Analysis of gender and institutional level of arrangement in REDD+ pilot sites, Cross River State, Nigeria

Abstract

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 120%; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; layout-grid-mode: char; mso-layout-grid-align: none; margin: 12.0pt 0cm 6.0pt 147.4pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 120%; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">This<span style="color: white;"> </span>study<span style="color: white;"> </span>assessed<span style="color: white;"> </span>genders’<span style="color: white;"> </span>institutional level of arrangement in REDD<sup>+</sup> pilot sites, Cross River State, Nigeria.<span style="color: white;"> </span>Data<span style="color: white;"> </span>were<span style="color: white;"> </span>collected<span style="color: white;"> </span>through literature and policy document review and Focus Group Discussion (FGD). The total number of 270 documents with three, <strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Level 1<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">:</span></strong> Non-substantive inclusion, <strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Level 2<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">:</span></strong> Superficial inclusion and <strong style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Level 3<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">:</span></strong> Integrated inclusion. The<span style="color: white;"> </span>gender<span style="color: white;"> </span>were<span style="color: white;"> </span>classified<span style="color: white;"> </span>as<span style="color: white;"> </span>Men and Women for the search engine. The results showed that <span style="mso-no-proof: yes;">only 95 of the 270 REDD<sup>+</sup> related documents mentioned gender (representing 51% of the total documents). Nearly half of the texts that include the crucial phrases were categorized at Level 1, which means that gender concerns were not material.</span> Regardless of how it is seen, the meager inclusion of gender mainstreaming discussion can only be found in Level 3. This 7% translated to only 12 out of the 270 documents which truly and fully understood the gender mainstreaming ideas. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 120%; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; layout-grid-mode: line;">The study concluded that communities’ policy interventions such as REDD<sup>+</sup> still exhibit non-compliance of gender mainstreaming and institutional level of arrangement</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 120%; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 120%; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none; mso-fareast-language: DE; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; layout-grid-mode: line;">therefore, this study recommend that “<em style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sincerity</em>” of gender mainstreaming from the government and other stakeholders is a panacea for the success of any climate change adaptation programme such as REDD<sup>+</sup>. </span></p>