Budget discussion in Nepal is repeated every year. This time too, all three levels of government are in the process of budgeting along with policies and programs. When the annual budget comes, the question of how much space the budget has provided for women, gender and sexual minorities, persons with disabilities, single women, poor and Dalit communities is always overshadowed.

In reality, the budget system of Nepal has not yet been freed from the patriarchal structure and power-centered thinking. 

Proportional distribution and gender equality have reached from constitutions to national policies, plans, international commitments and political discourse. But there is no significant change in the practical aspect. A financial instrument called budget is not only a collection of data but also an expression of social justice, inclusiveness and equality.

This is where the concept of gender-friendly budget comes from. A gender-friendly budget does not mean allocating a separate budget only for women. Equally addressing the needs of women, men and people of all gender identities throughout the budgeting, implementation and evaluation process. To put the spirit of equality in the budget. 

The government of Nepal has formally implemented the concept of gender budget since 2062/63. According to this concept, government budgets are classified into three categories – gender targeted, gender inclusive and gender neutral. If we look at past budgets, only 20-25 percent of the programs seem to be gender responsive, and the budget directly focused on women is limited to only around 5 percent. The rest are neutral programs, which only repeat, not change, the status quo of gender discrimination. 

Not only the federal, but also the budgets of the seven provincial governments are of the same pattern. Although most of the provinces have completed the formalities in their budgets in the name of programs aimed at women, children, disabled, elderly, etc., the budgetary amount is negligible. For example, programs like Kishori Mitri Health Program, Safe Menstruation Campaign, Women's Enterprise Promotion are found to be limited to a small part of the budget. On top of that, the trend of not spending that budget, going back or converting it to other titles is common. 

The question of how this biggest financial tool of the state has changed the lives of women is still burning. Since 2063, the constitution, development plans and international commitments have emphasized gender equality, but the evidence that that feeling has become meaningful in the budget seems to be very weak.

When Gender Responsive Budgeting was officially launched in 2064/65, a system was implemented to classify women directly into three categories: benefiting more than 50 percent, benefiting 25-50 percent, and benefiting less than 20 percent. The data shows that in the first year, only 11 percent of the budget was under the title of direct female friendship, but in 2066/67, it reached 17.3 percent. 

In the last ten years, the share of direct friendly budget has gradually increased. This share, which started from 22.3 percent in 2072/73, has been kept in the budget of 1.86 trillion rupees for the current fiscal year 2081/82, again 1.14 trillion recurring expenses, 352.35 billion capital expenditures and 367.28 billion financial management. But looking at the previous year's practice, there is still concern that the capital expenditure will be low. The data shows that the government was able to utilize only 41.67 percent of the capital budget by the end of May 2080. Gender-friendly schemes often fall under capital expenditure. It directly means that those plans remain on paper if they cannot be spent. 

Not only that, the gap between budget allocation and implementation is still deep at the provincial and local levels. A comprehensive review of 2022/23 concluded that despite 75.2 percent of the budget being labeled as 'gender responsive', implementation was slow and monitoring was poor.

figures show hope for progress. In 2007/08, the share of direct friendship was 11.03 percent, but in 15 years it has increased four times to around 40 percent. This increase indicates some improvement in policy will. But even though the indirect category has decreased during the same period, if the neutral part still covers a quarter of the budget, it is an indication that the budget does not work to reduce the gender gap. If this 'neutral' amount can be diverted towards inclusive and cultured programs, the speed of gender justice can be accelerated again.

A recent survey shows that 90.5 percent of the female labor force is in the informal sector. Budget speeches still do not seem to have absorbed the reality that their labor is worthless without secure labour, small equipment, credit and access to markets. There are many examples where inappropriate training and unreasonable subsidies have not made women's entrepreneurship easier, but on the contrary have increased the burden of formality. In such a situation, it is imperative to improve not only the size of the budget, but also the quality and target review system.

The challenge now is to add 'gender impact assessment' to every budget heading in a binding manner. Rather than how much money has been allocated, it is to build a mechanism to find answers to the question of how much real improvement the money has brought to women's labor, time, safety and leadership. It is important to keep the 'lower limit' in the law so that at least the share of direct friendship does not fall below 30 percent.