to date been part of the IAsD projects. In addition, residential use accounts for only a certain share of power consumed and hence attributing all power to individual use is misleading. Finally, the use of national or regional averages for the share of beneficiaries that are poor or are women and girls is a crude approximation. ASI (2015) noted that this was a practical, albeit misleading, means to meet a PIDG-set requirement for the number of beneficiaries of projects, and that PIDG was working with other donors to identify improved means for addressing this matter. As has occurred in the past, it likely that projects financed by IAsD will continue to involve the sale of their output to intermediaries rather than direct to the public at large due to substantial regulatory, social and commercial risks associated with projects that sell infrastructure services direct to the public. Furthermore, there are limitations in the markets where IAsD is mandated to work. Not being able to identify precisely the number and type of beneficiaries limits gender related analysis. Where it is possible to identify specific beneficiaries of a project, a more detailed gender examination can take place. The number of women involved in implementing and subsequent operation of projects has, where estimated, generally been based on national labour force surveys or experience with similar projects in the countries or regions in which the projects are located. However, it should be recognised that such surveys are notoriously inadequate, particularly when it comes to harder-to-reach segments of the population, particularly women. There is an opportunity for more specific analysis of this matter with regard to IAsD projects and to build in gender-specific requirements into construction contracts and subsequent operational arrangements.
to date been part of the IAsD projects. In addition, residential use accounts for only a certain share of power consumed and hence attributing all power to individual use is misleading. Finally, the use of national or regional averages for the share of beneficiaries that are poor or are women and girls is a crude approximation. ASI (2015) noted that this was a practical, albeit misleading, means to meet a PIDG-set requirement for the number of beneficiaries of projects, and that PIDG was working with other donors to identify improved means for addressing this matter. As has occurred in the past, it likely that projects financed by IAsD will continue to involve the sale of their output to intermediaries rather than direct to the public at large due to substantial regulatory, social and commercial risks associated with projects that sell infrastructure services direct to the public. Furthermore, there are limitations in the markets where IAsD is mandated to work. Not being able to identify precisely the number and type of beneficiaries limits gender related analysis. Where it is possible to identify specific beneficiaries of a project, a more detailed gender examination can take place. The number of women involved in implementing and subsequent operation of projects has, where estimated, generally been based on national labour force surveys or experience with similar projects in the countries or regions in which the projects are located. However, it should be recognised that such surveys are notoriously inadequate, particularly when it comes to harder-to-reach segments of the population, particularly women. There is an opportunity for more specific analysis of this matter with regard to IAsD projects and to build in gender-specific requirements into construction contracts and subsequent operational arrangements.
infrastructure-programs-gender-review.docx