evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Nepal's Gender-Responsive Budgeting — Nearly Two Decades of Budget Tagging, and Its Implementation Gap

Nepal · Kathmandu · See the Nepal profile · See the Kathmandu profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 67% 52/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Nepal has tagged its national budget by gender impact since FY2007-08, with the directly gender-responsive share rising from 11.03% to over 40%. A 2026 ActionAid-backed study found the lead ministry misapplied the scoring method and left up to 59% of its funds unspent.

11.03 %
Directly gender-responsive share of national budget, FY2007-08 (FY2007-08)
40.25 %
Directly gender-responsive share of national budget, FY2022-23 (FY2022-23)
41–56% of allocated budget spent per year
Ministry of Women budget execution rate (FY2022-23–FY2024-25)
NPR 1.30 billion allocated; NPR 650 million spent
Ministry of Women allocated vs. spent, FY2024-25
Nepal's Gender-Responsive Budgeting — Nearly Two Decades of Budget Tagging, and Its Implementation Gap

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ministry of Finance, Government of Nepal
Period
2007–present
Keywords
public finance, gender budgeting, fiscal policy, government

Context

Nepal has classified every national budget line by its benefit to women since FY2007-08, using a five-indicator scoring method formalised in 2012 and extended to provincial and local government from 2015. The directly gender-responsive share of the budget rose from 11.03% in FY2007-08 to 40.25% in FY2022-23, with the Ministry of Finance reporting over 40% of the FY2025-26 budget as gender-responsive.

Results

A 2026 study by Himal Innovative Development and Research with ActionAid International Nepal found the lead ministry (Women, Children, Gender and Sexual Minorities and Social Security) classified 100% of its own budget as 'directly gender-responsive' for three straight years without applying the scoring method — officials told researchers they picked 'direct' from a software dropdown — while spending only 41–56% of its allocated budget each year. Kathmandu Post reporting and a 2024 PEFA assessment document a longer-running pattern of the same implementation gap, including funds diverted to generic infrastructure at the local level.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Ministry of Finance officials applying the five-indicator scoring method to budget lines, Line ministries (e.g. Women, Children, Gender and Sexual Minorities and Social Security) classifying and reporting their own programmes

Conditions for success

  • Correct, consistent application of the five-indicator scoring guideline rather than default selections
  • Follow-through spending of funds tagged as gender-responsive, not just classification

Common failure modes

  • Ministry officials classified 100% of budget as 'directly gender-responsive' by default software selection rather than applying the scoring method, for three consecutive years
  • 41–59% of allocated gender-responsive funds went unspent and reverted to the treasury each year
  • Local-level GRB funds were sometimes diverted to generic infrastructure (roads, drainage) unrelated to gender objectives

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful