Humanitarian programming


 EN FR / ES   (requires Box access: http://oxf.am/boxsupport)

  Ideas wall

Funding

  • Difficulty to ask donors to put funds for VAWG in humanitarian responses
  • Donors don’t prioritise GBV and / or MEL on GBV so proposals don’t include it or plan for it WASH staff often represent Oxfam at inter-agency initial assessments (MEL) GBV MEL can be hard to do because we don’t have / make time to build capacity of new staff after scale ups
  • Annual budget analysis of gender/GBV spending AND women’s organisations funded could be used as advocacy tools in humanitarian programmes  

Capacity

  • Length  of programming and realistic ambitions
  • GBV work in emergencies starts late in these settings
  • ALL staff trained on GBV before and during emergencies.  Need to build capacity.
  • More than “protection” work needs to be done to address MEL in emergencies
  • We don’t have enough qualified GBV / MEL staff to conduct good work in emergencies
  • Challenge to adapt programme design even when we are able to do MEL work on GBV MEL in humanitarian GBV is NOT seen as life-saving, so it is NOT invested in or prioritised. Can’t do before the emergency hits;  this often means it won’t get done
  • Those who respond very early on in emergencies are NOT gender or GBV staff – designs are effected and MEL
  • Need GBV baseline before emergencies, but don’t always have them and sometimes the communities are completely new so rapid assessment data is not used to design programmes!  (MEL in humanitarian). We need to draw up the right GBV questions in MEL for Humanitarian settings, informed by women’s organisation and others for rapid and 6 months assessments.  
  • Current MEL practice during emergencies does not feature ANY qualitative evidence, or stories
  • GBV MEL can be difficult to do in emergencies because it can be harder to find women’s organisations in these spaces
  • Importance for Oxfam to have a mix of mainstreamed and stand-along programming to end VAWG/GBV

Engagement

  • Build engagement with women’s organisations into preparedness plans so we can do better MEL in emergencies
  • Improve engagement from managers with GBV performance objectives and link to gender teams (MEL in humanitarian organisations)
  • GBV MEL = problematic in humanitarian programmes without gender stats or too few! 

Mechanisms

  • Project proposals should have GIE & GBV in hum. Measures on a “checklist” for sign off by DCS / Directors so they MUST be included.
  • Gender in Emergencies Minimum Standards related to GBV:  we have them, only 2 on GBV and 1 on PSEA but teams need more to do GBV in emergencies & better MEL
  • No strong compliance mechanisms to enforce GIE minimum standards, so can’t monitor or enforce.
  • RAPID ASSESSMENTS – Gender staff and GBV staff have little or NO access to their designs.
  • We don’t know the tools we should use to do good MEL on GBV for emergencies
  • Most rapid assessment design teams don’t ask ANY GBV questions and we have limited access to them (MEL in hum.) 

Interrogations

How to incorporate the linkages with other forms of violence (e.g., ethnic) in our response?

Presenters

Helen Lindley. Hlindley@oxfam.org.uk 
Marketplace.  “Protection/holistic approach”. 
Think tank.  “MEL of norm change in humanitarian setting”.  

Helen Lindley-MarketPlacePresentation-P2P

 
Julie Lafreniere. julie.lafreniere@oxfam.ca 
Think tank. “ANB change in humanitarian settings”.
Comments