Beyond gender mainstreaming: transforming humanitarian action, organizations and culture

Overall, we find that despite high aspirations and many valiant efforts, the humanitarian sector is falling short of its commitment to promote gender equality and empower women and girls. Our key informant interviews and review of organizational policies, technical resources, and humanitarian program cycle documents revealed five key findings on gender mainstreaming and three key findings pertaining to the culture of and behavior in humanitarian organizations and programs (Table 2).

Above, we noted briefly, the limitations of gender mainstreaming that have been found in the development and humanitarian literature. Our review reinforced these findings and distinguished five specific issues: the gap between intention and implementation; a focus on process, not results; conceptual confusion; basic needs priorities over economic opportunities; and inadequate technical and financial resources.

As part of gender mainstreaming, the IASC recommends that a gender analysis be conducted at all stages of an emergency response (IASC Reference Group on Gender and Humanitarian Action 2018) to help humanitarian actors better understand the affected population, examine the impact of the emergency, and verify that the humanitarian response meets the distinct needs and priorities of women, girls, men, and boys. Organizations throughout the humanitarian sector are aligned with this recommendation: 12 of the 14 organizations we studied require conducting gender analyses (Appendix 2). However, we found significant variation in the quality of data as well as gaps in addressing gender inequalities across phases of the program cycle in our review of information in the HNOs, HRPs and HARs.

Sex and age disaggregated data (SADD) are used frequently, but not comprehensively, across the humanitarian program cycle documents, to describe the number of people in need or reached by a particular sectorFootnote 3. For example, of the HNOs, HRPs, and HARs examined in eight countries, SADD was used in 19 of 24 Education Cluster descriptions and 17 of 24 Shelter Cluster descriptions. However, there were a few notable gaps. For example, the Yemen 2019 HNO included SADD by sector, as well as by various categories of need, but in the HRP and HAR, no SADD were reported (UN OCHA and UN Country Team in Yemen 2019; UN OCHA 2020a, b). For Colombia, SADD was missing in the 2019 HNO, included in the HRP, and then used for only some sectors in the HAR (UN OCHA 2018). Key informants explained that staff may lack resources or training to gather SADD in conflict-affected settings and that SADD is sometimes overlooked unless the Humanitarian Country Teams insist on it (OE5, OE6, UN3, UN7, UN11, UN14).

We found greater inconsistencies in the extent to which humanitarian program cycle documents identified specific gender differences and inequalities in access to services (Table 3). For example, six of eight HNOs in the Education Cluster identified that girls have less access to education than boys; however, only five of the eight HRPs and four of the eight HARS included any mention of such differences. In the Shelter Cluster, five of the eight HNOs identified gender differences in shelter-related needs, such as barriers facing women in accessing shelter assistance, but only four of the eight HRPs and two of the eight HARs discussed such differences. The same trend is apparent in other sectors.

The quality of the information provided also varied greatly. In the Education Cluster, for example, gender differences focused on reasons why girls are held back from school, such as family concerns about girls’ safety walking to school, a lack of sex-segregated toilets at schools, and child marriage. Only two of the eight HNOs identified factors impacting boys’ education, such as needing to work and contribute to family income.

In the flow of the humanitarian program cycle, the HNOs should be used to inform the HRPs, and the HARs should report on progress in implementing the HRPs. However, our review revealed that HRPs and HARs did not regularly reflect the needs identified in the HNOs. For example, for the Education Cluster, documents for only three of the eight countries (Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Syria) identified the need for sex-segregated WASH facilities and responded to that need in the respective HRPs and/or HARs. Although similar needs were identified in the remaining HNOs, they were not carried through in the HRPs, nor reported in the HARs. Similarly, the Syria HNO explained that women face barriers to shelter assistance because they lack the necessary civil documentation, yet the corresponding HRP and HAR did not describe if or how this was being addressed.

Overall, it appeared that the analyses and actions at different stages of the humanitarian program cycle were not linked. Most of the documents that described gender differences or inequalities did so at independent points in time, providing narrow snapshots without an explanation of whether or how those inequalities were addressed during implementation.

