There was an interesting article in the New York Times the other day that uncovers some of the major issues that those of us who work in GBV talk about frequently – how do you get GBV on the agenda in humanitarian response? Do you “mainstream it” or do you focus specifically on programs for girls and women? The article, Efforts to Help Filipino Women Falters, says U.N., outlined some of the problems that we face when we try to address GBV in emergencies. It’s a multi-sectoral problem and requires a multi-sectoral approach but is there any accountability when the issue is mainstreamed but the response of the various sectors is insufficient or non-existant? The article included a quote that identified the challenge of mainstreaming –
” Some experts expressed skepticism about the agency’s approach, however. “When you talk about integrated protection, accountability to women and girls goes out the window,” said Heidi Lehmann, the director of the Women’s Protection and Empowerment unit of the International Rescue Committee. “That requires specialized, specific gender-based violence programming.” It is not realistic, she said, “to think that you can add a bullet point to the shelter guy’s job description.”
But does this mean you don’t add a bullet point to the shelter (or WASH) person’s job description? Or what do you do when that bullet point is added but it doesn’t make a change on the ground? Speaking of shelter (and latrines- another favorite subject for GBV people), how is it that we are still building emergency evacuation shelters for disasters and conflict zones that don’t recognize the specific vulnerabilities of women and girls? Where is gender analysis in the Disaster Risk Reduction planning?
Please let The Cassandra Complexity know what you think. Any brief responses can be posted in the comments section but we also welcome longer responses which we may post on the blog in the next few weeks (see policies section for how to submit).