性別主流化在香港的實踐 研究及檢討報告

本研究目的是檢討性別主流化在香港現時實踐的情況，從而作出建議。婦女事務委員會（婦委會）於 2001 年成立，是負責推動性別主流化的主要機制，而性別主流化檢視清單（清單）、性別課題培訓、性別課題聯絡人（聯絡人）網絡及性別數據是主要的工具。研究發現婦委會欠缺高層次中央機制所需的權力和人力及財政資源，實際性質較近似諮詢架構，對政府個部門政策性別主流化影響十分有限。性別主流化並沒有被給予獨立的撥款，導致工作失去焦點。婦委會委員任命準則不清，缺乏性別課題專家及未能包括不同處境婦女代表，令性別主流化工作停滯不前。加上婦委會委員工作十分依賴秘書處支援，委員很多時在推動和跟進工作時有心無力。性別主流化主要工具為清單，以及由每個政府部門及區議會都有的一名聯絡人所組成的性別課題聯絡人
網絡。但清單對性別影響評估幫助成疑，因為性別培訓涵蓋不足，內容十分有限，流於表面和空泛。整個檢視清單運用過程欠缺系統性，沒有明確指標評估成效。另外，發展性別數據方面工作不足，在缺乏充足數據情況下，官員難以認真落實性別影響評估。雖然 2015 年施政報告提出全面落實性別主流化，但卻未有清晰路線或增加撥款。我們認為目前政府就性別主流化所做的工作，作為起步方向當然正確，但要認真落實的話，應參考國際經驗，必須設立真正有足夠權力和資源的中央機制。同時，性別課題培訓必須是持續和深化地進行，同時要重視跟公民社會的溝通和合作。

The aim of this research is to review the implementation of gender mainstreaming in Hong Kong and make recommendations for improvement. The Women’s Commission was established in 2001 and is Hong Kong’s main body for implementing gender mainstreaming, while the gender mainstreaming checklist, gender training, gender focal point network and gender statistics are the major instrument used. Our findings suggest that the Women’s Commission lacks the necessary authority and financial resources of a high-level central mechanism, and in reality is akin to a consultative body which has very limited influence on government policies. Gender mainstreaming does not constitute a separate item in the budget, causing the work to lose focus. The appointment of members to the Women’s Commission is unclear, its composition lacks gender specialists and does not include representatives of women from diverse backgrounds.These all contribute to the lack of progress of gender mainstreaming work in Hong Kong. In addition, members of the Women’s Commission are very much reliant upon the Secretariat’s support, meaning that even when members are motivated to push for and follow up on gender mainstreaming work, results are often disappointing. The main instrument used for gender
mainstreaming is the gender mainstreaming checklist, and gender focal points who are present in each government department and district council. However, the effectiveness of the checklist is in doubt, because gender-related training provided to the gender focal points are limited, superficial and abstract. The use of the checklist is unsystematic, and without clear indicators, results cannot be adequately assessed. Moreover, the work in the development of gender statistics and guidelines for their use are inadequate, making it difficult for officers to competently undertake gender impact assessments. Although the government announced in 2015 that gender mainstreaming is to be comprehensively rolled out to all departments, there is no clear implementation plan nor budget for this important work. We think that so far, the work done on gender mainstreaming is in the right direction, but to seriously implement gender mainstreaming requires us to consider international experience, and to this end the establishment of a central mechanism with adequate authority and resources is a must. At the same time, gender training must be continuous and deepened, and communication and collaboration with civil society must be given priority.