InterAction GBV Working Group Report on the Call to Action

Transcription

1 InterAction GBV Working Group Report on the Call to Action Executive Summary In November 203 governments, donors, international organizations, and NGOs came together in an unprecedented way in response to the Call to Action on Protection from Gender Based Violence (GBV) in Emergencies. InterAction s GBV working group, composed of NGOs working on addressing GBV in humanitarian settings, collectively made 42 commitments to the Call to Action, as individual organizations and as the working group itself, representing twenty percent of all commitments made at the High Level Event. These commitments covered a range of themes such as capacity building, research, advocacy, scaling up programming, inclusion, integration of GBV programming, and other program or context specific interventions. As we approach the one year anniversary, the working group has undertaken a voluntary review of the status of our own members commitments, the barriers they faced, and drivers of success in fulfilling them. The examples and analysis of member organizations experiences demonstrate that funding availability and short funding cycles were a primary challenge in implementation. Additionally, too few GBV specialists working at every level (global and in-country) limited the capacity of some member organizations. However, many commitments that were made by those members with strong internal institutional support and donor funding for their work, were successfully implemented. Overall, the GBV Working Group has been pleased to see that the Call to Action has not only raised attention to violence against women and girls in emergencies, but has provided a space for much needed strategic conversations on how to achieve our shared goal. At this anniversary, it is worth reflecting on these contributing factors to addressing GBV in emergencies, as well as the overall DFID Puzzle Piece Framework, to understand whether the commitments made under it will be sufficient. Background The InterAction GBV Working Group is a collaborative platform for NGOs working to address GBV in humanitarian settings. Our members include both operational and non-operational organizations that lead programming to prevent and respond to GBV, carry out research and advocacy that documents best practices, and develop innovative tools to improve the way GBV considerations are mainstreamed in humanitarian action to ensure inclusivity, safety, and dignity of populations at risk to GBV. In 203, twelve of our members, as well as the GBV Working Group itself, made commitments towards the Call to Action. Collectively, GBV Working Group members made a total of 42 commitments to the Call to Action, representing over 20 percent of the total commitments made by all agencies. As shown in the diagram below, although the commitments cover aspects under each piece of the Puzzle Piece Framework, members of the working group focused primarily on strengthening program quality and advancing skill and competency levels internally to ensure the right people were in place and able to respond to GBV in emergencies.

2 GBV WG Members' Commitments Per Puzzle Piece Framework 9% 2% Being Prepared 2% Research and Innovation Right People 38% Right Programs 29% Right Tools and Mechanisms In addition, following the 203 Call to Action High Level Event, the GBV Working Group commissioned Oxu Solutions, a consultancy group, to analyze the Call to Action from an NGO perspective, including all the commitments made by NGOs, international organizations, and governments, in order to better understand their scope and explore what a framework to establish accountability would entail. The analysis used a series of five discrete, complementary lenses, drawn from existing standards and approaches to GBV to map the commitments from a variety of perspectives. This was complemented by a workshop with US NGOs and a number of stakeholder interviews. It is clear from the breadth of commitments and the different humanitarian actors who have signed on to the Communiqué, that the Call to Action represents a necessary step forward in mobilizing global commitment to end violence against women and girls. The analysis, however, found that the Call to Action does not currently provide a systematic analysis of barriers to addressing GBV, nor specify or define how to measure the changes it wants to see in the humanitarian system or on the ground. Even though each of the commitments is important individually, many organizations made their commitments in silos, without the opportunity to coordinate amongst themselves. This is reflective of what often happens during a crisis where there is no joint analysis that leads to a common understanding and strategy to respond to GBV in a particular context. As a result, it is not currently possible to measure whether the existing commitments are necessary or sufficient to meet the goals of the Call to Action. Some barriers identified, which could potentially affect the implementation of the commitments, include: Variations and interdependence between commitments: Many of the commitments implicitly refer to considerably different time horizons with only a few referencing dates for the fulfillment of commitments; some refer to specific geographic focus and others do not; some are targeted toward eventual emergencies and others to existing chronic emergencies, although not always 2

3 for clear reasons. In addition, the commitments range across a variety of types and approaches to responding to VAWG or GBV, and several do not specify what they are targeting. Stakeholder engagement: The lack of involvement from Southern governments, southern organizations, civil society, women s organizations, academia and other key actors in addressing violence against women and girls in emergencies in drafting the commitments presents significant barriers and gaps to implementing or meeting the goals of the Call. Concentration on internal processes: The vast majority of commitments are internally focused and specific to the organizations making commitments. This makes it possible that: i) there will be gaps in programming because of the concentration on internal processes rather than on the interaction between organizations at the systemic level, ii) tools and mechanisms being developed could be repetitive, iii) organizations may be unaware of what is most impactful (lack of research or documented learning), and iv) the concentration on improving existing internal structural or capacity gaps might limit investment in increasing capacity for scale-up or surge capacity in emergencies. Funding: A minority of commitments directly or explicitly relate to funding. Without more specific commitments directly related to funding different initiatives to combat GBV, they cannot be implemented. It is also worth examining how coordinated action and commitments related to funding can reduce the number of double counted commitments made, where double counting refers to the impact that these commitments can have. Innovation, Scale Up and Ongoing Activities: Many of the commitments seem to focus on supporting existing programming rather than expanding into new or innovative areas or scaling up current activities that have been proven to work. This could reflect stakeholders recognition that there is still a need to get the basics right or it could reflect a systemic barrier to investing in and realizing research and innovation. Regardless, it is important to identify the causes of this and to coordinate so that stakeholders can work together to increase investment in research for innovative programs or approaches. Emphasis on tools, training and staff: Though it is impossible to effectively prevent or respond to GBV without ensuring that the right tools and staff are in place, the large concentration of commitments on staffing and training (internally and externally) runs the risk of competing for limited funding resources with those commitments focused on how to develop new approaches to prevention and response. Given the wealth of existing tools and mechanisms, as well as the ongoing revision process for the IASC GBV guidelines, it is likely more effective if organizations revisit their commitments and coordinate to reduce duplication. Measurability and Accountability: In order to hold organizations to account, it is important that the commitments are identified and specific, as well as having defined mechanisms for assessment and clear enforcement mechanisms. An initial analysis of the measurability of the commitments suggests that only 46% are measurable, where measurable means that the entire commitment could be assessed for fulfillment. One year from the 203 High level event, the GBV Working Group has monitored the progress on each of its members Call to Action commitments and we found that the barriers described above played out in our members ability to implement their commitments. The analysis below highlights the specific challenges and successes experienced in implementation during the last year. These findings have allowed us to generate recommendations to enhance future Call to Action efforts. 3

4 Analysis of Members Experience Implementing Call to Action Commitments In August the GBV Working Group co-chairs polled its members to understand the current status of the commitments that each made in last year s Call to Action, focusing on the current status of implementation, the reasons attributed to any success achieved, and any challenges faced along the way. It is clear that the Call to Action generated momentum that allowed our members to make great strides towards addressing GBV in emergencies. Specifically, the progress made by the GBV Working Group members Call to Action commitments is represented in the diagram below: Progress made by GBV WG members on their Commitments 3% 26% Completed In Progress Pending 6% Working Group members worked to advance several different elements of the Puzzle Piece Framework. For example, the International Medical Corps (IMC) worked to scale up the level of skill and qualified staff deployed during a rapid assessment in order to ensure the Right People were in place to assess GBV issues and to design and administer the Right Programs. They effectively hired and/or deployed GBV specialists in all major emergencies including the Level 3 emergencies in the Philippines, Syria, Iraq, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. To support the capacity-building of partners to ensure the Right People are positioned to address GBV in emergencies, the American Refugee Committee (ARC) supported community-based protection networks, three women s groups, and local community activists in South Sudan by adapting the evidence-informed VAWG prevention approach SASA! a systematic community mobilization strategy to support social change. Working with NGOs and local civil society, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) trained over 00 grassroots organizations to strengthen Preparedness efforts for GBV in emergencies. In this effort, IRC Raising Voices developed SASA! and trained ARC staff in the approach. 4

5 developed a GBV Emergency Response Programme Model and training package which ensures survivors of violence have accessible and appropriate services and that risks to women and girls are reduced. The model addresses a longstanding gap in guidance on what should be prioritized in the first stages of an emergency. Following a field mission led by Refugees International (RI) in the Philippines, DFID and other donors supported recommendations and lessons learned that RI highlighted in its report on GBV programming during the Typhoon Haiyan response effort. The same report, which included recommendations to improve the Transformative Agenda, contributed to revisions to the Humanitarian Program Cycle and its tools, helping to ensure that women and girls protection concerns are more robustly considered in future Level 3 emergencies. This helped to advance the Right Programs for addressing GBV in emergencies. In addition to the status of current commitments, GBV Working Group members also made new commitments. Members put forward eleven new commitments focused on the following themes: Capacity-building (preparedness, internal development, civil society/partner) Research Integration of GBV programming Scale up of standalone programming and GBV staffing Increase women s participation Advocacy Accountability Inclusion Explore innovative programming (i.e. safe access to fuel) The success that our members have achieved is largely attributable to a few common factors. The majority of our members agreed that a key factor in their success was their organization s internal commitment to addressing GBV in emergencies and prioritization of these efforts. For example, one member explained that they have dedicated the time and effort necessary to follow through on their commitments by linking them to their organizational strategic plan. Members also relied upon their existing internal technical capacity to carry out commitments. Another member mentioned that they have specialized GBV staff both at the global level, as well as integrated within their emergency response teams in the field. Finally, members attributed their success to the funding support that they received from donors to implement their commitments. All of the organizations that had success with their commitments utilized funding, which they received either through the Call to Action process, or (more frequently) funding they had previously dedicated to specific interventions. The barriers that our members faced in implementation also converged around a few common issues. The first challenge raised by nearly all the members was funding. One organization explained that shortfunding cycles make it difficult to gain momentum, retain core, trained staff (due to uncertain funding renewals and brief funding windows), and ensure local partnerships and primary prevention strategies can achieve intended objectives and impact. When funding is intermittent and inconsistent, communities and partners feel this disruption deeply, as this can hurt an organization s rapport and slow progress significantly. Another member mentioned the funding challenges related to emergency deployments. They explained the burden that they face in recruiting specialists to deploy quickly to emergency response operations when funding for such deployments is not available funding for response being dependent on the outcome of assessments and initial work typically led by those 5

6 specialists. This suggests that it would be very helpful to consider new ways to allocate funding for preparedness and early response. Another set of challenges that members faced in their commitments was related to limited staff and bandwidth issues at the global level. Multiple organizations explained that they have only one technical advisor with GBV capacity on staff, which limits the amount of work they can accomplish. The GBV Working Group itself struggled with this in 204. The GBV Working Group is deeply affected by staff turnover at our member organizations, members other pressing priorities outside of the Working Group, and limited capacity (both in terms of technical skill and availability) to engage effectively. Finally, members mentioned that lack of global coordination on GBV response has been a barrier to connecting their organizations individual efforts to broader global work streams. As a result of these opportunities and challenges, the GBV Working Group offers the following recommendations: Donors should provide longer-term, reliable funding for GBV programs, giving them time to gain momentum, retain core, trained staff, and ensure investments in local partnerships and prevention strategies have actual, lasting impact. Donors should consider new ways to allocate funding for preparedness and early response that specifically consider the need to cover emergency deployments at the start of a sudden-onset crisis. As the Whole of System Review gets underway, the GBV community should be actively engaged in the process in order to provide insight into the consultations and review to ensure the opportunities, challenges, and gaps that organizations struggle with in implementing GBV programming in emergencies are reflected in recommendations. Analysis of Call to Action Year One In addition to monitoring GBV Working group members progress towards their commitments, we also asked our members to reflect on the overall process to date of the Call to Action and make recommendations for its next steps. The findings below demonstrate significant overlap with the results of our consultancy earlier this year and offer some suggestions for the Road Mapping process and future efforts within the Call to Action. The GBV Working Group is extremely grateful for the Call to Action as it has created space for muchneeded big-picture thinking about how to keep women and girls safe in emergencies. The Call to Action process has already brought together donors, NGOs and UN agencies on these issues at a senior level in an unprecedented fashion. To maximize this potential, we need to agree to ways forward which broaden the list of stakeholders endorsing the Communiqué and translate the commitments into action at all levels. Ultimately, the Call to Action and the commitments that support it will be strengthened by articulating a shared vision or framework to help stakeholders determine how their different commitments come together, build on each other, and work in coordination to achieve the shared goal of effectively addressing GBV in emergencies. To that end, the Call to Action should be less focused on individual agencies commitments, as these are self-generated, self-defined and self-monitored. It is likely that agencies contribute commitments that speak to their ongoing work or that might be liberally interpreted. While it is, therefore, very 6

