Addressing Gender and Social Dynamics to Strengthen Resilience for All
In designing and evaluating resilience programs, it must be considered which capacities are key to building resilience for specific groups of people.
Image
In the face of various social, economic, health, political and environmental risks, resource-poor people and communities in rural Africa employ diverse livelihood strategies to avoid, cope with and adapt to multiple shocks and stressors. The African continent faces severe challenges related to increasing temperatures, water stress and environmental degradation, and climate change exacerbates the risks posed by other threats such as rapid population growth, haphazard urbanization, conflict, extreme poverty, food and nutrition insecurity, public health threats and corruption. In recognition of this confluence of risks and the diverse strategies people use to manage risk, the concept of resilience has taken hold in humanitarian and development communities as a unifying framework for identifying and planning for multiple, simultaneous risks that threaten rural people’s well-being. In addition, a resilience lens widens the time frame for considering risks. In so doing, it helps focus attention on the implications of humanitarian interventions on longer-term development and on safeguarding development gains against shocks, thereby helping to bridge the humanitarian and development sectors.
Most definitions describe human resilience as the ability to draw upon a set of capacities to deal with disturbances (shocks and stressors) before, during and after a disturbance, in a way that maintains or improves well-being outcomes (such as food security or adequate nutrition). USAID, for example, defines resilience as “the ability of people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth”. Key elements for measuring the process of resilience include information on initial and subsequent states (well-being outcomes), disturbances (shocks and stressors) and capacities.
For interventions to build on existing capacities, avoid displacing functioning risk management institutions, and support people and institutions in pursuing their preferred strategies, an emphasis on studying and understanding the local context is fundamental to the resilience approach. Attention to the specific context refers to not only a particular time and place, but also the many social differences of people living in a specific geography at a given time. In designing and evaluating resilience-oriented programs and policies, development actors consider questions such as which kinds of capacities are important for building resilience in a particular context for specific groups of people, and how best to support people in developing these capacities and responding to shocks and stressors in a way that protects well-being outcomes.
Preferences and needs related to resilience differ between groups of people, especially along lines of gender and social difference. An emerging body of practitioner guidance emphasizes that vulnerabilities and individual capacities differ by gender, pointing to the risks of gender-blind resilience programming. “One-size-fits-all” models risk inadvertently excluding vulnerable groups, or even increasing marginalization and vulnerability. In contrast, programs and policies that address gender-specific constraints and opportunities may be better able to build resilience by tapping into the skills and contributions of women and marginalized groups.
More research is needed to understand how the dynamics of resilience are shaped by gender and other social differences. Sex-disaggregated data are important, but they contribute to this research only to the extent that pertinent questions are asked. Because gender and resilience dynamics can be highly complex and context-specific, guidance is needed for how to investigate these issues in specific settings and, based on that information, take appropriate action for gender-responsive resilience programming.
The objective of this chapter is to synthesize evidence on how resilience is gendered, drawing on key approaches to assessing gender and social differences in resilience, and using a conceptual framework that has been developed for understanding the linkages between climate resilience, gender, and nutrition. This review is complemented with examples of the programmatic approaches of implementing organizations working in Africa. Based on this evidence and the elements of the conceptual framework, this chapter presents guidelines to support the integration of gender into resilience programming. These areas of inquiry can help guide the design, monitoring, evaluation, and improvement of resilience programs and policies that meet the diverse needs of the populations they are serving and contribute to processes of greater gender and social equity.