1. GROUP 5 INDIA, BHUTAN, BANGLADESH

2. SITUATION India: –Formal networks do not exist; GOI has a focus on GE in SSA and supporting resource groups have been established; –National network to be supported by strong state networks to respond to different needs of the state; –Should emerge as an advocacy platform for knowledge sharing. Bangladesh: –June 26 2006 the network initiated by UNICEF; national engagement with government and development partners, academia and civil society –Strong civil society actors – already involved in GE; continuing with or without network; –name an issue – proposed Bangladesh GEI for broader ownership. –Formal beginning – more engagement and sustained operationalization needed. –Bi-annual meeting – UNICEF reports on status of activities Bhutan: –Not functional; plan for gender mainstreaming exists; constrained by very few civil society actors; –Relevance of network for girls’ education – provide coherence

3. Value-Addition of UNGEI Overall: –Relevance is there; UNICEF can play a catalytic role –Need to communicate that UNGEI is not a implementation or a monitoring network; –Objective should be: transforming the discourse on girls’ education Strategically build capacity to engage with issues more critically; Knowledge sharing –Name should not be an issue; not necessarily led by UNICEF; revolving chairs. –Sustained engagement, not event based, to ensure synergy

4. PARTNERS Partners: –Government –Development partners –UN Agencies –Civil Society Actors –Activists –Academia Should be multi-level / broad-based / operationalized through consensus-building for effective functioning.