40 likes | 151 Views
GROUP 5. INDIA, BHUTAN, BANGLADESH. SITUATION. India: Formal networks do not exist; GOI has a focus on GE in SSA and supporting resource groups have been established; National network to be supported by strong state networks to respond to different needs of the state;
E N D
GROUP 5 INDIA, BHUTAN, BANGLADESH
SITUATION • India: • Formal networks do not exist; GOI has a focus on GE in SSA and supporting resource groups have been established; • National network to be supported by strong state networks to respond to different needs of the state; • Should emerge as an advocacy platform for knowledge sharing. • Bangladesh: • June 26 2006 the network initiated by UNICEF; national engagement with government and development partners, academia and civil society • Strong civil society actors – already involved in GE; continuing with or without network; • name an issue – proposed Bangladesh GEI for broader ownership. • Formal beginning – more engagement and sustained operationalization needed. • Bi-annual meeting – UNICEF reports on status of activities • Bhutan: • Not functional; plan for gender mainstreaming exists; constrained by very few civil society actors; • Relevance of network for girls’ education – provide coherence
Value-Addition of UNGEI • Overall: • Relevance is there; UNICEF can play a catalytic role • Need to communicate that UNGEI is not a implementation or a monitoring network; • Objective should be: • transforming the discourse on girls’ education • Strategically build capacity to engage with issues more critically; • Knowledge sharing • Name should not be an issue; not necessarily led by UNICEF; revolving chairs. • Sustained engagement, not event based, to ensure synergy
PARTNERS • Partners: • Government • Development partners • UN Agencies • Civil Society Actors • Activists • Academia • Should be multi-level / broad-based / operationalized through consensus-building for effective functioning.