, documented through gender-disaggregated data, development indicators and levels of gender-based violence.⁷⁰ Women are under-represented in every area of public life, even in sectors where progress has been made, including education, health and employment, which compromises progress in achieving all the MDGs.⁷¹ While gender parity has been reached in secondary school attendance, more male children are enrolled in primary schools and male enrolment in universities is significantly higher. The discrepancy in the literacy rate among male and female children is also a major concern.⁷² Employment rates demonstrate huge gender disparities: in 2007, 68.3% of men were employed but only 22.9% of women.⁶⁵ Dalit women are particularly disadvantaged in all spheres.⁷³

The Constitution guarantees women’s participation in the political framework, and the 14^th Amendment reserves 45 Parliamentary seats for women,⁷⁴ yet women’s participation in the political sphere remains low. Women hold less than 10% of leadership positions in the public sector, and reports at the 53rd UN Commission on the Status of Women (2009) found that the economic downturn reduced women’s occupation of positions of leadership.⁷⁵

Many women’s rights gains can be attributed to women’s activism, tracing back to the anti-colonial nationalist movement against Britain and Pakistan.⁴⁹ There are other forces at work as well. Bangladesh’s dramatic fertility decline, for example, resulted not only from a commitment to women’s empowerment but also a Malthusian response to overpopulation hype in the 1970s, involving stark human rights violations.⁹ Women’s rights organizations today confront a range of issues from political empowerment and economic equality to legal reforms of customary and gender-biased laws, gender-based violence, and reproductive rights. Gains in gender equality are due to an intersecting complex set of factors, including civil society engagement, women leaders, and legislative changes.

National gender machinery

Bangladesh has created a vast system of national mechanisms to implement gender equality. In 1978, the government created the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and the first of many five-year action plans for the advancement of women. It reserved more parliamentary seats and public sector jobs for women, and integrated women’s issues into development planning. The plan failed, however, because of women’s limited access to material and non-material resources.⁷⁶

In 1985 the five-year plan focused on the inequitable distribution of resources, reduction of gender inequality across the society, and poverty alleviation for the most vulnerable women. In 1990, the fourth five-year plan introduced gender mainstreaming, focusing on gender differences in all development interventions, as well as continuing to focus on poor women. Inadequate institutional mechanisms to coordinate full integration of women in development programmes, due in part to lack of funding, however, thwarted gender mainstreaming.⁹

In 1994, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs was re-organized into the Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs (MWCA), arguably diluting resources for women. It undertook a review of development programmes in Bangladesh in 1995 and aligned country activity with the MDGs. Its review of programming for women and children contributed to the policy on women’s issues and gender mainstreaming in the Poverty Reduction Strategy and subsequent five-year plans.⁷⁷

The MWCA is at the centre of gender-issue coordination in the Bangladesh government, but answers to the National Council for Women’s Development chaired by the Prime Minister.⁹ The implementing agency for the National Action Plan for Women’s Advancement and the Parliamentary Standing Committee engage with identified Focal Points in all line ministries, which also work with the MWCA. Below the MWCA, the Department of Women’s Affairs oversees the district Department for Women's Affairs, which houses the Women in Development Coordination Committee in each district. NGOs, individuals, local offices, and Union Parishads (local government units) operate at the ground level.

The MWCA works through two major implementing agencies to carry out programmes to advance women’s empowerment and reduce and mitigate poverty.⁷⁸ These include micro-credit programmes; day care and women support centres; safe custody centres for women, adolescent girls and children during court trials; and employment information centres.⁷⁹ The Ministry of Information undertakes awareness creation programmes. There is a separate law and set of agencies to address trafficking and violence against women.

Customary and religious law

A patrilineal and patriarchal kinship system reinforces the social and economic dependence of women on men in Bangladesh and prescribes them lower status.⁶⁷ In a 2009 report, the Universal Periodic Forum, comprised of 17 human rights organizations, attributed the causes of continued gender discrimination in Bangladesh to “primacy of religiously-based personal laws of inheritance, marriage, divorce, maintenance, child custody and adoption that discriminate against women regarding rights within the family,” as well as reduced access to education, employment, resources and services, particularly health care, limited visibility in public space, and violence in public and private.⁸⁰

Gender-based violence reveals entrenched and dangerous sociocultural norms relating to sexuality in Bangladesh. Violence is a significant feature of the everyday experience of many Bangladeshi women. 53% of urban women and 62% of rural women experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime.⁸¹ 14% of maternal deaths are due to gender-based violence.⁸² While Bangladesh has a multi-sectoral plan of action to combat gender-based violence, poor implementation and increasing violence in educational institutions and outside mean that parents are more likely to keep their female children at home.⁸³