Key informants elaborated that while gender analyses have increased in recent years, this step is often overlooked, conducted poorly, or not used to inform humanitarian response (BDA7, NGO2, NGO4, NGO9, OE7, UN13, UN14). In the words of one, “Headquarters says we need to have a protection strategy including gender elements, so we’ll call a consultant. A consultant will write a strategy without really understanding, and we’ll have something that sits on a shelf, and that’s where it will stay” (OE7). Another interviewee said, “I’ve seen in refugee camps, they have specific programs for vulnerable women, but there’s no analysis. ... You might have a gender analysis in the overall [fundraising] appeal, but then in the refugee camp they rush to find a couple of women and do a project. ...the ones who are responsible for the area don’t do a general gender analysis” (BDA7).

Overall, our analysis revealed that the humanitarian sector assesses success by monitoring processes rather than results for women and men. For example, in 2018, the UN System-Wide Action Plan on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-SWAP 2.0) focused on monitoring gender mainstreaming by using a set of process indicators for results-based management, oversight, accountability, human and financial resources, capacity, and knowledge communication (ECOSOC 2020; UN Women 2020). The lack of focus on results was characteristic of the program response overall.

The emphasis in the annual reports was on the number of sex and age disaggregated beneficiaries of services provided and activities implemented, rather than on closure of gaps between women and men or the difference the intervention made for women and girls compared to some baseline. This made it difficult to capture results. For example, in Afghanistan, the HAR results included the number of women provided with infant feeding services, number of women reached through feedback mechanisms on the humanitarian response, and number of women and girls served through women-friendly health spaces (UN OCHA 2019b). As one interviewee reported, “Currently, we have project completion reports, we count our outputs and outcomes and so on, but not impact. The impact we get is out of countries when they report in their national development plan and so on. For us as an institution it is something that we really need to put some resources [behind]” (IFI2).

Interestingly, several evaluations highlight the need for increased evidence and better monitoring (WHO 2011; WFP 2014; Evaluation Office 2019; UNHCR 2020). In the words of a key informant, “While we’ve had more traction around processes like gender analysis, around thinking about gender issues at the design or startup phase of the project, we really have very little in terms of program evaluations, overall sector evaluations, that I can share with you to say we’ve progressed in this area, and we haven’t progressed in that area” (NGO9).

Focusing on processes rather than results makes it difficult to motivate humanitarian professionals, who are generally driven to achieve results, to become champions of this agenda (IFI4, NGO9, UN3, UN6, UN14). One informant noted, “That’s where we’ve been challenged as a sector because we’ve been met with skepticism. While it’s good to lean on the do-good and do-better mentality of our sector, I actually think what the sector needs is very clear evidence that you actually get better outcomes overall [when you integrate gender]” (NGO9).

A third key finding is the lack of conceptual clarity in many of the terms used in institutional documents, and vagueness in what actions to take, and an unmet demand for specific expertise to tailor implementation in different contexts.

Throughout the humanitarian and development sectors, a multitude of “gender” terms are used, such as gender-responsive, gender-sensitive, gender-balanced, gender intentional, and gender-transformative. Often these terms are not clearly defined or even used consistently across organizations, policies, or guidance. As several informants highlighted, the term “gender” itself is interpreted to be code for women and girls as opposed to the structural inequalities that historically have disproportionately disadvantaged women and girls (GDA7, NGO5, NGO9, UN6, UN13, UN14). “[Addressing gender] often means you have to be focused on doing things differently for women and girls. But it’s not about gender equality being only good for women and girls. That’s still an issue that we continue to help staff to think about and understand” (NGO9).

Text in program cycle documents frequently parroted the language in gender policy guidance rather than adapting the guidance to specific contexts. For example, HNO descriptions of gender inequalities were frequently vague, using phrases such as “lack of gender inclusiveness” and “socio-cultural barriers that limit women’s autonomy”. In four of the eight HRPs reviewed, these vague “gender” phrases were used without details on what they meant or how organizations should respond.

This mirrors findings by the IASC on the use of the Gender with Age Marker (GAM), a tool to examine and monitor the extent to which programs address gender and age-related differences (IASC GenCap 2018). Over 11,000 projects have applied the GAM from 2018 to 2020 (IASC 2020b), a step in the right direction. At the same time, several of these projects misunderstood the terms used in the GAM, including “gender mainstreaming.” One key informant explained: “...the issue is that we don’t have a common definition [for gender mainstreaming]..I think the people don’t always know what do we mean by gender mainstreaming, what exactly are we meant to do…. There are different definitions, meanings…. It’s taken for granted that we all know what it means” (GDA1).

