1. BLACKBOARD COLLABORATE TIPS
While you are waiting, please:
(1) To ensure that your AUDIO is working
properly, kindly go through the Audio
Wizard.
Go to Tools > Audio >Audio Set-up Wizard
(2) Changing your connection speed
Go to Edit menu > Preferences >Session,
and then select ISDN, wireless or other lower
connection.
(3) Kindly close down all unnecessary
applications.
Feel free to send us a message in the chat box if
you are having problems.

2. Page 2
Ground Rules for Today’s Session
• Due to the large size of the class, microphone usage is
disenabled for the participants
• We would love to hear your feedback and questions, kindly
send them and any other comments in the chat box
• There are moderators in the chat box. They will prepare and
organize your comments and questions for the regular Q & A
section of the webinar.

3. Page 3
THE INTERFACE
MEDIA WINDOW
Audio/Video Panel
Response/Status
Panel
Presenter and
Participant Area
Text Chat Area
Mark-up Toolbar

4. Page 4
INTERACTIVITY FEATURES
Response/Status Panel
Feedback
Menu
Polling
Response
Step Away
Raise Hand

5. Page 5
Polling Function
1. This is the first time you’re attending an online
learning series using Blackboard Collaborate.
Kindly click on the green ✔ for YES or the red x
for NO

6. Page 6
We work on WEL because...
It raises the standard of living for the whole
community?
It improves agricultural production and incomes?
It promotes gender equity?
It is an Oxfam organisational priority?
All of the above?

7. Page 7
Mark-up Toolbar

8. WHO’S WHO IN TODAY’S WEBINAR
Dominic Ramirez
Kimberly Bowerman Paul Joicey Lyca Sarenas
Jocelyn VillanuevaNonthathom Chaipet

9. • Welcome and Introduction
• Presentation of Findings – WEL in Asia
Review
• Reaction from Sri Lanka and Philippines
• Comments and Questions
• Next Steps
Agenda for today

10. WEL in Asia Review
Validation Session

11. Page 11
Transformative Change and WEL in Asia
Asia Vision:
Transform power relations
by focusing on women’s rights
and working with strategic
partners to overcome poverty
and inequality across Asia
Thematic Area:
Enable women in poorest and marginalised communities to
realise their rights and claim an equitable share of growth
through developing their capacity for political and
economic leadership
GENDER JUSTICE
PIE
Holistic vision of women’s
leadership and participation: inter-
related and indivisible

12. WEL IN ASIA REVIEW:
SUMMARY SLIDES
FOR CONSULTATION WITH WEL COP
Kimberly Bowman February 2014

13. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND HOW
TO GET INVOLVED

14. Page 14
Purpose of the review
• Understand more about how WEL has been implemented
across the region, and to inform future WEL work.
• Take stock of what we have achieved so far, bring out key
learning from countries and draw lessons and
recommendations to move forward with high quality
programming and effective learning.
 Feeding a conversation at the Regional Leadership Team in
March.

15. Page 15
Sources of data / information
Bangladesh
(Chilli,
REECALL)
Pakistan
PKNB91
Sri Lanka:
EU-ACAP
and Coir
Philippines:
OMP and
links.
VALIDATION:REGIONALADVISERS
Skype Interviews with CoP members (3) and advisors
(2)
Country visits –
interviews,
observation
and document
review.
Document
review –
evaluations,
planning, OPAL
documents.

16. Page 16
Documents
Available for
Download
12 Feb
Webinar
Presentation
and Discussion
Feb 27
Amendments
made before
RLT workshop
March 7
Feedback and additional documents accepted by
email; skype.
Review Process

17. Page 17
HOW TO FEED BACK
• Download the full report or one of the summaries from:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xt8zrrf2fg6zly7/L6Yf3GeKyb
• Attend the online session on February 27.
• Email your comments to kbowman@oxfam.org.uk by
end of day 27 February – either as track changes or in a
separate doc (if latter, no more than 800 words please.)

