Dibya Devi Gurung specializes in the intersection of gender equality, disability and social inclusion (GEDSI) with climate change, agriculture, and natural resource management, employing participatory, reflective, and psychological methods in her work. Her expertise includes researching and assessing GEDSI and climate change issues, designing and implementing GEDSI-focused (intersectionality) frameworks, conducting training and learning series, assisting development agencies with GEDSI analysis and integration into climate change and development planning and evaluating programs and projects at local, national, and international levels. Gurung is a certified GEDSI trainer and a W+ Standard verifier (https://www.wplus.org/), which measures women’s empowerment, and is also a certified Social, Environmental and Climate Assessment Procedures (SECAP) trainer for IFAD. She has over 25 years of experience and has worked for and led numerous gender and social inclusion studies, reviews, and training sessions for organizations such as UN Women, UNDP, UNICEF, the World Bank, ADB, ICIMOD, SDC, SIDA, USAID, DFAT, IFAD, and various national and international NGOs and federations.
Nepal
Dibya Devi Gurung
Gender and Social Inclusion Specialist
Independent
Posted on 08/04/2025
Intentionality vs. Investments (intensions are very high but not matched with the investments)
It’s striking how the intentions behind big projects often don’t align with the investments needed to make them effective. These projects, being resource-heavy, naturally attract the attention of those in power, but this creates governance challenges—issues like lack of transparency, exclusive leadership, and elite capture of resources—that hinder their effectiveness for those who need them most. The real struggle is getting power-holders to implement good governance and inclusivity, which severely impacts how these projects reach vulnerable groups on the ground.
• Limited investments in institutional capacities, mechanisms and monitoring for effective delivery: While these projects often have clear intentions—defined problem statements, objectives, outcomes, and indicators—these good intentions don’t always translate into appropriate actions. There’s a gap in institutional capacity and program-level execution. A major issue is the insufficient investment in strengthening the very institutions responsible for managing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating these projects. The lack of investment in their human resources, expertise, and effective mechanisms like robust monitoring and evaluation systems means that these projects often fail to capture the deeper, more meaningful outcomes, instead only measuring superficial outputs.
• Quality and quantity of investments in programs: Similarly, when it comes to reaching marginalized and vulnerable groups, the investment is equally insufficient. Resources at the community level are often not enough to allow these groups to fully access, participate in, or lead the projects. Furthermore, the quality of investments that do reach the ground level is frequently poor, with minimal or ineffective training and support for lasting change. This disconnect between high intentions and inadequate investments makes it difficult for large projects to live up to their potential.