As noted earlier, women and men differ in capabilities, access to economic opportunities, safety, and agency. The frameworks and policies in the humanitarian sector cover all these four areas. The IASC Policy on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls (GEEWG) in Humanitarian Action, for instance, requires all humanitarian actors to meet the specific needs (health and nutrition, education, shelter, food and livelihoods) and priorities of women, girls, men, and boys; prevent, mitigate, and respond to GBV and sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA); and “tangibly promote the meaningful and safe participation, transformative leadership and collective action of women and girls of all backgrounds” (IASC Reference Group on Gender and Humanitarian Action 2017).

Meeting basic needs, such as the provision of water, shelter, and food, and the building of capabilities, such as health and education, is common across program cycle documents. While protection is systematically included, GBV was referenced less often despite the fact that GBV can increase during and just after a crisis. Attention to providing economic options for women and building their agency through opportunities for decision-making were largely missing.

The humanitarian program cycle documents in all eight countries consistently described a common set of basic needs for girls and women, with slight variation for context-specific factors. For example, in the health sector, each of the eight countries had at least one program document that described specific health needs for women relating to maternal and reproductive health and barriers to antenatal, obstetric, and family planning services. For the WASH sector, all eight countries also had a program document that described safe WASH facilities for girls and women (e.g., improved lighting, locks on latrines) and access to menstrual hygiene management products.

A few examples highlighted the needs of differentiated groups of women, such as displaced ethnic minority groups (Colombia), female heads of households (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Syria, and Yemen), and pregnant and lactating women (in the nutrition sector in all eight countries), but for the most part women and girls were referenced as a homogenous group. Gender differences in basic needs for boys and men were largely unmentioned.

Economic opportunities for women and girls did not have the same emphasis as protection in program cycle documents, perhaps because developing economic opportunities is not seen by most humanitarian actors to be their remit, especially if refugee settlements are thought to be a short-term, temporary measure. As one key informant explained: “When I arrived, …there was a lot of building of schools, houses, markets, [and] toilets. We started looking at what are the causes: Why are people living in poverty? People said, “this is a humanitarian situation; you can’t do that kind of programming.” I said, “Well this has been going on for how many years, and yes, we are still doing the life-saving food work. But what about this other stuff?” (NGO4). In 2019, 15.7 million refugees (77% of the refugees under UNHCR’s mandate) had been displaced for at least five consecutive years and were living in protracted refugee situations, making investments in economic activity essential (UNHCR 2019).

In the rare cases when economic issues were raised, the documents lacked explanations of the constraints and suggestions for how they could be addressed. For example, the Colombia 2017 HRP said that women and girls were included in income generation strategies but did not offer details on the strategies (UN OCHA 2016). The Yemen 2019 HAR asserted that women’s and girls’ economic empowerment is critical but did not explain how this was being supported (UN OCHA 2020b).

In the instances where livelihoods were mentioned, the strategies reinforced gender-stereotypical roles for girls and women. For example, in Bangladesh, skill development sessions for women and youth refugees focused on block printing, catering, handicrafts, and tailoring. Key informants expressed frustration that humanitarian strategies miss opportunities to expand women’s economic roles: “Nobody is at all aware of women’s economic roles and their economic needs. I do remember I got to see these economic projects, and they’re teaching women to make soap for an income generating activity. That’s the kind of response that you want to try to change and influence” (OE1).

Repeated references were made in the program documents to increasing women’s representation and participation in a range of processes. However, only a few examples were found of actions to support women’s agency and decision-making through community engagement. The best example comes from Bangladesh where the HNO noted that women were not represented in decision-making structures, such as community committees for site management and development (International Organization for Migration et al. 2020a). The subsequent HRP described plans to increase girls and women’s representation, including by training women in camp management (International Organization for Migration et al. 2020a). The HNO also identified that women are underserved by engagement and communications strategies. Plans to rectify this in the HRP included a communications strategy to engage girls and women through community centers, increase their participation in community feedback committees, and improve their access to complaint and feedback mechanisms.

