Before beginning a discussion of
various findings and an analysis of gaps and strengths in GoT/TRC programming,
it makes sense to review some of the more salient themes connecting gender,
conflict and humanitarian assistance programming. The goal here is to situate
the reader with a rapidly expanding inventory of lessons learned and best
practices that underpin holistic and gender-sensitive interventions for
displaced persons.
As a starting place, humanitarian responses are, in theory, designed to mitigate against severe and systematic increases in vulnerability of a given population. In terms of disasters, vulnerability can be described as a combination of “both the external issues of risks, shocks and stress which people face as well as their internal capacity to cope with the treat to livelihoods without sustaining damaging loss.”[1] Critical to an understanding of vulnerability is the “recognition of coping strategies” adopted by and available to individuals affected by emergency situations. Assessing these strategies using a gender lens means acknowledging that the options available to women and men are predicated on pre-conflict gender relations that may either be improved or exacerbated by conflict on the one hand and that can determine relative access to available resources on the other. [2]
That said, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) lists the following as real benefits culled from a responsible gender analysis of a given humanitarian crisis:
a gender analysis (1) supports a more accurate understanding
of the situation; (2) enables the design of more appropriate responses; (3)
draws attention to underlying issues of power; (4) provides a link between
humanitarian assistance and longer-term development assistance; and (5)
profiles and seeks to understand vulnerabilities and capacities of affected
parties. [3]
In addition, the CIDA handbook recognizes that the simple
biological distinction of being either male or female in an emergency situation
yields real differences in access to resources and resultant vulnerabilities
and capacities.[4]
In the same vein, a BRIDGE report on gender and emergencies succinctly states
“a gender approach accords with the recognition that in emergency situations
there are winners as well as losers, with women likely to lose more than men.”[5]
As gender relations condition all aspects of men and women’s lives, a gender perspective of humanitarian assistance programming is most effective when it cuts across every sector that is traditionally impacted by crisis. Those sectors include, but are not limited to: Protection and Human Rights, Food and Agriculture, Water and Sanitation, Health, Education, and Economic Recovery and Reconstruction.[6] In the event of an emergency or disaster, women’s and men’s lives will be negatively, neutrally or positively affected in each of the above categories, and the degree to which an intervention addresses that impact by minimizing harm and maximizing capabilities is the degree to which that program should be judged successful and just (for a list of relevant questions to ask under each sector, please see Appendix C).
It is also important to note that gender relations remain largely in flux during conflict. In other words, gender norms and expectations of women and men prior to the outbreak of conflict can undergo profound change and transformation as a result of conflict, and can again change and transform after the fighting subsides.[7] Sensitive programming and interventions will have mechanisms built into them that both acknowledge and respond to the fluidity of gender norms throughout the conflict cycle.
Some common constraints to gender-just programming in emergencies include: host country ambivalence, lack of education, recognition, and training, lack of recognition of women’s capabilities, cultural constraints, and time, resource and energy constraints.[8] In addition, in many cases implementation tends to be driven by urgency and tendency to implement from the top down, conditions which do not typically allow for the flourishing of a consultative process on their own.[9]
Overall, there is resounding agreement that the best way to ensure that women’s needs are met by outside programming is to involve them directly with the humanitarian response process. Full and responsible consultation with women and other marginalized groups is not necessarily easy or intuitive but it an absolutely essential component of developing logistics, operations, and programs that are responsive and inclusive to the needs of those with (often) the least access to the levers of power and influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment