Anne Havnør

Paper for presentation at the "Mainstreaming Gender in European Union Public Policy" workshop, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 14-15 October 2000

Anne Havnør

Ministry of Children and Family Affairs

Department of Family Affairs, Child Care and Gender Equality

P.O. Box 8036 Dep

N-0030 Oslo

NORWAY

Tel: +47 22242544

Fax: +47 22242555

e-mail: anne.havnor@bfd.dep.no

http://odin.dep.no/bfd/norsk/likestilling/gender_equality/index-b-n-a.html

Since the initial narrow approach of equal treatment in employment, legally based in the equal pay provision (Article 119) of the Treaty of Rome, the European Community has developed into a considerably more equality-friendly structure. While the Treaty of Maastricht (1993) opened up for Community action to combat violence against women, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) places equality between women and men among the explicit tasks of the European Community and obliges the Community to promote gender equality in all its tasks and activities (Articles 2 and 3). Article 13 provides a legal basis for action to combat discrimination, inter alia on the grounds of sex. Article 141 significantly broadens the scope for legal action in the field of employment and occupation.

Notably, the new Treaty has served to legitimate and promote gender mainstreaming as a core element of the Employment Guidelines; in the adoption of the new and equality-friendly Regulations of the Structural Funds (2000-2006); the Women and Science programme under the Fifth Framework Programme, the strengthening of equal opportunities provisions in the fields of education and training, and in development co-operation policy. The gender mainstreaming approach is backed by legislation (the "equal opportunities acquis") and positive action in favour of women (or the "under-represented sex"), such as the successive action programmes to promote equality between women and men.

Norway, at the other hand, pursued an active policy of gender mainstreaming as early as in the mid-eighties. It can boast a high percentage of women in decision-making, high rate of employment among women, and very good reconciliation arrangements. The country rates top scores on the UNDP Gender related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Equality Measure (GEM).

I wish to explore what can be learnt by comparing the relative success and weaknesses of the two examples.

My perspective is that of a practitioner. In 1992, I took up the co-ordination of a Gender Mainstreaming Programme in the Central Administration of Norway. On the basis of this experience I was later selected to a secondment as a National Expert in the European Commission, where I spent three 3 years as a member of the Equal Opportunities Unit, DG EMPL. In Brussels, my mission was first of all to design a concrete strategy to put into practice the Commission’s express commitment to gender mainstreaming.

The experience from these two bureaucratic organisations shapes my perspective and forms the backdrop to my presentation. I will set out the two cases, starting at the European level, going on to the Norwegian experience, and finally discuss some strengths and weaknesses, common points and differences in the two approaches.

The real landmark for gender mainstreaming at the EU level was the 1997 agreement of Amsterdam. Articles 2 and 3 oblige the EC to pursue the goal of equal opportunities between women and men, and to do so in all its tasks (Article 2 and 3). These prescriptions do not constitute a direct legal base for concrete action. They have normative value and can be used when interpreting other parts of the Treaty that have a more direct effect. This approach has been taken in the "anti-discrimination package" based on Article 13. In the newly adopted Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, the wording has been directly transported into the preamble as follows:

This is the wording of Article 3 of the Treaty + a short explanation of the relevance in this particular context ("especially since women are often the victims of multiple discrimination").

The Amsterdam treaty is the most important expression of EU commitment to gender mainstreaming. The Treaty has been criticised by some for being too weak on equality. I would rather invert the question and ask how was this at all possible to achieve?

The Treaty was not an isolated achievement. A year before, the European Commission had committed itself to "promote equality between women and men in all its activities and policies at all levels."(COM(1996) 67 final of 21.2.1996).

How come an International organisation, whose core ideology is market liberalism, the free movement of capital, goods, services and persons, decides to promote gender equality throughout its fields of activity?

Clearly a solid basis had been laid in the course of the 1970s, 1980s and early nineties with the equal treatment, maternity leave and parental leave directives and positive action programmes. But to explain the adoption of the much more comprehensive strategy of gender mainstreaming additional, triggering, factors should be examined. I will look into some of the important events, actors and partnerships in this context.

Firstly, the Fourth World Conference on Women at Beijing, September 1995 was a global breakthrough for the gender mainstreaming approach. In fact, the mainstreaming idea appeared already at the Third UN Conference in Nairobi, Kenya in 1985, but it was only ten years later at Beijing that the world community agreed on mainstreaming as a core strategy with a view to achieving material equality between women and men. The strategy was effectively labelled mainstreaming and some core actors and elements were identified:

"Governments and other actors should promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all policies and programmes, so that, before decisions are taken, an analysis is made of the effects on women and men, respectively."

The core elements being that responsibility for promoting equality is placed with the general actors and in all policy areas; underscoring of the importance of visibility, the key role of agency, and gender impact assessment of policies as a key to implementation. The same message is found in the later, authoritative definitions of mainstreaming, such the European Commission definition and that of the Council of Europe Group of Specialists on Mainstreaming.

Following the Beijing Conference, mainstreaming strategies seriously started to influence international organisations within the UN family and elsewhere, including the European Community.

It was in fact the EU, backed by a few other "like-minded" countries such as Norway, that drove the issue of mainstreaming at Beijing. The EU was in this case clearly inspired by certain Member States, notably Sweden, that had a few years before launched its own and very ambitious strategy of gender mainstreaming. It should be mentioned that the European Commission participated at the Beijing Conference with a delegation of its own. Neither was the idea of mainstreaming new to them. Mainstreaming was mentioned already in the Third Action Programme on equal opportunities between women and Men (1991-1995). But the time had not yet been ripe for elaboration and follow-up of the idea.

The Medium-term Community Action Programme on equal opportunities for women and men (1996-2000) was adopted only some months after the Beijing Conference. In the Council decision of 22 December 1995 that established the programme mainstreaming is defined as its guiding principle. Developing and trying out models of mainstreaming is the first and strategic objective of the programme. I believe the forceful role of the EU at Beijing is important in explaining the new emphasis on gender mainstreaming in the 4^th Equal Opportunities Programme.

There is no detailed discussion of mainstreaming in the Commission Communication launching the 4^th Action Programme. The Commission’s approach to mainstreaming is set out in the slightly later Communication of February 1996: "Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities". The Communication includes a review from an equal opportunities perspective of Community policies, such as structural policy, employment, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, the Information Society, education and training, and development co-operation. It includes a definition and principles to guide its implementation:

Apart from the Beijing Conference, the mid-nineties were characterised by two other and partly related events likely to have had a bearing on the breakthrough of gender mainstreaming at the EU level. In 1995, Austria, Sweden and Finland joined the EU (while there was a negative outcome of the referendum in Norway). The Nordic countries in general keep a high profile, and have a long tradition of co-operation, in the field of gender equality. They are particularly strong with regard to women in politics. Also, gender mainstreaming was at the time already on their political agendas. It is not surprising that their adhesion to the union would strengthen Community equality policies and more specifically gender mainstreaming.

Finally, the European elections of 1994 had resulted in a much-improved representation of women in decision-making positions at the European level.

Following the elections and the enlargement the European Parliament included a record high of 27 per cent women MEPs, and exceeded by far the average participation rate in Member States. The Santer Commission (EU 15) included 5 women out of twenty, as compared to only one woman in the preceding Commission. In the most recent European elections, the percentage of women MEPs increased to 30, while the number and percentage of women Commissioners remains unchanged.

In 1995, it appears that equal opportunities between women and men became more visible, more pronounced and a more prestigious dossier in the college of Commissioners. Anita Gradin, then Swedish Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs held a personal commitment to the equality issue. She managed to place gender based violence firmly on the EU agenda. And hers became indeed an experiment of gender mainstreaming. Interestingly, the STOP and Daphne Initiatives to combat violence against women, including trafficking in women and children for sexual exploitation, were organisationally linked to Justice and Home Affairs and Community fight against International crime.

The new and more gender balanced Commission decided to set up a Group of Commissioners on Equal Opportunities, under the leadership of the President, Mr Santer. This Group played an instrumental role in preparing the ground for the Commission’s collective commitment to gender mainstreaming. All the policies that have later seen important results in terms of mainstreaming were represented in this group: employment policy, the Structural Funds, research. The Group ensured high-level request for results.

It was at the initiative of this high level Group that inter-service co-operation on equal opportunities was established to organise the policy review and outline the new mainstreaming policy. Inter-service co-operation in principle involved all the Commission services. Apart from its role in preparing the 1996 "Communication on Mainstreaming" the Inter-service Group agreed on a common strategy for implementing mainstreaming and guidelines for gender impact assessment of Community policies. Monitoring and adjustment of the implementation strategy (the 1998 Progress report) were undertaken in the framework of this group. It accommodated the exchange of views and experiences. Information seminars and a pilot training were organised for those involved.

There was also awareness raising and implication of management at the highest level of the Commission. It was a deliberate choice to use the formal channels of communication, to base the endeavour as firmly as possible in the organisation. The important messages were signed by the Secretary General of the Commission, to give weight and legitimacy. The active support of Allan Larsson, Director General of the co-ordinating DG Employment and Social Affairs, was crucial. He raised the issue with his colleagues at the regular meeting of the DGs. His persistent demand for results internally in DGV was a key factor to explain the degree of success that was achieved in the fields of Employment Policy and the European Social Fund.

There were crucial actors and allies outside the Commission. The Women’s Rights Committee (WRC) of the European Parliament’s (EP) had voiced criticism of the Commission for having a low gender profile. The Group of Commissioners on Equal Opportunities seems to have been set up initially in a response to this critique. The WRC was instrumental in promoting gender mainstreaming in the field of research. Following the EP criticism of the Commission proposal for the Fifth Framework R&D Programme, then Commissioner Edith Cresson presented the Communication on women in research. Apart from establishing a "Women’s Watch" in her own services, she introduced, for the first time in the Commission, the target of minimum 40 per cent women in all research committees. The same target has recently been adopted for all Commission committees and expert groups.

The European Women’s Lobby (EWL) early took up the challenge of defending what has later been termed the "two-track strategy". The Lobby has been a critical and important ally to ensure gender mainstreaming is to the benefit of European women. The Lobby is represented in the Advisory Committee on equal opportunities. The Committee serves as a link between the European and the national level. With regard to gender mainstreaming it has contributed to the relative enthusiasm in many Member States to this new concept and to accord a higher status to the cause of equality. Through participation in the Committee, the Women’s Lobby regularly challenges and influences the application of mainstreaming.

The partnership between these various actors has been extremely fruitful. Regular meetings of the Group of Commissioners with the Presidents of the Advisory Committee, the EP WRC and the EWL as well as frequent informal contacts at all levels served to further cement the partnership.

Interestingly, Anna Diamantopoulou, since 1999 Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, including gender equality, recruited Barbara Helfferich, then Secretary General of the European Women’s Lobby for a post in her Cabinet. Clearly this new constellation has been crucial in the design and adoption of the Community Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2001-2005) and the Commission’s proposal for a Council Decision on a supporting programme (likely adoption on 27 November 2000). There were in fact strong interests in DG EMPL (formerly DGV) who wanted to avoid a fifth equal opportunities programme and would have preferred, in the name of mainstreaming, to see gender equality submersed in the new anti-discrimination programme based on Article 13 (not yet adopted).

It is undeniable, that specific measures of positive action may be challenged by the introduction of mainstreaming. In the name of efficiency, busy decision-makers may prefer to believe that mainstreaming can replace specific action measures. The result can easily be to neutralise the equality issue. There is a danger of a watering down and of pulverising responsibility. Gender mainstreaming obviously is no quick or magic solution. A long-term perspective is needed, specific measures of positive action should accompany the more demanding reorganisation of policies, constant vigilance, active monitoring and evaluation is needed to ensure progress.

Women activists and lobby groups, "state feminists" and other advocates of the cause of gender equality provide indispensable correction in this process. Throughout my years in the Commission, the WRC and EWL served as untiring watchdogs to ensure that the mainstreaming strategy led to concrete results, and to avoid that mainstreaming was not used as an excuse to stop positive action in favour of women.

I will leave the European level for a while and move on to my own country. In Norway, organised efforts to incorporate a gender dimension in general policies got under way at a comparatively early stage. Two Action Programmes were implemented in the course of the late 1980s and early 1990s, aiming to sensitise all the Ministries to the equality issue, and to firmly establish gender equality as an integrated responsibility in all areas of policy.

The first action programme 1986-1990 aimed basically at bringing equal opportunities and gender issues out of the ghetto and onto the agenda of mainstream policies. The ministries were invited to identify and address gender issues within their own policy areas. Among the more interesting results of this early process were a study commissioned by the Ministry of Transport into the differences in men’s and women’s transport patterns. The Ministry of the Environment and Local Planning, in co-operation with the Ministries of Agriculture, Municipal Affairs and Labour, and 5 municipal and county authorities launched a project to develop a gender perspective in local planning, that involved direct democracy and the empowerment of local women. The Ministry of Social Affairs had the pension system amended in recognition of the social and economic importance of women’s unpaid work and to compensate for career breaks to care for young children, old or disabled family members.

I was personally involved in the 2^nd programme (1991-1994). At this stage, the aim was to ensure gender issues were firmly rooted in the general administrative tools and procedures (Management by objectives and work planning). It was seen and argued as a question of Quality Management. Monitoring, advice and exchange of experience were organised. Some ministries set up internal gender focal points and networks or hired external expertise to develop a gender perspective in their areas of responsibility. As a result, the General Policy Guidelines was amended to include a provision for gender impact assessment. Gender equality was for the first time included into the Government’s Long Term Work Programme.

In 1996, the Government decided to report regularly to Stortinget (the Norwegian Parliament) on gender equality. Gender mainstreaming was linked to implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action, and the state secretaries were given a special responsibility for follow-up.

In Norway, the mainstreaming strategy can be understood as a logic extension of the Gender Equality Act that came into force in 1979. The Act covers in principle all areas of society, although the emphasis is on education and working life, and it is not enforced in matters of family life. The provisions are gender neutral, but the Act aims specifically at promoting the position of women. For our purpose the more interesting is that the Act (Article 1.2) places an obligation on the public authorities to promote gender equality in all fields of action.

The UN Women’s Decade and the Nairobi Forward-looking strategies of 1985 served as inspiration and influenced Norwegian public policy on equal opportunities, including the early take up of a gender mainstreaming approach. As mentioned earlier, the Nairobi Forward-looking strategies already called for: "the incorporation of women’s issues in all areas and sectors and at the local, national, regional and international levels should be institutionalised."

But the most important development in Norway in the 1980s was not the introduction of mainstreaming, but the influx of women into politics. In 1986, Gro Harlem Brundtland appointed the first "Women’s Government" with 8 women among the 18 Members of Cabinet. Not a single Government has been formed since with less than 40 per cent women members.

The influence of women in politics at the other hand can be traced to a number of factors, among them the upsurge in the 1970s of a new women’s movement and of women’s and gender research.

The main political achievements of the late 1980s and early 1990s concerned the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities and better access to justice for the victims of sexual violence. These can be traced to the influence of women in politics and pressure from women’s groups, rather than to the introduction of mainstreaming.

This should not be taken to mean that the mainstreaming programme has been insignificant. But its political importance has been limited. Its implementation has been a bureaucratic exercise, attracting little attention at the political level. Gender mainstreaming did offer an alternative route and counter frustration at the narrow and limited impact of traditional equal opportunities policy. In the early years, equal opportunities policy was largely limited to efforts aimed at facilitating labour market participation for women, by means of education and training of women. Sex desegregation of the labour market focused unilaterally at women’s narrow and traditional choices of career paths. Focus was on overcoming the limitations of women, enabling them to become full-fledged economic and social actors on par with men. Men were unquestioningly the norm.

The mainstreaming policy has little by little contributed to redirecting our focus, to raising questions pertaining to men’s adaptation and priorities; an engendering of the male. In parallel, little by little challenging the seemingly gender neutral economic and social structures and institutions.

At the turn of the century we are still in the process of refining and formalising the mainstreaming strategy. Mobilising political support, better procedures for gender impact assessment and proofing mechanisms, statistics and training are on the agenda.

Firstly, the number and influence of women in politics is paramount. In both cases, the adoption of mainstreaming was linked to positive developments along this dimension. A critical minimum of women seems to be a prerequisite to create the necessary political will. And active political will is a sine qua non to succeed with gender mainstreaming.

Political interest has been crucial in the case of gender mainstreaming in the EU. In Norway, particular gender issues such as parental leave and childcare, and gender balance in decision-making have dominated the political agenda for gender equality, whereas gender mainstreaming and methodological approaches in general have aroused little interest at this level.

More gender sensitive policies may in its turn have a positive impact in attracting more women, and in creating an awareness in decision-making bodies that the absence of women is problematic. In 1981, the Norwegian Gender Equality Act was amended to the effect that all publicly appointed boards and committees should have a minimum 40-60 per cent gender balance. The major political parties, although not obliged by the Act, immediately came to see this provision as normative for their own practice. Neither the European Commission nor most Member States have this tradition. However, in June this year, a decision was adopted that establishes a target of 40 per cent women in all expert groups and committees set up by the Commission.

Women’s access to and influence in decision-making is linked not only to quotas or campaigns. It depends on grass-roots activity such as the women’s movement, and on women’s studies and research providing new knowledge on gender relations and gender biased structures. Partnership between these actors and the political and administrative elite is crucial. Such partnerships have been decisive at both the Norwegian and the European level. The UN process and the global Women’s conferences from Mexico City 1975 up to the Beijing+5 review in New York in June have provided a meeting place and have contributed to creating a joint agenda of these various actors.

At the Community level and also in Norway, equality law and institutional mechanisms for equal opportunities were in place before mainstreaming was launched. The institutional mechanisms are crucial as they co-ordinate monitoring activities and measures aimed at gaining system wide support. In this task alliances are sought with other and external advocacy groups.

In both cases, gender mainstreaming has been introduced as a top-down initiative, and has been met with some scepticism by women’s groups and lobbyists. This is understandable, as gender mainstreaming easily may entail a redirection of attention and resources away from a women-only focus. The relative loss in importance of specific measures in favour of women has been met with criticism. It is a very valid concern and clearly external women’s lobby and advocacy groups have contributed to ensuring that traditional equality policy has been pursued along a parallel track.

The Norwegian approach stands firmly on the harmony model that is such a typical feature of Norwegian politics. It is based on a strong National consensus that gender equality is a positive value, although there is a wide spread, but unfortunately wrong belief that equality is already achieved. Norwegian efforts have been characterised by a lack of sanctions in the face of non-compliance. They have also been global, aiming indiscriminately at all ministries and policy areas. When more conspicuous results cannot be pointed to, the absence of a clear focus and the lack of sanctions are part of the explanation. A perhaps too open-ended approach left the initiative partly to actors who lacked both ambition and knowledge on gender issues.

The European Commission at the other hand wisely chose to combine its principally global approach with a concentration of efforts, and channelled the resources into a few carefully selected policy areas. The most remarkable result being employment policy. The Luxembourg process entails that equal opportunities and gender mainstreaming in terms of employment is regularly discussed at the level of the Council; Member States are obliged to report annually on achievements and progress; they are confronted with any short-comings in their national policy in bi-lateral feed-back meetings and recommendations by country. Short-comings in application of the Equal Opportunities pillar and the gender mainstreaming guideline have been recurrent features of this process.

The EU has been willing to invest resources. Apart from the Employment Guidelines, the new regulations of the Structural Funds (2001-2006) are a good example. One year of intensive intra- and inter-service negotiation, consultation of external gender experts, extensive co-operation between the relevant services led to decisive results. Ex-ante evaluations, close monitoring and follow-up were mandated.

Although the results may be less spectacular in Norway than at the EU level, the long-term effect of awareness raising and sensitisation to gender issues should not be under valued. Last May, the Labour Government decided that gender mainstreaming is a priority. The State Secretaries (Deputy Ministers) were given a specific responsibility to ensure gender is mainstreamed in all areas of responsibility of their respective ministries as well as in inter-ministerial co-operation. A committee of state secretaries has been set up involving the most relevant ministries (Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Labour and Administration, Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, Ministry of Enterprises and Commerce, Ministry of Municipal and Regional Affairs, Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). A more careful channelling of efforts into strategically important policies is taking place. We hope that awareness-raising at the highest level, more active support and training at the administrative level may help to decisively invigorate the process.

These are the core criteria and recommendations I see for successful mainstreaming:

• Active political will
• Gender balance in decision-making;
• Grass-roots activity, advocacy and lobbying
• A partnership approach
• Equality law and institutional mechanisms for equality
• A two track approach
• A clear focus and sanctions for non-compliance
• Investment of human and financial resources
• Gender know-how
• Active monitoring and evaluation

These can broken down more in detail; The International agenda, the UN process for one. Good sex-disaggregated statistical data and gender research, visibility of gender issues, tools and instruments, such as gender proofing and gender impact assessment. Speaking in broader terms, they can be summed up in three key dimensions: Partnership, Political will and Agency.

REFERENCES

Buland, Trond og Skaar, Solveig: "Jakten på kjønnsperspektivet — En studie av arbeidet med integrering av kjønnsperspektiv på departementenes arbeidsområder." STF38 A98513, SINTEF IFIM 1998.

Council of Europe Report EG-S-MS (98) 2 "Gender Mainstreaming. Conceptual framework, methodology and presentation of good practices." Strasbourg, May 1998.