Ironically, despite the rhetoric at the highest levels of the humanitarian community on the centrality of gender equality for an effective humanitarian response, funding for the issue lags far behind. Additionally, despite the abundance of technical guidance and training, humanitarian actors continue to request clear guidance on how to address gender inequalities.

As noted earlier, organizations across the humanitarian sector have developed multiple resources and technical guidance to support staff, especially those without knowledge of relevant gender gaps (Appendix 2). However, key informants reported that despite the available tools, staff struggle to translate the information into practice (UN11, UN13): “They are sensitized through training and some documents. But when it comes to operationalizing [guidance to address gender differences and inequalities], to put it into practice, it makes it difficult. In theory, it’s in documents, people are trained, but to operationalize [the guidance] there are further steps to be done, and we have to make it obvious in our different planning documents” (UN11).

In addition to the IASC Gender Handbook, other guidance used by humanitarian workers include the Sphere Handbook and minimum commitments or standards set by the humanitarian clusters.Footnote 4 The Sphere Handbook includes minimum quality standards for different sectors (WASH; food security and nutrition; shelter and settlement; and health) that were developed through broad consensus (Sphere Project 2018). Although not legally binding, the Sphere standards are widely used throughout the sector to guide humanitarian response (Sphere Project 2018).

While the standards include reference to gender equality in humanitarian response, the guidance ranges greatly in quality. What makes using the guidance particularly challenging is that the content ranges from being too specific to being too generic (Table 4).

For example, the IASC Gender Handbook health sector chapter contains a list of specific topics and questions for each response phase, including collection of SADD, the health situation of the affected population by sex before and since the crisis, household health care roles and responsibilities by sex, barriers to access, cultural expectations, and services for survivors (IASC Reference Group on Gender and Humanitarian Action 2018). However, it is over 400 pages long, which is overwhelming for users. As one key informant pleaded, “Just tell us the 5-10 things that must be done – there is no time to read all the guidance” (UN12).Footnote 5 Similarly, the health cluster resources provided by the WHO, the cluster lead agency, call for the collection of disaggregated data, yet the overall guidance on programmatic interventions is too generic.

Many in the humanitarian sector have determined that technical guidance alone is insufficient and that experts are also needed to support staff in addressing gender differences and inequalities. To meet this demand, OCHA established the Gender Standby Capacity Project (GenCap), an initiative that deploys gender advisors on short-term assignments to support humanitarian country teams. In the words of a UN professional, “One of the fundamental challenges about gender mainstreaming is that you do need someone with technical expertise, and it is more successful when we have those colleagues who are focal points or have that expertise within an operation, rather than it being everyone’s responsibility. When we have the earmarked funding to support gender specific expertise within an operation or region, it does make a difference” (UN5). Further, key informants conveyed that the uptake of gender equality approaches depends heavily on individual “champions” with the willingness to seek out and apply available resources (OE1, OE2, UN4). “In policy, [gender equality] was there always. In practice, it very much depended on personalities of who were driving the various initiatives. [Organizations] had their default positions, which on paper look quite strong, but I’d say it came down to personalities in terms of how it was carried forward” (OE2).

UN OCHA’s Financial Tracking Service (FTS) captures data on humanitarian funding flows. An analysis of that data has found that the amount of funding requested for activities with a focus on women and girls has increased over the years (UN Women and UNFPA 2020). However, the amount of funding allocated is far less than what is both needed and has been requested by humanitarian agencies (UN Women and UNFPA 2020; Chicey C, et al., 2022). Humanitarian assistance for gender equality and the empowerment of women typically falls under the protection and health sectors, or GBV as a separate stand-alone category. Occasionally, financing for activities to promote gender equality is also allocated to the agriculture, food security, and the water, sanitation, and hygiene clusters. The amount allocated is generally far less than the amount requested: 43% for reproductive health; 50% for child protection, and 33% for GBV (UN Women and UNFPA 2020). Moreover, programs that specifically target women and girls have the lowest levels of funding (Hatcher-Mbu 2021).

We conducted a deeper dive into the financing for GBV since protection of the most vulnerable is a priority for humanitarian response. Our analysis of the program documents shows that even when GBV was included within protection as a need in HNOs and addressed in the HRPs, it was not resourced robustly. As Table 5 shows, three of the eight country appeals (Bangladesh, Nigeria, Syria) requested funds to address GBV (FTS 2019a, b, 2020a). The funds they received ranged from 16% to less than half of the request. For the other five countries, there was no separate budget line item for GBV (FTS 2019c, d, 2020b, c, d). Moreover, despite high-level commitments to “localization” (UNGA 2016), financing for local organizations with expertise on GBV is reported to be scarce (IRC and VOICE 2019).

