Identifying and Mitigating the Risks of GBV in
Identifying and Mitigating the Risks of GBV in the COVID-19 Response Minimizing GBV Risks in Food Security Interventions in Rakhine State, Myanmar
The Project/Challenge • • • Rakhine State is a complicated context with active conflict, widespread displacement, restrictions on freedom of movement, with many people reliant on food assistance for their survival Unconditional food assistance is provided to around 270, 000 people, with some receiving inkind, others receiving cash-in-envelope, others receiving cash assistance through e-cash, and others a combination of rice and cash At the time that cash was introduced there was a lot of resistance and concern that it would increase GBV risks, but in practice that has not happened. This is based on post-distribution monitoring, complaints mechanism, and liaison with protection actors. It seems the GBV prevalence is similar with both modalities Since COVID-19 the restrictions in humanitarian access have escalated, and this has resulted in the need to adjust programming such as providing two or three months of rations at the one time, and even to shift from in-kind to e-cash through Wave Money for 34, 000 people. Plus there is additional programming such as support for people in quarantine The challenge is how to monitor the changes in assistance, and what impact if any they have on GBV risks, in the current context Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action
GBV Risks • Food security programming may increase GBV risks, for example if providing additional rations, can increase dependency on transportation which can pose GBV risks • If some businesses close due to COVID-19, beneficiaries travel further to shops which can increase risk exposure • Even though women may be entitlement holder, with requirement only one person to shop on behalf of the household, can increase risk of exploitation for women with disabilities or chronic illnesses who would normally go shopping with a second person to help them • Reduced customers and staff in shops may increase risk of male shop staff abusing solo female customer • Increased women’s workloads due to COVID-19 can push some food security related tasks to girls such as cooking fuel and water collection, and increase their risks • Harder to provide information on our Community Engagement Mechanism (CEM) for people to complain (although monitoring findings that 93% are already aware) • More reliance on helpline and remote monitoring, but less access to women as less likely to have a phone and may face risk to speak in front of someone else. Also challenges on language barriers, cultural norms about speaking up, and perceptions that helpline will be answered by Rakhine (actually we have staff who speak Rohingya) • With GBV support service disruptions, there are less options for staff who come across GBV survivors to refer them to support Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action
Actions (new and ongoing) • Brainstorming GBV risks, attending GBV sub-sector meetings, reviewing rapid assessments, liaising with agencies on specific groups who may face stigma and discrimination • Adjustment of monitoring tools to make sure no sensitive questions; asking respondents if they can put on someone else in the household that we can speak with; exploring remote focus group methodology • Monitoring modality preferences and gender decision making; procuring phones to issue to women for ecash • Updated briefing of staff and CEM focal points on receiving and referral of GBV cases • Incorporating gender/GBV messages into other activities such as nutrition, school feeding, asset creation and livelihoods • Liaison with GBV sub-sector and preparation of a joint guidance note 31% 18% 77% 20% 51% Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based 3%Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action
Results and/or Key Lessons Learnt • Do as much as you can with what opportunities you have, including at distribution points to raise awareness on gender/GBV, on PSEA, and on CEM options (ensuring local languages are used and ensuring those receiving complaints speak the same language and are trained in handling sensitive complaints) • Where you can’t ask about protection risks directly, use proxy indicators such as the control of women over cash assistance and modality preferences, ensuring that this data is disaggregated by sex, age and disability • Coordinate with GBV and protection actors to conduct protection risk and gender assessments. This was a good example of interagency cooperation recognizing that food security actors cannot control all risks, that overall food assistance reduces negative coping mechanisms, that rather than blaming food security actors for GBV there can be constructive collaboration to identify and implement mitigating actions Guidelines for Integrating Gender-based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action
- Slides: 5