Example 1
Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) Clusters: Integrating GBV risk mitigation at cluster level and within sectoral resources – including the sector’s minimum standards
The provision of humanitarian assistance and protection to internally displaced persons (IDPs), as well as the meaningful participation of all segments of displaced populations – including women and girls – has always been at the centre of the CCCM mandate. Conscious of the potential impact of good programming in CCCM interventions, the Cluster strengthened its cooperation with the GBV AoR and actively engaged in the revision process of the IASC GBV Guidelines from 2014 to further determine roles and responsibilities and identify key areas of interventions for CCCM actors to mitigate GBV risks. This critical step, supported by dedicated funding, included the adoption of a common language to build mutual understanding around GBV and GBV risk mitigation – between GBV-specialized actors and the cluster, and among CCCM practitioners themselves. This initiative required time and effort but proved to be a necessity to reach the shift in mentality needed to work towards anchoring GBV risk mitigation in the sector. This process ensured clarity on what was expected from whom, better-defined roles and responsibilities regarding GBV risk mitigation, and supported trust-building across sectors.
To enhance the impact, GBV risk mitigation considerations and practical measures were fully embedded within sectoral resources – including cluster training packages, coordinators’ guidance, sector minimum standards, the Camp Management Toolkit and tools for practitioners. In addition, a dedicated global working group focusing on participation in displacement so that risk mitigation would not appear as an “add-on” to the role of the sector, but as a core responsibility of both the cluster (including as provider of last resort) and practitioners. From a cluster perspective, this step required the engagement of new sets of actors, mostly within States and local NGOs, to accomplish this integration in IDP settings. While the Global CCCM Cluster commitment to the Call to Action against GBV in emergencies (100% of HRPs to include GBV risk mitigation measures by 2025) illustrates the ambition of the sector towards the protection of women and girls in sites. The above-mentioned efforts do not mean the end of the “institutionalization” of GBV risk mitigation in CCCM, but rather appear as solid foundations towards it. The need for capacity-strengthening, technical support and new resources remains high. New displacement scenarios; a constant need for contextualization; multiplication of partners, including in the frame of the localisation efforts, compel CCCM actors to keep GBV risk mitigation high on the agenda and to consistently allocate resources – human and financial.