While mainstreaming has its own limitations, it is difficult to expect it to work in the context of humanitarian culture. Research in social psychology, evolutionary anthropology, and organizational science has shown that individual behavior and decision-making is non-conscious, often guided by mental short-cuts, and more influenced by organizational culture than any process-based bureaucratic interventions (Hallsworth and Kirkman 2020). Because culture is so important to individual behavior and decision-making, we analyzed our data through the lens of the behavioral science literature to understand the nature of humanitarian culture. We identified three dimensions of humanitarian culture that are particularly antithetical to promoting gender equality: a savior mentality and macho culture of a male-dominated field, a tolerance for abuse, and the short-term nature of crisis response and 12-month program cycles.

With a focus on saving lives and distributing goods and services in dangerous and highly volatile circumstances, humanitarian actors typically display what has been described in the literature as “savior complexes” (Vijfeijken 2019). The passion to save lives and protect people from harm is deeply felt and imperative, but the protectionism and paternalistic attitudes that often drive this can be harmful to women. It perpetuates the focus on women’s and girls’ basic needs for food, shelter, and health and their vulnerability to gender-based violence, noted in the findings, with less attention to providing livelihood opportunities or appointing women to decision-making positions in humanitarian programs.

The need for change in the macho culture was a major theme raised by key informants (NGO6, NGO7, NGO9, UN4, UN9, UN13). As one key informant described it “[The rhetoric is] we must get in there and “save lives” because we’re the heroes and cowboys” (UN6). Key informants depicted humanitarian actors as driven by adrenaline and characterized by macho and masculine attitudes, making it difficult to have meaningful conversations about addressing gender differences in response (NGO5, NGO7, NGO8, UN6, UN13).

“[The organization was founded by] actors who were adrenaline junkies. They ran ambulance services, prehospital care, clinical services. Now that humanitarian action has blended so much with development [action], when I look at who is leading relief efforts and departments, they are largely men who come from search and rescue backgrounds. Conversations on [gender differences] are really hard to have” (NGO7).

An additional priority for humanitarian actors is to establish control in chaotic conflict settings. This establishment of control is a characteristic of the “macho” or “cowboy” culture that has been identified in the literature as a key feature of humanitarian action (Spencer 2018; Berdahl et al. 2018; Vijfeijken 2019). This is very similar to military culture, as explained by a key informant, because “when you’re dealing with conflict, your main interlocutors are military and paramilitary organizations and so many of our staff come from military backgrounds. You can see how the group thinking comes from a militarized, masculine viewpoint” (NGO5).

The cowboy macho culture, when combined with the inequality inherent in humanitarian situations between those who have the resources to distribute and those who are in need, contribute to an environment in which the abuse of power, including sexual exploitation and abuse, is more likely to happen, causing harm to both women and men (Spencer 2018; Berdahl et al. 2018). Although the humanitarian sector has begun to implement reforms to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse, some experts have expressed pessimism about such efforts taking root in organizations that place a high value on a “take charge,” “cowboy” style of leadership, where certain behaviors “which amount to bullying or harassment will be overlooked… [because] the person exhibiting that behavior otherwise is seen as a “hero” within the organization” (Vijfeijken 2019). As Vijfeijken (2019) notes, in a value-based sector like the humanitarian sector, “where passion for the cause is prized, aggressive work styles can be misinterpreted as signs of passion for the cause.”

Key informants identified several challenges to changing the cowboy culture, including the lack of female leadership and female staff in the humanitarian sector. A 2019 report reveals that only an estimated one third of Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs) are women and in 2020 that proportion improved only slightly to a little over one third (IASC 2019). This is not surprising since men were 65% of the pool of contenders for the HC position in 2020. In the words of one key informant “We have a real problem with the number of female staff to male staff in the higher echelons. We’ve set targets to reach but they’re hard to reach because the system keeps on pushing women back. It’s not only a matter of will but it’s a matter of systemic issues” (NGO5).