7 likely that the commitments can be fully achieved, they may not represent the measures required to bring about real progress towards the ultimate goal of the Call to Action. GBV Working group members challenge the Call to Action organizers to undertake the necessary research, analysis, and working sessions with technical experts around the world to create a shared vision for what it will take to mitigate and respond to GBV in emergencies. While the DFID Puzzle Piece framework was an excellent starting place, GBV Working Group members hope to work towards the development of a more detailed framework that includes the scope of commitments needed per Puzzle Piece (or by sub-component of each Puzzle Piece) to produce the desired levels of change, along with a broad vision of what commitments are needed to mitigate risks to women and girls from the earliest phases of a crisis, as well as the provision of safe and comprehensive services for those affected by GBV. In addition, a number of our members called for more transparency in the Road Mapping process and the need for broad agreement on timelines for this process and on the creation of observable changes or milestones that need to be in place, per the DFID Puzzle Piece framework. Finally, GBV Working Group members ask that the twelve global commitments in the 203 Call to Action Communiqué be translated into bi-lateral donor policy and funding priorities. 7

8 Annex Puzzle Piece. Work with NGOs and local civil society Member commitments 3 Actual Commitments IRC: Train & support 25 grassroots civil society org. over 2 years Handicap: Facilitate links w/ French NGOs to ensure collaboration WRC: Work w/ civil society & women s org. to prepare for and respond to sexual violence and basic reproductive health needs in emergencies Being Prepared 2. Adapt internal systems to allow a more rapid response to VAWG in emergencies 2 Save: Commit to protection of children w/ disabilities in emergencies Save: Mobilize wider Save movement s resources to make elimination of VAWG key pillar of work IRC: Undertake qualitative research on domestic violence in 3 countries (Iraq, Kenya, South Sudan). Develop new research initiatives 4 IA WG: Contribute to robust protection analysis to support VAWG prevention and response through RBP initiatives WRC: Research risks of GBV in adolescent girls displaced in urban environments; generate learning, tools, recommendations for how to prevent & respond to those GBV risks Research & Innovation 2. Develop innovative programming 2 ARC: Research the efficacy of emergency mobile phone hotlines (helplines) in Uganda and develop recommendations for updated, costeffective hotline technology for GBV IRC: Implement new, innovative programs to promote safety, prevention of and response to violence against adolescent girls in DRC, Pakistan, Ethiopia ARC: Implement and assess evidence-informed, innovative participatory prevention interventions that bolster local protection mechanisms and engage faith-based and traditional leaders and female activists to reduce VAWG in two countries 3. Share information IA WG: Share knowledge through IA GBV Learning events 8