“Eve-teasing,” a form of verbal and physical sexual harassment by boys and men, intimidates girls and women in public spaces. This phenomenon is a “mechanism of normalizing violence against women that suggests that women are both a tease and deserve to be teased.”⁶ It can range from shouts of obscenities to inappropriate touching in public places. A number of women and girls committed suicide in 2010 to escape from constant sexual harassment.⁶

Gender-based violence also takes the form of illicit penalties imposed by unauthorized tribunals in the form of fatwas, though a 2009 High Court judgment declared such extrajudicial penalties imposed on women illegal.⁸³ While much work has been done around forced marriage in recent years, this custom persists. Bangladesh has the highest percentage of females married by 18 in South Asia, ranking fourth in the world.^84,85 Early pregnancy exacerbates the marginalization of the poor and less educated.^76,86

Women’s access to justice under the law is constrained. Informal village mediation systems compete with the justice system. Mediation systems are often run by those who are ill-informed about existing legal precepts and procedures, which consequently leads to them discriminating against women. There is often a protectionist approach to women’s rights, depriving women of agency in important decisions.⁷³ Poor implementation of the domestic violence laws, corruption within the justice system, time-consuming legal procedures, and a scarcity of accessible legal representation are also deterrents to women seeking justice.⁷³

Funding

Funding trends for addressing gender issues have evolved over the past 40 years. Independence and the availability of donor funding for gender-related projects in the 1970s to 1980s incentivized the Bangladesh government to develop a gender agenda. A proliferation of donor funding for gender and development resulted in a donor network that women’s rights organizations leveraged to engage the state on a wide range of issues. A particular strand of women’s empowerment discourse promoting women’s productive role, economic empowerment and family welfare was favoured. Official development assistance shifted and was reorganized due to the 2005 Paris Declaration. As a result, governments became preferred aid recipients and the World Bank coordinated a Joint Country Assistance Strategy, supported by 15 donors in 2008 and signed in 2010.⁴⁰ The Strategy and resulting Development Results Frameworks lack mention of gender inequalities and women’s rights and lack gender-specific indicators.^40,87,88

As of 2010, the World Bank, UK Department for International Development, Asian Development Bank, and Japan International Cooperation Agency have accounted for 80% of Bangladesh’s official development assistance.⁴⁰ Women’s rights organizations struggle to maintain context-specific innovations targeting underlying rights issues, as these donors currently prefer results-oriented, short-term programmes with specific, tangible objectives, aligned with larger accountancy paradigms.⁴⁰ Donors also tend not to stay with one priority issue for long,⁸⁹ which runs contrary to transforming deep-rooted historical inequities. The emergence of more right-leaning governments in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries reinforces adherence to measurement, making these governments reluctant to give aid money for advocacy.⁹⁰

There are some government-sponsored projects for gender equality and legal and social empowerment of women, bilaterally funded.^91,92 And with an increasing number of women in parliament and funding for MDG 3 education targets, there is a perception of a gender-progressive public sector, but it is still only the independent, non-governmental women’s rights organizations that take on the inextricable issues of culture, patriarchy and women’s rights. However, the requirements imposed by external funders and implemented by the larger non-governmental organizations has had a homogenizing effect on smaller organizations, who are pressured to design their activities similarly, affecting their autonomy and sometimes leading to a de-politicization of their agendas. According to Mukhopadhyay and Eyben in their report on external funding:

“[I]n the NGO sector in Bangladesh […] most organisations have changed their agendas in order to meet donor requirements and have often become implementing agencies for donor programmes. Undeniably at times the [women’s rights organisations] have strategically chosen supplementary issues to work on which was not part of their main agenda but was related in order for them to access funding to continue working on their core agenda.” ⁴⁰

South Africa

South Africa has endorsed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,⁹³ the African Charter on Human Rights and Women's Rights,⁹⁴ Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women,⁵ and the Beijing Platform for Action,⁹ among other international human rights instruments. The country affirms commitments undertaken by Heads of State of Government of the Southern African Development Community,⁹⁵ and has enacted legislation to protect the rights of women.

In 1994, the African National Congress inherited a country ripe with gender disparities. Black African women faced disadvantages and discrimination, entrenched patriarchy and lack of basic social services as part of apartheid’s legacy.⁹⁶ Unacceptable gender inequalities persist today. According to the 2011 Census, the average female-headed household has little over half the annual income of male-headed households. Women are more likely to be under- or unemployed than their male counterparts.⁹⁷ Racial and social inequalities compound gender inequality in South Africa. In general, while the Black African population accounts for 78.2% of the working age population, Black Africans have the highest rates of under- and unemployment at around 45%. Women head 43.8% of households, and 22.8% of these are in the poorest quintile. Black African female-headed households are the poorest.⁹⁸

Although South Africa has made commitments to reduce gender-based violence and passed legislature to this end, including the Domestic Violence Act 1998, changes (and their underlying rationale) in gender-based violence rates and quality of services are hard to ascertain and still high. The South African Police Service statistics reported 64, 514 sexual offences in 2012, or 176 cases per day. A Medical Research Council study found that 28% of men surveyed had raped a woman or girl, one in 25 in the past year.⁹⁹ Over half of South African women have experienced some form of abuse, while 78% of men say they’ve perpetrated some form of violence against women.¹⁰⁰ The Medical Research Council estimates that about one-fourth of all incidences are actually reported.¹⁰¹

South Africa has committed itself to various gender equality measures, including improving access to education and increasing women’s engagement in leadership positions.¹⁰² The country officially reached gender parity in primary education enrolment under the guidance of CEDAW’s recommendations regarding education,^14,58 though dropout rates and poor attendance remain high for girls. School costs and girls’ family obligations remain educational risk factors.¹⁰³

South Africa has had tangible success in promoting women in politics and decision-making. Women account for 18% of parliamentarians around the world and South Africa is among the top five countries for numbers of women in parliament. According to the African Development Bank, 43% of members of parliament, 41% of cabinet ministers and five of nine provincial premiers were women in 2009.⁹⁷

Female parliamentarians have played an active role in mobilising for women’s rights. Their lobbying helped ensure the passage of key legislation, including the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act (1996), Domestic Violence Act (1998), Maintenance Act (1998), Recognition of Customary Marriages Act (1998) and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters Act) Amendment Act (2007).

During South Africa’s democratic transition to majority rule in 1994, various gender budgeting analyses resulted in ministerial commitments to gender analysis in all budgetary processes,¹⁰⁴ making South Africa a leader in gender budgeting.¹⁰⁵ The Women’s Budget Initiative (WBI), a five-year project founded in 1995, was comprised of two policy-oriented NGOs and the Gender and Economic Policy Group of the parliamentary Committee on Finance.¹⁰⁶ Core funding for this work was provided by private, multilateral, and bilateral donors, and South Africa volunteered to be a pilot country in the Gender Budget Initiative of the Commonwealth Secretariat. The data from this Initiative and others were widely publicized, but by 2000, the government’s gender budgeting initiatives and related initiatives had been sidelined due to a lack of ongoing support, the small amount of funding available, and a lack of advocacy or critical supporters in key leverage positions.⁹⁷

Despite taking measures to comply with its international commitments on gender equality through gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting, South Africa still suffers from gender inequality. The New Growth Path, 2012 State of the Nation Address, and 2012 national budget are gender-blind. While acknowledging that women suffer a triple challenge of unemployment, poverty and inequality, these documents use gender-neutral language and do not disaggregate data by gender.^107–109 Most municipalities have no explicit strategy for women’s empowerment.¹¹⁰

One 2012 shadow report to CEDAW by the South African Human Rights Commission describes inadequacies in the legislative and policy framework, reiterating insufficient costing and budget allocation for the implementation of legislation.¹¹⁷ Another study by South Africa’s Financial and Fiscal Commission found that no specific budget was dedicated to implementation of comprehensive gender mainstreaming.¹¹¹

National gender machinery

Historically, the national gender mechanisms have included Gender Focal Points, the Office on the Status of Women (OSW), Commission on Gender Equality, Parliamentary Joint Monitoring Committee on the Improvement of the Quality of Life and Status of Women, and NGOs.⁹⁷

In 2000, the Office on the Status of Women prepared a policy framework, the “National Policy Framework on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women”. This framework theoretically used a comprehensive gender mainstreaming approach, informed by human rights and constitutional tenets of equality.¹¹¹ However, it did not include indicators for monitoring or measuring the results of these activities and had little identifiable impact. Assessments show that the government has not operationally or administratively prioritized gender equality or the bodies tasked with it. Advancement is stymied by institutional hierarchies, inadequate funding and systemic blockages.⁹⁷

