1. Backlash in Humanitarian
Response to Typhoon Haiyan
Refugees International
Marcy Hersh
June 9, 2014

2. Refugees International Assessment
February 2014
• Investigated rollout of
Transformative Agenda and
Humanitarian Program
Cycle in an L3 emergency
• Interviewed key
stakeholders including
Philippines government
representatives, UN staff, I-
NGOs, local NGOs, and IDPs

3. Philippines Context
• The Philippines is “good on gender”
• Humanitarians waiting for “proof”
• Challenges to responding in natural disasters
• Call to Action-induced “arms race”

4. The Philippines is “Good on Gender”
• 2013 Global Gender Gap Report ranks
Philippines 5th on gender equality indicators
• Many female baranguay captains and female
police officers
• Widely shared belief that GBV would not be
problematic in post-Typhoon response

5. Waiting for “Proof”
• Widespread lack of awareness of IASC GBV
Guidelines by humanitarians in numerous
sectors
• Some sectors refused to mainstream GBV
without “proof” of GBV
• “How bad is the situation, really?”
• Mitigating factor: gender advisors within
clusters

6. Challenges to responding in natural
disasters
• Nuances of humanitarian response to GBV in
natural disasters vs. conflicts
• Everyone is a “survivor”
• Philippines presents geographical challenges
• Movement of displaced people is fluid
• Lack of model for responding in non-camp
settings, i.e.:
– Dozens of baranguays spread across vast area

7. Call to Action-induced “arms race”
• High visibility of typhoon response
• Call to Action created great attention on GBV
• Led to organizations and agencies competing
to deploy high-level staff and operationalize
quickly
• Interagency relationships and politics weren’t
collaborative

8. Backlash on Gender and GBV

9. Contributing Factors to Backlash
• Assumption that GBV = CRSV
• Transformative Agenda and HPC Tools
• Numerous Protection/Gender/GBV Experts

10. GBV Outside of CRSV
• Ongoing sense by humanitarian community that
GBV = conflict-related sexual violence
• Trafficking, incest, domestic violence, SEA, and
other forms of GBV were problematic in the
Philippines even before the typhoon
• Sense that most trafficking incidents happened
before GBV actors arrived at field sites

11. Transformative Agenda and HPC Tools
• Provided new terrain, even for seasoned humanitarians
• Strong emphasis on IM-heavy tools
• HCT removal of gender and GBV questions from MIRA
and failure to adhere to MIRA instructions led to
gender-blind MIRA I
• Fight for inclusion in MIRA II, while perhaps
unavoidable, set the stage for tenuous relationships

12. Numerous Protection/Gender/GBV
Experts
• Tendency to lump advisors and into
homogenous group
• Any humanitarian’s personality clashes with
one protection/gender/GBV expert was
conflated with antagonism towards entire
group
• Demonstrates need for GBV AoR and GenCap
Project to collaborate more closely since
perceived as same

13. Refugees International’s
Policy Recommendations
• The IASC Working Group must undertake a strategic review
and revision of the TA tools
• The GBV AoR should advocate in each L3 emergency for all
GBV-related questions to be included in each MIRA.
• GBV AoR’s lead agencies, UNFPA and UNICEF, must ensure
the deployment of full-time, dedicated information
management specialists
• The ERC should hold the RC/HC to account for GBV
mainstreaming
• UNCTs in disaster-prone countries must develop strong risk
profiling with robust inclusion of GBV vulnerability,

14. Questions for Discussion
1. Is this a correct list of factors contributing to GBV backlash? What rings true?
What is incorrect? What is missing?
2. What can the GBV AoR (or the larger GBV community) do to increase
knowledge base for humanitarian response in natural disasters?
3. Particularly in light of PSVI this week, what can the GBV community do to
increase understanding that GBV ≠ CRSV
4. Many of the challenges stemmed from personality clashes or a lack of
relationship building between agencies. Are there any best
practices/supportive networks that GBV coordinators should ensure they
participate in? ICC? HCT?
5. Would it be helpful to develop stronger linkages between the gender and
GBV communities for common positioning? How can we do that?