9 IRC: Use existing networks to convene focused discussions w/ emergency directors to share operational strategies for preventing/responding to VAWG. Build internal knowledge and capacity to prevent and respond to VAWG, including through training 5 CARE: Train 27 emergency staff on Gender Mainstreaming across humanitarian assessments, design and monitoring and evaluation by April 204 CARE: Train international staff (min. 50) on implementation of revised IASC GBV guidelines by mid-204 Islamic Relief: Develop and implement e-learning program incorporating GBV training for all program staff WaterAid: Train staff to ensure WASH programs contribute to safety and empowerment of women and prevention of violence against women and other vulnerable people The Right People 2. Support capacity building of partners 3 IRC: Implement global VAWG capacity building program for 300 specialist and non-specialist staff in three regional hubs ARC: Partner with 8 national or community-based women s groups in three countries to strengthen local technical and operational capacity to safely address VAWG, building on ARC s partnership toolkit CARE: Implement innovative VAWG prevention pilot projects in 2 emergency settings, focusing on building capacity of CARE and national/community actors The Right Programs 3. Recruit experts 3. Scale up 7 CARE: Recruit a GBV specialist and a Gender and Protection Advisor Save: Recruit key staff to strengthen response to VAWG with special emphasis on developing and piloting age-appropriate interventions for girls and boys ARC: Increase recruitment and capacity-strengthening efforts to build a cadre of GBV specialists with strong social work, primary prevention, and M&E capacity IRC: Scale up an evidence-based, field-tested prevention program (working with men and boys) on VAWG in humanitarian contexts CARE: Scale up MISP implementation in 5 countries Doctors: Improve medical and psychological status of survivors of sexual violence in health zones of Kamonia and Luambo on DRC/Angola border IMC: Ensure full MISP is implemented in all IMC-supported health interventions IMC: Establish and strengthen support services, including women and girl-focused activities and case management services, for survivors of GBV Save: Scale up programs on sexual violence in emergency-affected countries such as DRC, Lebanon, Kenya to improve outcomes for child survivors of sexual violence and demonstrate importance of age and gender appropriate, child friendly response services ARC: Scale up and enhance holistic, client-centered assistance for survivors of GBV, integrating health, psychosocial, and legal assistance (as appropriate) in Somalia and South Sudan 9

10 2. Mainstream and reduce risks of VAWG 3. Prevent sexual exploitation and abuse 4. Promote women s participation in programming and accountability 4 CARE: Promote implementation of GBV and Gender Mainstreaming best practices in Shelter, WASH, Food Security clusters Handicap: Provide technical advice for mainstreaming of disability in VAWG protection and response mechanisms WaterAid: Ensure that organizational policies clearly mitigate against sexual exploitation and abuse WaterAid: Work in partnership with other agencies and implementers in WASH and protection sectors to share and disseminate toolkit to embed good practice on prevention of violence in WASH programs CARE: Recruit a PSEA specialist position, seek funding to work with other agencies in implementing standards and identify learning and best practice in their roll-out ARC: Strengthen educational and economic opportunities tailored for girls and women to foster empowerment and resilience in Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia, and Uganda 5. Accountability 2 IA WG: Produce an NGO report that provides critical feedback on interagency tools, resources and initiatives for preventing/responding to VAWG IA WG: Initiate dialogue with IA members on how internal structures and processes are established, implemented, and monitored to support programming for VAWG; commit to set in motion increased accountability of IA members 6. Strengthen rapid response IMC: Deploy protection specialist with experience assessing needs of women and girls in emergencies in earliest stages of every emergency response situation 7. Advocacy 2 RI: Undertake assessment mission to 4 emergencies in 204 to assess humanitarian prevention and response to VAWG; follow up advocacy to improve coordination, programming, and mitigate risks of VAWG Save: Conduct vigorous advocacy to ensure that VAWG is priority element of post-205 framework. Update technical guidance CARE: Integrate Gender Mainstreaming and revised IASC GBV in Emergencies guidelines across global CARE Emergency Protocols by 205 following thorough review of current emergency protocols The Right Tools & Mechanisms 2. Develop new tools/guidance 3 Handicap: Commit to protection of children w/ disabilities in emergencies and develop guidance notes to inform policy programs Save: Commit to protection of children w/ disabilities in emergencies and develop guidance notes to inform policy programs WV: Develop and implement multi-sectoral model for integrating GBV prevention and response into all WV programming in level 3 emergencies and fragile contexts 0