18. FIRST, THE FRAMEWORK

19. Page 19
THE STARTING POINT:

20. Page 20
WEL Quality Checks:
WOMEN AS LEADERS
WOMEN EQUAL BENEFIT
WOMEN’S EQUAL
PARTICIPATION
APPROPRIATE FOR WOMEN
Design
considerations
Intermediate
outcomes
WEL Outcomes
Guiding principles
•Smallholder
agriculture beyond
production.
•Women as active
agents.
•Women as powerful
actors and leaders.
•Equal relations
between women and
men.
Design steps
• Gendered market
selection
• Gendered market
mapping
• Linking HH
analysis with market
analysis.
• Stakeholder
analysis.
• Identify
opportunities for
WEL.
• Develop strategies.
More standard market-
focussed livelihoods
outcomes – for example:
INCREASED PRODUCTION
INCREASED SALES
ADOPTION OF NEW
PRACTICES
RESILIENCE, RISK
REDUCTION
ACCESS TO CREDIT
BETTER MARGINS ON
PRODUCTS
INTERVENTIONS
UNPLANNED EFFECTS ON
OTHER WOMEN
PROPOSAL: REVISED FRAMEWORK

21. Page 21
LIVELIHOODS
OUTCOMES
GENDER QUALITY
CHECKS
WEL OUTCOMES
Standard outcomes for a
gendered market-focussed
livelihood project (depends
on context and intervention):
For example:
INCREASED PRODUCTION
INCREASED SALES
ADOPTION OF NEW
PRACTICES
RESILIENCE, RISK REDUCTION
ACCESS TO CREDIT
ACCESS TO GOV’T SERVICES
BETTER MARGINS ON
PRODUCTS
WEL Quality Checks:
WOMEN AS LEADERS
WOMEN EQUAL BENEFIT
WOMEN’S EQUAL
PARTICIPATION
APPROPRIATE FOR WOMEN
These are key questions that
affect design and project
monitoring, focussed on
ensuring that the project is
delivering for women
Focusing on questions of
suitability (is this right for
women?), women’s
participation, leadership and
benefit.
Going beyond a set of standard
gendered economic indicators,
the project looks at barriers to
and opportunities for greater
empowerment (broadly defined)
atHH, community, enterprise and
broader levels. It also looks at
changes in the broader
environment .
These vary by project.
These are more standard
livelihood project outcomes,
focussed on primarily on
economic factors.
They are different for each
intervention, and come out of
the project’s logic (or ‘theory of
change.’)
EFFECTS ON OTHER WOMEN

22. Page 22
POWER, VOICE AND
DECISION-MAKING
Women’s
Economic
Leadership
IN THE MARKET
IN THE COMMUNITY
IN THE FAMILY
IN THE BUSINESS
IN THE SELF
WEL Guiding
Principles
Core WEL
Outcomes.
Enabling and
restricting
outcomes. (About
the environment.)

23. Page 23
Key Changes:
• Some slight changes in wording or reorganization of
outcomes (also, adding ‘women’s capabilities’)– also adding
definitions and examples.
• Breaking concepts apart into guiding principles, core
outcomes and enabling outcomes.
• Explicitly recognizing economic outcomes as intermediate –
and with WEL ‘quality checks.’

24. Page 24
To see definitions...
Access the full report or the 5-page summary of the conceptual
framework, from here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xt8zrrf2fg6zly7/L6Yf3GeKyb

25. RESULTS

26. Page 26
Sri Lanka
• 2 very different projects: in scale, challenges, target groups.
Particularly notable
• In East/North: emblematic of a WEL project at a fairly large
scale? Example – interventions: producer groups + SARCs,
buy-back agreements and support for links to markets,
assistance with production, sustainable production methods,
links to government, bit of infrastructure for advocacy, VAW
referrals.
• Different examples of how WEL linked with government at a
practical/implementation level: from a multi-stakeholder
committee (South) to links to extension training (North) to
work with land registration services (East).

