By IPS Correspondents
MONTEVIDEO, Aug 5 2008 (IPS)

Inequality between men and women “is not always linked to poverty. We must not postpone action until we are rich and happy, because we may get rich without achieving gender equality,” Roberto Bissio, coordinator of the international network Social Watch, told IPS.

Credit: Eurostep

One of the crucial tasks that organisations and movements fighting for women’s rights have set themselves is for international treaties and commitments to include specific financial policies to bridge the gender gap.

This year two international development aid agreements are to be reviewed, and the efforts of activists will be focused on this task.

In September, in Accra, Ghana, the commitments made in 2005 in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness will be examined. This agreement between governments and international cooperation agencies was aimed at harmonising and improving development aid administration.

And in late November a meeting in Doha, Qatar, will assess fulfilment of the agenda of the Monterrey Consensus, adopted in 2002 at the International Conference on Financing for Development.

IPS: Social Watch created the Gender Equity Index (GEI) to measure the gap between men and women. What exactly does it measure, and what are the general results?

ROBERTO BISSIO: The GEI is calculated on the basis of three dimensions, education, participation in the economy and empowerment. The educational dimension has achieved the most equity worldwide. Nowadays women are almost at a par with men in education, but they have little participation in decision-making bodies. In the economic dimension, which takes the labour market into account, there is also significant inequality.

Gender inequality is not always linked to poverty. A rich country may have a wider gap between men and women than a poor country. Therefore, we must not postpone these issues until we are rich and happy, because we may get rich without achieving gender equity.

IPS: In terms of development aid, how much funding is available to promote gender equity?

RB: There is no specific funding as such, and that is an obstacle to overcoming the gap between women and men. The instruments that might have made gender equity funding possible have been frustrated by mechanisms like free trade agreements, or development policies themselves.

In addition, many governments are still concentrating on policies focused on education while leaving aside the economic and political dimensions, which at the moment exhibit greater gender inequality.

IPS: What have governments done to improve the situation of women since the Paris Declaration?

RB: Nothing that makes a measurable difference. Gender equity is mentioned in the declaration, but is not included among the indicators used to measure progress. Out of the 12 goals with quantitative targets to be met by 2010, none refers to the situation of women.

To say that they will take action on this is no more than a statement of good intentions. Some organisations analysed the extent to which the policies in the Paris Declaration are positive for women, and they concluded that the package of macroeconomic and governance measures it recommends actually detracts from national governments’ capacity to support positive action programmes to benefit women.

IPS: So what can be expected from the review of the Paris Declaration commitments?

RB: There’s a certain amount of frustration, because the draft document so far is very weak. In trying to please everyone, it has been reduced to the lowest common denominator, and it doesn’t say anything important.

IPS: In contrast with the Paris Declaration, the Monterrey Consensus does emphasise promotion of gender equity.

RB: Yes, as a United Nations conference, it took a more holistic view. It also addressed aid financing mechanisms and administration. There was greater concern for the situation of women and a number of measures were identified, such as analysing expenditure from government budgets and looking at its differential impact on men and women.

It recognised that equal rights under the law is not enough. Problems arise at the moment when gender equality rights are actually exercised, which is why allocation of budget resources is needed.

At Monterrey important concepts were introduced, such as the existence of systemic problems, which cause the overall global system to malfunction, and the fact that there is interaction between financial, trade and aid mechanisms, which cannot be treated separately.

For instance, an aid agency might help small farmers grow cotton, but local policy on subsidies may prevent them from exporting what they produce. The Monterrey Consensus underlined the need for coherent policies, and although not much progress has been made, at least certain problems have been identified in some areas that previously would have been unthinkable as part of the international agenda.

IPS: What do you mean?

RB: How international finance works, for example. Now everyone knows that volatility and capital flight have a social impact not only in poor countries, but also in many rich ones. We are seeing financial crises in Europe and the United States of the kind that not long ago affected Asia and Latin America.

Also on the question of fair taxation, there is a recognition that the better-off can find ways of evading taxes, and therefore there is talk of the need to eliminate tax havens. Perhaps some results can be hoped for on these issues. And these overarching issues cannot be dissociated from gender equity.

IPS: What steps are donor countries taking to improve gender equity?

RB: They are implementing mechanisms to identify and gauge the gender component in the different programmes they support. It’s a first step towards improving their impact on gender equity. But the biggest problem is policy incoherence, because taking an overview, one sees that the donor countries are also the creditor countries and the ones who negotiate the terms of trade.

IPS: What do social organisations expect from the review of the Monterrey Consensus that is to be undertaken in Doha?

RB: The hope is that it will be possible to create new mechanisms to finance development, for example by taxing carbon emissions and international financial transactions, which could generate resources and improve the environment. There is hope that progress may be made on these issues, despite the well-known difficulties, such as the unilateral stances taken by the United States.

IPS: How much pressure can social organisations exert?

RB: That depends on how visible the issue becomes. When a meeting of governments is made public, the country delegates have to explain the agreements they make to their citizens. Fortunately, people are demanding more accountability, which means better results can be achieved.

Excerpt: