Stakeholder interviews were undertaken in November and December 2022 by Alistair Wilkie and Gemma Davies with participants representing: REACH/IMPACT, ACAPS, HOTOSM, iMMAP, CDEMA, OCHA FISS, OCHA Bangkok office, Save the Children, Care International, FDCO.
The key themes emerging from the interviews are summarised in the section below:
Considering gender needs to be more than a tick box exercise. In order to mainstream gender, it is important to ensure that the concerns and experiences of women and men (and other vulnerable groups) are considered at all levels of project design and implementation. Gender needs to be considered from the initial stages of project design (regardless of the type of project) and should influence who you are talking to, who you do and don’t have access to, and the questions you will then ask. Successful consideration of gender requires a small investment by a lot of people. While there is much that could be done in an ideal world, with unlimited resource, there is still value in starting simply working on the things you can easily consider and adjust will a little though, such as recording the gender of the key informant interviewed. Proper consideration of vulnerability needs to extend beyond just sex and age in order to fully understand the affected population.
Important distinctions were drawn that it is much easier to define sex than gender and, in some cases, collecting data on gender identity is discouraged for features of data sensitivity. There is also an incorrect tendency to view gender analysis being only about women and girls, sometimes neglecting the specific needs of or impacts on men.
There is much agreement and policy around the collection of SADD where possible, however, practice tends to vary. Even where there are the best of intentions collecting data on gender can be very difficult in some settings, for example southern Afghanistan or Yemen where female assessors must have a male escort with them at all times. However, in many counties with only little effort and thought it should be possible to collect this effectively from the very beginning. Once collected, analysis of primary or secondary data ideally requires a diverse analysis team, men and women of different cultures, in order to avoid unintended bias. For collection of SADD to be effective there needs to be thought as to why it is being collected and what analysis it will inform.
A clear example of why it is important to consider gender was given in the case of the Sri Lanka Tsunami. When this hit lots of women were at home at the time and were killed. Initial assumptions in camps were that single female headed households would be more common, however, on this occasion there were more men, who had been left leading households for the first time and needed to taught how to cook, not just provided with food. The response needed to be changed to reflect different gender situation and cultural context. Other examples of where considering gender was relevant included:
A waste mapping project in Somalia that initially struggled to get relevant information until they gained access to interviewing local women who were responsible for most of the waste collection.
There was wide agreement that gender should be considered at all stages of the response cycle, but also importantly, that if it was not taken into consideration the pre-disaster phase there would be little chance of meaningfully considering it when the disaster struck, and also that if SADD is not considered from the start it is difficult to bring it into the research design later. Detailed information on population dynamics is particularly useful to obtain before a disaster hits. There is variation in the likelihood of SADD being collected depending on the type of disaster. While SADD is always important for understanding the situation and avoiding the need for repeat assessments, this is more likely to take place in more stable emergencies or camp setting and more likely to be missed during early stages of a sudden onset disaster. Often teams doing damage assessment have very little focus on gender, particularly if you have all male teams setting in at the last minute to do assessment. It is often too late at that point to influence consideration of gender during data collection. Typically, SADD is better considered during large scale Multi-Sector Needs Assessment (MSNA) and more likely missed during rapid needs assessment.
There is often a disconnect between those collecting the data and the reasons for collecting it. If people do not understand what will be done with the data, and they are busy they may not collect it. Therefore, with limited resources on the ground, it often gets skipped. Collection of SADD can be challenging especially when there are no women on the assessment team and the views of women not accounted for either because access to women in the community is therefore or restricted, or they are just not thought about. SADD can sometimes end up treated as a box ticking exercise with a disconnect between what is requested by decision makers and what is happening on the ground with limited resources. Cost often limits being able to have 2 enumerators (1 male and 1 female). At sudden onset SADD can often be viewed as something that can wait until later, but that means that you may have to go back to communities later when collection was not complete at the start.
When disaggregated data exists (e.g. census data) it is often aggregated before being released and is therefore of more limited use, the same can happen with results from data published in reports, where aggregated results are published and disaggregated raw data not shared. Data consistency is also a limiting factor such as inconsistent age categories
If those advocating for SADD don’t understand the analysis aspect when they ask for it, the survey can fail to capture the appropriate data for in-depth findings. When SADD is collected is not then necessarily analysed, or not analysed well. There is a need for training so that people collecting data have the knowledge on what to collect and that they or others know how to analyse it.
There are cultural challenges in contexts where it is more difficult to collect data from women, often with a requirement to speak to the (usually male) head of the household.
The key challenges can be summarised as:
A consistent message throughout the literature and interviews undertaken was that gender analysis and collection of SADD is important, but is often missed for a variety of reasons. There often appears to be a disconnect between those who understand the value of gender data and analysis and wish to use this in decision making and those collecting data on the ground, who do not always understand its value and relevance and perceive it as an additional burden. Sometimes very real practical and resource limitations add to difficulty in including gender in assessments, especially when trying to implement this at the point of rapid needs assessments in the aftermath of a sudden onset disaster.
A clear message that emerged during the interviews in particular, was that if no thought as been given to gender analysis or SADD during the preparedness phase, then it is unlikely to considered properly or collected in the first couple of weeks after onset of a crisis. This in turn limits its adoption and effectiveness at later stages of the response. It is therefore key where possible to collect SADD on baseline population and needs, an understanding of the gender context, and establish connections with a relevant range of groups on the ground who may be able to assist with access to gendered data during an emergency. Gender is typically better considered in protracted crisis, then in the aftermath of a sudden onset event. Even when collected SADD is not useful if it is not clearly analysed and presented in a way that is useful for humanitarian decision making.
There appears to be a training gap ranging from field assessors through to decision makers, with more actors needing awareness and understanding before a crisis hits. Greater training and understanding is needed around: the gender context in specific situations; appropriate wording of questions to capture gender relevant information; the influence of the gender of the enumerator and informant on data obtained; how to analyse and interpret data in a way that help inform decision making and programming.
The message clearly coming through from stakeholders interviewed is that of ‘every little helps’. If everyone works together to raise awareness of gender and the importance of disaggregated data it will eventually become more integrated into thinking at all stages of a response.