Despite its mandate, the Office on the Status of Women has lacked resources and authority to mainstream gender in government departments or work with NGOs and international bodies.⁹⁷ South Africa’s Country Report to the CEDAW Committee in 2008, authored by them, cites numerous laws and policies as markers of progress towards women’s empowerment but provides no details on their implementation. It also omits mention of laws that erode women’s empowerment, such as anti-prostitution laws.¹¹² While sex workers are rarely prosecuted, the confiscation of condoms by authorities forces workers to choose between protecting their health and safeguarding against police harassment. A study in Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe concluded that criminal laws against sex work needed to change because of the increased risk and harm they cause for women already prone to HIV infection and other STIs.¹¹³

Ignoring CEDAW’s guidelines on reporting, the Report to CEDAW also neglects to mention women’s NGOs and civil society organizations that have benefited from funding through the National Development Agency and National Lottery. Nor does it acknowledge civil society’s role in developing the Report. This identifies a lamentable lack of coordination between civil society and the South African government in the promotion of gender equality.¹¹⁴

The Commission for Gender Equality, an independent statutory body established in 1996 to monitor the government, private sphere and civil society, including the Office on the Status of Women, has been similarly plagued^103,115: it is “hobbled by perennial infighting, mediocre performance and ineffectualness so severe that its complete disappearance would go unnoticed.”¹¹⁶ The Commission favours publicly available information over tracking of government and legislative performance on gender equality goals⁵⁹ and does not disaggregate data by sex, ethnicity, age or urban/rural area.^97,117

A 2007 African National Congress review of the implementation of gender equity policies since 1994 led to the creation of a new Ministry of Women, Children, Youth and People with Disabilities in 2009.⁹⁷ The Public Service Commission found that a “lack of role clarity” obstructs its progress,¹⁰³ as it undermines the mandate of the national entities responsible for promoting women’s empowerment and gender equality. NGOs argue that the failures of the existing mechanisms were never adequately addressed and the grouping of women with children and people with disabilities diminishes the agency’s capacity to address gender equality,⁹⁷ let alone the rest of its remit.

Customary and religious law

The South African Constitution and auxiliary policy documents assert that customary law and traditional leadership are integral to the country’s social and political character.¹¹⁸ Yet, as acknowledged by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, there is a “destructive confrontation between the Bill of Rights… and indigenous law.” ⁶⁶ Three specific spheres in which customary and common law are in conflict regarding gender equality are customary laws of inheritance, domestic violence, and marriage rites.

Customary laws on estate distribution are predicated on male primogeniture, and are universal and patriarchal.¹¹⁹ Discourse around inheritance and traditional leadership succession reveals the deep-rooted tension — and biases — in South Africa around gender equality.^66,120 In the 2004 cases of Bhe and Others v The Magistrate, Khayelitsha and Others Case CCT 49/03, Shibi v Sithole and Others Case CCT 69/03, and South African Human Rights Commission and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another Case CCT 50/03, the Constitutional Court of South Africa finally abolished male primogeniture as unconstitutional as it relates to inheritance but not traditional leadership in African customary law.¹²¹

Moreover, the 2012 Traditional Courts Bill aims to promote customary law and the customs of communities who observe customary law and formalize a different justice system for citizens living mainly in rural areas, arguably undermining gender equality.¹²² An estimated 75% of South Africans adhere to customary law on domestic affairs. In 2002, about 36% of the population lived in tribal villages in rural areas where customary law is most important.¹²³ Women comprise the majority of residents in rural areas.

With traditional leaders presiding over traditional courts, women’s participation in decision-making could be limited. Representation and appeals mechanisms could also be constrained. Women and children living under customary law would be disproportionately burdened and excluded by this system.^112,124

Many aspects of official customary law make women vulnerable to gender-based violence and prevent them from leaving abusive relationships. Rural women often lack access to the legal infrastructure of South African law: they usually do not own their homes and thus cannot evict abusive spouses. Rules regarding land tenure, succession and a husband’s ownership of marital property affect women’s ability to resist or escape from domestic violence.¹⁰⁷

Laws governing marriage further make women vulnerable, subordinating their autonomy and status. For example, marriage according to ukuthwala custom involves “bride stealing”.¹²⁵ While often part of marriage negotiations, but sometimes pure abduction, this practice robs women and girls of autonomy and violates their rights. Lobolo (bride price) is often paid by husbands. This increases women’s vulnerability to domestic violence and decreases their ability to escape. If a woman’s father uses the lobolo to pay off debts, he may be resistant to allowing her to return home due to his inability to return the lobolo. Additionally, a woman is expected to appeal to her husband’s family if there is marital strife. Traditional modes of handling marital problems emphasize private and internal sources, deterring women from seeking outside help, utilizing shelters or seeking justice pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act.⁶⁷

