Page - (000051) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

but provided evidence that gender turned out to be relevant after all. OPS5 con- cluded that “omitting attention for gender where it is needed may have led to unintended negative gender-related consequences”. A baseline study undertaken byOPS5 revealed that many climate action projects were formulated by experts insufficiently aware of gender issues.On the good side it should be noted that the same study also revealed projects that tackle gender issues adequately (GEF/IEO 2014, p. 61). When theClimate InvestmentFunds (CIF) started in2008, theydidnothavean explicit gender focus –most countries did not include women’s organisations in investment plan consultations. However, in 2009 and 2010, 15% of the plans starteddeclaringgender considerations.Someworks remains toensure thatgender considerationsaremainstreamedinCIFplanningandcarriedthroughto investment projects in thefield. In apositive step forward, theCIFhired agender specialist to develop and implement an actionplan to support collaboration amongMDBs. Attempts have been made throughout the NICFI portfolio to address gender issues inREDDþ.However, it isstatedbytheevaluationthatamongpartners, there is a lack of understanding of, and low general capacity to address gender. The strongest contribution has been through the UN-REDD programme, whereby numerous publications onREDDþ andgender havebeenproduced. ForUN-REDD, the importance andneed for gendermainstreaming is reflected inmost of its policy and programmatic documents and guidelines. However, the implementationofgendermainstreamingactivitiesat thecountrylevel isnot taking place inacohesiveandsystematicway throughout theprogramme.Theevaluation (2014) stated that drivers of deforestation will be better addressed if gender considerations are integrated especially at the local level. The track record on equity and inclusiveness is even less impressive. While equityand inclusiveness areessential dimensionsof social, economicandenviron- mental sustainability, they are perhaps too far removed from the often technical natureof theclimateactionsreviewedin thesevencomprehensiveevaluations.The FifthOverall PerformanceStudyof theGEFdoesnotmentionequityor inclusive- ness,while theCIFevaluationonlymentions equity in relation to investments and inclusiveness of stakeholders in consultations. There is indirect attention to the issues – for example in the attention for local livelihoods, involvement of indige- nous peoples and civil society organisations. An example is to be found in the NICFIevaluation:since2008,NICFIprovidedatotalofNOK1billionor9%ofits funding to civil society togenerate neededknowledge, for advocacy (international and political), piloting and facilitating implementation (Frechette etc. 2014, xix). UN-REDD’sevaluationstated that ‘TheProgrammeprovidesanenablingplatform for Indigenous Peoples and civil society organisations to influence global discus- sionsonREDDþ.Theabilityofforest-dependentpopulations toinfluenceREDDþ processes has so far proven to be more limited at the country level, and non-indigenous communities are not well represented in the programme, overall’ (Frechette etc. 2014, vi). Whileattentionforgender,equityandinclusiveness isontherise, theevaluative evidence isoverwhelmingthat thesedimensionshavenotyetbeenfully includedin 30 R.D. vandenBerg andL.Cando-Noordhuizen