Council of Ministers, 1995: Council Decision of 22 December 1995 on a medium-term Community Action Programme on equal opportunities for men and women (1996-2000), OJ L 335/27 of 31.12.1995.

Ellingsæter, Anne Lise, 1999: "Gender Mainstreaming and Employment Policy. Norway Report", Report 99:11, ISF Institute for Social Research.

European Commission, 1996: "Fourth Medium-term Community Action Programme on equal opportunities for women and men (1996-2000), V/23 1b/96-EN

European Commission, 1996: "Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities" COM (96) 67 final of 21 February 1996.

European Commission, 1997: "Strategy Paper: Mainstreaming of a gender and equal opportunities perspective into all Community policies. A strategy for the follow-up to the Commission Communication COM(96) 67: "Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities", agreed by the Inter-service group on equal opportunities, 30 January 1997. DG EMPL D/5, Doc. EQOP 02-97rev.

European Commission, 1998: Progress Report from the Commission on the follow-up of the Communication: "Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities", COM (1998) 122 final of 4.3.1998

European Commission, 1998: Equal Opportunities Magazine No 6, December 1998, CE-AI-98-002-EN-C

European Commission, 1998: "Equality is the future. Report from the Congress and Exhibition 21-22 September 1998, CE-V/2-99-003-EN-C

European Commission, 1998: "Third Medium-term Action Programme on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (1991-1995), Commission Staff Working Paper, V/1521/98 CE-V/2-98-006-EN-C

European Commission, 1999: "Women and Science: Mobilising Women to enrich European Research", COM (1999) 76 final of 17.02.1999

European Commission, 1999: Equal Opportunities Magazine No 7 March 1999, CE-AI-98-003-EN-C

European Commission, 2000: "Towards a Community Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2002-1005) and Proposal for a Council Decision on the Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)." COM (2000) 335 final of 7.6.2000.

European Commission, 2000: "Commission Decision relating to gender balance within the Committees and Expert Groups established by it" OJ L 154, 27.6. 2000.

European Parliament: Resolution A4-0251797 OF 16 September 1997 on the Commission Communication COM(96) 67: "Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities"

Forbruker- og administrasjonsdepartementet, 1987: "Likestilling. Departementenes handlingsprogrammer", P-0749.

The Centre for Gender Equality: Women in Politics. Equality and Empowerment. Undated. Available at:

http://odin.dep.no/bfd/engelsk/regelverk/rikspolitiske/004005-990219/index-dok000-b-n-a.html

Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 1995: "Mainstreaming of Gender Equality in Norway", August 1995, available at: http://odin.dep.no/bfd/norsk/likestilling/gender_equality/004041-990031/index-dok000-b-n-a.html

Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2000: "Guide to Gender Impact Assessment of Government Policy" May 2000, Q-0978/E. Internet order: ste-bestilling@ft.dep.telemax.no

Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, 2000: "In Search of the Gender Perspective in the Ministries’ Policy Areas", Q-0979/E. Internet order: ste-bestilling@ft.dep.telemax.no

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997: "A Guide to gender impact assessment", L-2985 Luxenbourg.

Pollack, Mark and Hafner-Burton, Emily, 2000: "Mainstreaming Gender in the European Union", Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3).

Sensi, Dina, 1999: Mechanismes et indicateurs de suivi du mainstreaming, Study commissioned by the European Commission

Skjeie, H., Førde, B. F. og Lorentzen, M.: "Forvaltningsansvar: Likestilling", Rapport 89:3, ISF, Oslo 1989.

Stark, Agneta, 2000: "Gender Mainstreaming", Speech given at the European Conference on follow-up to the Beijing Platform for Action, Brussels 3-4 February 2000.

The Norwegian Act of Gender Equality. Available at:

Verloo, Mieke, 1999: Gender Mainstreaming: Practice and Prospects", Council of Europe Report EG(99) 13, December 1999

Åseskog, Birgitta, 1998: "National machinery for gender equality in Sweden and other Nordic countries", Draft paper for the UN Expert Group Meeting on National Machineries for Gender Equality" Santiago de Chile August 31-September 4, 1998.

Åström, Gertrud: "3R-metoden", Svenska Kommunförbundet, undated.

UN, 1985: The Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women.

UN, 1995: Platform for Action and the Beijing Declaration, Fourth World Conference on Women. Beijing, China 4-15 September 1995. UN Department of Public Information

UNDP, 1995: Human Development Report 1995

UNDP, 2000: Human Development Report 2000