Funding

The overall development funding picture for South Africa, both official development assistance and bilateral and multilateral support, is difficult to ascertain. Before 1994, private donors contributed substantially to NGOs and anti-apartheid organizations, but official aid was negligible.¹²⁶ Since 1994, official development assistance has progressively increased.¹¹⁸

With consistent GDP growth since 1994 and a diversified economy and well-developed infrastructure, the country is classified as upper-middle income, according to the World Bank,¹²⁷ and official development assistance accounts for a small percentage of South Africa’s GDP, 0.2–0.4%.

Because of the country’s political history, its economic role in the region and high levels of inequality, donors have continued to be involved.¹²⁹ Most donors in South Africa utilize a traditional project approach, directly giving to unique projects rather than leveraging South Africa’s financial or procurement systems. But most private foundations and bilateral organizations^128–130 have restricted their support to South African NGOs working on women’s empowerment. Now the UK has announced its withdrawal entirely as a donor from South Africa, and the US plans to reduce aid by 18% in 2014.¹³¹ The reduction in bilateral aid will exacerbate funding shortfalls for South African NGOs.

Conclusion

Reliance on state and international donors for protection of women’s rights is risky, given their current modes of operation and the uncertainty of sustainability, but where else should support come from? The High Level Panel report envisions expanding targets related to women and delving deeper into inequalities.⁶¹ But the case studies here question how effective work for gender equality can be accomplished effectively through these existing scenarios. In South Africa and Bangladesh, a continuing or even increasing emphasis on custom and traditional law, which re-enforce gender inequality, is worrisome. The High Level Panel’s emphasis on public–private partnerships and a “one theme” approach also bears consideration:

“[I]n many circumstances international partners and agencies will be invited to assist in helping countries implement their plans and achieve their targets — on average 30 official development partners, many with more than one development agency, are operating in each developing country. These agencies have a responsibility to harmonize their efforts with national plans, operate through the government budget where practicable, and collaborate with each other to ensure the maximum impact for the least effort and that Stakeholders should partner by Theme in ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’… bringing together governments (local, city, national), experts, CSOs, businesses, philanthropists, universities and others, to work on a single theme.” ⁵³

These forced partnerships (it would be disingenuous to call them anything else) often sound the death knell for independent autonomous voices, and can lead to risk-averse programmes that do not take on issues such as customary law and culture. Success, on the other hand, requires support for a potent mix of advocacy, movement building and a complex set of ground-based strategies that shift cultural practices which harm women and girls. Funding is needed for advocacy and interventions that engage culture while holding firm on the human rights of women and girls.

A successful scheme must include policy and legal frameworks that prohibit discrimination as well as measures to allow those harmed by inequalities to claim redress for rights violations.¹³² Also essential are explicit initiatives aiming to ensure equal access and opportunity for marginalized groups; appropriate redistributive measures, including social protection provisions; and activities to increase awareness and disseminate information about inequalities, such as making data transparent. Strategies must consider fundamentalisms — whether religious, political or economic — health systems and status, poverty and human rights. These realities are inextricable components of structural inequalities. They need to be addressed not separately, but as inter-related forces in programmatic design and implementation. An environment is not “enabling”^133,134 absent of specific guidelines and sufficient resources. Otherwise, the activism that fuels women’s rights’ gains globally will be inadequately supported and will not succeed.

There are some donors (some private and many small women’s funds) and some larger funds, like the MDG 3 fund, that support advocacy, organizing and independent, autonomous, indigenous work for women’s rights. Greatly increased support of this type for autonomous women's rights advocacy is critical to the success of any post-2015 development framework that wishes to reduce gender inequity and inequalities effectively.

This work is likely to cause discomfort to governments and international donors at some times. Work that steadfastly aims at changing customary law and practice harmful to women will do the same. Yet, work that causes profound discomfort and that may not yield immediate “countable” results may just be the key to dismantling the entrenched human rights abuses experienced by women and girls on a daily basis all over the world.

Primary school student, English class, Kigeyo village, Western Province, Rwanda, 2007

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the vast research contributions of Katherine Polin, MPH, and Sonia Rastogi to this complex commentary.