The preponderance of men on the staff of humanitarian organizations has consequences. Female informants explained that male colleagues do not fully understand the extent to which gender differences and inequalities matter. In the words of one interviewee: “The men never think about the fact that women are afraid or have to protect themselves because they’ve never had the same concern. To have that discussion when you go to a new location, what are the things you do to protect yourselves, their list would be empty. Then you have the female staff and their list would be filled with things to do to protect themselves, including not talking to strangers, and not going out alone at night” (NGO8). Another key informant stated:

“[My organization] is still 80-90% men. All the people I had to deal with were men. I was an international female staff member alone with a very male audience. There was an instance when someone just laughed at me when I said something about being a mother and how important it is to listen to mothers” (UN9).

Many argue that having more women humanitarian leaders will transform the sector, but for this to happen, male-normed leadership models cannot continue to be rewarded (Daly 2005; Ravindran and Kelkar-Khambete 2008; Madsen 2011; Davids et al. 2014; Mukhopadhyay 2014). As research has shown, without a shift in the traditional male-oriented model of leadership, women leaders are likely to experience an incongruity between cultural stereotypes of women and “effective” leadership (Eagly and Karau 2002). As a result, women are placed in a double bind—when they adhere to the expectations associated with their gender roles, they are likely to be viewed as ineffective leaders but when they are seen as competent leaders, they are criticized for not fulfilling their roles as women (Koenig et al. 2011).

As noted above, in a culture that perpetuates controlling, paternalistic and protectionist attitudes, especially when combined with the inequality that is inherent between humanitarian actors and the communities they serve, the risk of abuse of power and exploitation of the weak is heightened. The sector has only recently begun to come to terms with the sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) perpetuated by humanitarian workers against the people they serve.Footnote 6

In addition to the disproportionate number of men as compared to women on the staff and in leadership positions of humanitarian organizations, which is one reason identified by the key informants for a culture that tolerates abuse (NGO4, NGO5, NGO7, NGO8, UN6, UN9), other factors cited by key informants were the lack of strong mechanisms of accountability, particularly in field operations in remote settings. Some informants argued that in settings in which humanitarian actors work round the clock, under pressure to save lives and with limited opportunities for rest or recuperation, the risk of exercising poor judgment is very high. They explained that although exposure to a challenging context does not justify unacceptable behavior, it underscores the need for robust supervisory and accountability measures (OE7, UN4, UN9, UN13).

A third aspect of humanitarian culture, as our findings revealed, can be called “short-termism.” The focus is on meeting the immediate needs of communities in crisis in the short-time available to respond (Vijfeijken 2019), as well as the short, discrete contract and funding cycles available for support. As one humanitarian professional noted: “It’s traditional that the humanitarian sector has different processes than the development sector – short-term, much shorter-term, sometimes a year or less for the appeal” (GDA4). As a result, another key informant explained “How do you do gender transformation in 12-month funding cycles? Well, you don’t if you only have funding for that period. So, the question is how can you get longer-term funding and resources to invest in staff, time, and partnerships to really make those changes?” (UN6).

Short-term funding cycles result in high staff turnover, including those who work to promote gender equality. This places a high burden on long-term staff to mobilize resources to replace the short-term expertise (IFI3, NGO7). One humanitarian worker elaborated, “It’s difficult because we’ll have the Protection, Gender and Inclusion Officer and the Gender Focal Point until project funding runs out. When their funding or secondment is up, we will once again search for a [member] that is willing to invest in gender [differences]” (NGO7). However, key informants themselves observed that new skills and strategies are needed to move away from rapid response operations to longer-term program cycles (GDA4, GDA6, NGO4, NGO9, OE7, UN4, UN5, UN6).

Because humanitarian actors are most concerned with producing immediate impact, investing in gender equality in contexts where it is not the norm can be perceived as hampering the ability to respond quickly (Hermann and Pagé 2016). In the words of one key informant, “It’s tricky if you actually want to implement social norms change programming because it requires a long-term perspective. It is challenging to plan longer-term projects that run over multiple years within the regular humanitarian program cycle.” (UN5)

This “short-termism” also makes it challenging for humanitarian actors to implement actions that bridge the humanitarian and development nexus—such as necessary economic and livelihood interventions—which lay the foundations for stronger and more resilient societies in which women and men have equality in capabilities, opportunity, safety, and agency.