CC3.c Proportion of countries showing improvement in the meaningful participation of women, men and people from marginalized population groups in WFP-supported local entities

CC3.c Proportion of countries showing improvement in the meaningful participation of women, men and people from marginalized population groups in WFP-supported local entities

VERSION

V1.0 - 2026.05 - NEW

INDICATOR CODE

CC3.c

TECHNICAL OWNER

Gender, Protection & Inclusion (GPI)

INDICATOR TYPE

Corporate Level Cross-cutting Indicator

Priority area: Empowering women and girls, and advancing equality

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS

Proportion of countries

INDICATOR DEFINITION

This indicator measures the proportion of countries that show an increase in meaningful participation compared to the previous year through the percentage of women and marginalized groups who report participation in decision-making within local entities supported by WFP. It captures progress over time in promoting inclusive governance and participation at the community level, particularly among groups that are often underrepresented in decision-making processes.

Below are some key terms for this indicator:

Meaningful participation: in the context of this indicator, this refers to the right of women and other marginalized groups to fully and equally participate in decision-making. It results in situations where participants are able to use their voice to encourage specific actions by influencing the outcomes of decisions taken. Based on Sherry Arnstein's (1969) scale of participation, the three levels of participation considered in WFP’s context are:

1. Informing: Inform women, men and marginalized groups about rights, responsibilities, and options. Mainly, based on unidirectional communication. Symbolic and non-effective participation.

2. Consulting: Consult women, men and marginalized groups through interviews, surveys, or meetings. Put the focus on the number of people in these meetings.

3. Placation: Women, men and marginalized groups hold more influence, and participation is allowed but the decision-making is still within the power classes.

The three first levels lack the power to ensure that their opinions are taken into consideration by the decision-makers.

In contrast, the subsequent levels below (Partnership, Delegated Power and Participants’ control) reflect varying degrees of meaningful participation, where women, men and marginalized groups progressively gain influence over decisions, ultimately contributing to or sharing decision-making power.

5. Partnership: Power is redistributed through negotiations between participants and power holders. Decision-making is shared out through structures such as planning commissions. This participation can be more effective if there are social organizations at neighbourhood level, where there are recognised and respected leaders whose activity is remunerated and supported by local experts, also recruited by the grassroots social organization.

6. Delegated power: Negotiations between decision-makers or holders can result in a tipping of the balance in favour of participants through increased decision-making. Women, men, and marginalized groups have sufficient responsibility to ensure the viability of the programme. Thus, decision-makers will have to negotiate with these groups / people to carry out the project, initiative, intervention… One model of delegated power would be the one when there is a veto option available if it is impossible to settle the negotiation.

7. Participants‘ control: Participants demand the degree of power necessary to ensure that the control carried out in an organization is accompanied by the necessary management tools. In WFP’s context, it is equivalent to a leadership position or the decision makers.

WFP-supported local entities: in the context of this indicator, this refers to decision-making entities (see definition below) at the community level. In WFP, these may include but are not limited to, project management committees, food distribution committees, community nutrition volunteers, farmer group representatives (associations), school parents and teachers’ associations, climate change councils, and disaster risk reduction committees. Names might vary depending on the activities and countries.

Decision-making entity: Any formal body at the community level, supported directly by WFP or indirectly by cooperating partners, through which a group of appointed or elected individuals serve a particular function and make decisions on behalf of themselves and/or other persons. A decision-making entity – which may be a committee, board, team, cooperative, association, group of representatives, council, taskforce, assembly, delegation etc. – will typically (but may not) have (formal or informal) terms of reference (or equivalent) which define roles, responsibilities, and procedures.

MANDATORY COUNTRY-LEVEL INDICATORS & INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR APR AGGREGATION

Mandatory Country level Indicator(s) composing the corporate indicator:

• CC.3.4 Percentage of women and men in WFP food assistance decision-making entities who report meaningful participation

Inclusion criteria for Mandatory Country Level Indicator(s):

The mandatory country level indicator is included in the aggregation of the corporate APR indicator only if all the following conditions are met:

• A follow-up value for the reporting year (year K) is collected and entered in the system (COMET), and

• Either baseline OR follow up value for year K-1 is also available.

Only CO-level indicators meeting both criteria above are eligible for aggregation

CALCULATION & AGGREGATION
METHODOLOGY

To calculate this indicator, it is necessary to compare results of each country from the reporting year (Year K) and the year before (Year K-1) or the baseline (if the previous year follow up value is not available).

• This indicator is derived from the aggregation of the country-level indicator CC.3.4, which measures the percentage of women and marginalized groups reporting meaningful participation, as captured in COMET.

• For each country, this indicator compares the percentage of women and marginalized groups reporting meaningful participation between two times points: baseline or the previous year’s follow up value for year K-1 and follow-up values for the reporting year (Year K).

• If no follow-up value from the previous year is available, the comparison should be made against the baseline. If a previous year’s follow-up value exists, it should be used as the basis for comparison.

• If this percentage has increased, the country is counted as showing improvement in meaningful participation in WFP-supported local entities.

• The indicator is then calculated as the proportion of such countries out of the total number of countries reporting on this indicator. This proportion is expressed as a percentage.

Proportion of countries showing improvement in meaningful participation of women and marginalized groups in WFP-supported local entities in Year K (%) =

N.B. where meaningful participation at the country level is reported by “leadership position” and “have the right to part of decision-making”.

DISAGGREGATION FOR REPORTING IN APR

Mandatory:

• Region

• Sub-activity

Optional:

By the following standard activities:

1. Emergency preparedness, anticipatory and early action

2. General Food Assistance

3. Malnutrition prevention

4. Malnutrition management

5. School based programmes

6. Asset, skills and ecosystem restoration

7. Financial, information and market capacity and services

BASELINE

New indicator. Baseline will be set in 2026.

LIMITATIONS

• Relies on self-reported data (from country offices or beneficiaries), which may introduce reporting bias and inconsistencies in interpretation.

• Key concepts (e.g. meaningful participation, people-centred approaches) involve qualitative judgement and may be interpreted differently across contexts.

• Comparability across countries may be affected by differences in operational contexts, capacities, and local governance or social norms.

• Data may not be systematically triangulated with independent or qualitative sources, limiting verification of results.

• Aggregated results mask within-country variations and do not reflect differences across population groups, locations, or entity types.

• Time-based comparisons may be affected by changes in methodology, sampling, coverage, or data availability rather than actual progress.