27. Page 27
Philippines
• A number of different projects in different sites and very
different target groups, including some enterprises at greater
degrees of maturity, and with a focus on CCA/resilience.
Particularly notable:
• Degree of co-learning with partners on new or complex
issues: how is this going to work?
• Deliberate integration with national-level advocacy
programme (though they’ll tell you this can be better.)
• Strongly gendered in how people talk about programming –
WEL is not an add-on.

28. Page 28
Describing how we ‘do’ WEL
• Target audiences. May be only women or women and men.
Sometimes prioritize widows and FHH (but not always clear in
documentation why, or if they have different needs...)
• Strategies. Many, differing according to context, need and
project design. But always a mix of:
• Interventions focused on economic changes
• Complimentary interventions aimed at WEL outcomes (house-hold
decision making, VAW, etc.)
• Standards. No consistent ‘blueprint’ model, nor benchmarks
on things like income levels or level of confidence in women.
Diversity of programming makes that very hard. But: suggest
that true WEL programming works across the framework.

29. Page 29
Challenges and Lessons Learned
• Economic and production. Challenges to quantity or
sustained production; to gaining access to markets; to
delivering a good return.
• Working with very disadvantaged women. Raising their
abilities to participate (either changing attitudes so they can
participate, or raising their capabilities so they can engage as
confident actors) takes time. They are risk-averse.
• Partners. Challenges to getting ‘on the same page’ with how
we understand gender and MEL. A consistent challenge
addressed through:
• Oxfam taking a ‘gender quality assurance’ role
• Co-learning with and among partners

30. Page 30
Challenges and Lessons Learned (2)
• Local government actors. Implementation challenges –
policies ‘on the books’ but not enforced at local level.
Capacity issues – not doing extension, finance, gendered
budgeting.
• How do we address this at large scale?
• Involving and informing men. Really important for buy-in
and even championning.
• At minimum, projects should communicate with men and families.
• Often, projects can include men in activities to gain support.
• Women’s mobility.
• Projects designed near to homes.
• Women travelling together.
• Involving men.

31. Page 31
Challenges and Lessons Learned (3)
• Deeply conservative cultural practices.
• Taking it one step at a time.
• Engaging partners to suggest alternative attitudes.
• Focusing on education and attitudes among young people.

32. EVIDENCE OF CHANGE

33. Page 33
Evidence of Change
• The most consistent indicators seen in WEL projects are
“proportion of women who are participants / beneficiaries” and
targets related to income growth.
• There are examples of indicators from projects – and
indicators that came up through interviews, in the longer
report.
• There is evidence of changes in WEL-level outcomes in
different projects:
• Incomes higher
• Asset ownership rise in participating households; access to land titles
for women.
• Self-reported changes in self-esteem by women, observations from staff
and from government and partner staff.
• Some changes in men’s attitudes in some projects.

34. Page 34
Evidence of Change (2)
BUT....
It’s easy to get stuck at the economic and quality-
check level, without intentionally gathering data
on the WEL core outcomes.

35. PROGRAMME LEARNING

36. Page 36
Programme Learning
Community of Practice
• Development of knowledge among staff and partners.
• Creating connections between country teams, for future
sharing.
• Links in to programme quality (design, management) – seen
when proposals go in.
Other support
• Supporting others – sharing documentation, exchange visits.
• Advisory support – a ‘deep bench’ across different affiliates.

37. Page 37
MEAL Practice
• In Sri Lanka and the Philippines, curiosity and programme
development seemed to drive MEL practice – not simply
adherence to standards. We saw:
• Voices from the community brought in to mid-term evaluations,
compared against opinions of Oxfam staff and partners.
• Most significant change projects brining in hundreds of stories of
change from project participants.
• Participatory action research to help prompt/catalyze thinking
about gender relationships – and also illuminate issues for
Oxfam.
• Process documentation, to help generate evidence for advocacy.

38. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

39. Page 39
1. Never enough?
Incomes are
increasing!
(Hooray!) But
they’re still
under the
poverty line....
And is this
resulting in more
power for
women?
There are real
changes in
women’s power
at the household
level. But are
they seeing
greater power at
all levels?
We’re seeing
managers and
leaders in the
federations
and
involvement of
women up the
production
line. But is it
only a few
token women?
This isn’t to
scale or a
system-level
change..
Speaking of scaled change: we won a huge
policy victory in women’s land ownership. But
we’re not seeing it being implemented on the
ground...

40. Page 40
2. Does a project have to be at a certain
level / maturity before we call it WEL?
What if local conditions mean a project only
involves women producing for local markets,
and not allowed to travel beyond the home?

41. Page 41
According to recommendations....no.
•
If a project is aiming at achieving
transformative shifts of WEL outcomes and
doing WEL quality checks, it can be a WEL
project. It just might take a lot longer (and a few
stages) to achieve large-scale change ....
• And transformations in gender relations might
seem a little smaller in nature.
Does a project have to be at a certain
level / maturity before we call it WEL?

42. Page 42
3. Standards?
• Not suggesting a blueprint-based approach but
• More specific alignment with the WEL framework
would be a good thing – enable more clarity on
intention, which helps us learn.
• Means being very clear about the non-financial
outcomes projects are aiming for.

43. OVER TO YOU...

44. Page 44
• What did we miss?
• Is anything surprising?
Anything very much
expected?
• What do you think about the
discussion questions?

45. Page 45
HOW TO FEED BACK
• Download the full report or one of the summaries from:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xt8zrrf2fg6zly7/L6Yf3GeKyb
• Attend the online session on February 24 at XXX.
• Email your comments to kbowman@oxfam.org.uk by 26
February – either as track changes or in a separate doc
(if latter, no more than 800 words please.)

46. Thank You!

47. Sri Lanka Feedback

48. Page 48
What we like
• Report is useful, relevant, clear – helps thinking to move forward
on WEL.
• Demystifies the concept – engendered livelihoods programmes.
Most outcomes are gender and not livelihoods outcomes.
• New framework - good to focus on ‘framework’ with tools,
approaches, outcomes etc and not be prescriptive about
activities.
• Close monitoring / action research - to inform about gender
issues, strategies & outcomes.
• Standardised core WEL outcomes
• Moving WEL from a ‘project’ to an approach – but to what extent
is this the mainstream approach to Oxfam livelihoods
programmes?

49. Page 49
Some ongoing challenges
• Technical MEL issues – income, confidence etc
• Links to other frameworks - resilience, GEM, wellbeing
• Implementing teams / partners – need strong gender and
livelihoods skills (and good collaboration)
• Which socio-economic groups tend to participate / benefit from
WEL – small-holders; risk-takers; entrepreneurs; landless;
second income etc
• Scale – breadth vs depth. Transformative change in the lives of a
few or in the lives of many?
• Scale of impact – yes, changes at individual, HH and enterprise
level. Unsure of wider impacts – particularly for non-project
participants (enabling environment).

50. Philippines
Feedback on WEL in Asia Report
26 Feb 2014

51. Page 51

• Captured changes that happened from the WEL projects
in the Philippines
• Work around gender responsive budgeting (public
investment) and care work complements WEL
• Efforts to complement national advocacy with
development programme
• PAR as methodology for raising awareness and
evidence building for influencing work

52. Page 52
CHALLENGES
• Need to level-off with the partners and communities on the
WEL indicators/standards that we will be looking at in the
course of the project (e.g., how will women’s capabilities or
increased power, voice and decision-making be measured?)
• Interfacing WEL with CCA/DRR work. Protection from risks
such as conflict, disasters and climate change impact
• Strategies to address deeply conservative cultural practices
(religion & culture; IPs)
• Implementation of laws & policies + Sustainability/Continuity

53. QUESTIONS?
Kindly type in your questions in the chat box

54. Page 54