Programming Standards

Programming standards define what safe and quality programming entails in each sector or across multiple sectors. GBV risk mitigation can be integrated into programming standards at organization and at inter-agency levels.

Why is this entry point important?

When GBV risk mitigation is embedded in a programme standard, it becomes a core component of how a programme defines its own success, thereby increasing accountability. It means GBV risk mitigation becomes accepted as part and parcel of the sector’s understanding of what quality, safe programming entails.

IASC GBV guidelines - Thematic Area Guides (TAGs)

Why are they relevant?: Each TAG contains a sub-section on “policies” (within the Implementation section of the TAG).  

 AAAQ Framework

Why are they relevant?: Originally used by the health sector then adapted for GBV risk mitigation by UNICEF, this tool has been successfully integrated into clusters’ standards, particularly those related to assessments and monitoring. It can also be incorporated into checklists for programme design.     

The Inter-Agency Minimum Standards for Gender-Based Violence in Emergencies Programming 

Why are they relevant?: Though this resource is primarily focused on GBV-specialized programming, Standard 9 is specifically about GBV risk mitigation. The standard provides an overview of how GBV actors can support other sectors to integrate GBV risk mitigation. Standard 1. GBV Guiding Principle and Standard 2. Women’s and Girls’ Participation and Empowerment also provide useful information that can help guide the revision/creation of standards in other sectors.  

Case Study: Integrating gender-based violence into public health emergencies preparedness and response

Why are they relevant?: Details UNICEF’s experience of integrating GBV risk mitigation in PHE standards, highlighting action taken in various entry points and windows of opportunity.

Oxfam-safe-programming-checklist

Oxfam, Safe Programming Checklist 

Why are they relevant?: A checklist for safe programming which includes protection mainstreaming and GBV risk mitigation.

UNICEF GBV Integration into the Core Commitment for Children (CCC) 

Why are they relevant?: Provides a summary of GBV integration across all  programmatic sectors covered in the CCCs.

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.

Example 2

Integration of GBV risk mitigation into the Global Education Cluster’s (GEC) standards

The INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, revised in 2024, requires that education partners “establish mechanisms to prevent and respond to School-Related GBV”, including training teachers and education personnel on safely and compassionately responding to GBV disclosures from child and adolescent survivors, using referral pathways, and adhering to the Code of Conduct; actively consulting with women and girls; identifying safety and GBV risks in and around schools and learning spaces; increasing the number of women among school personnel and community groups; raising awareness in the community about negative consequences of disrupted education, child marriage and other forms of GBV for girls; and providing sexual and reproductive health and rights education in schools, including about informed consent. The INEE Minimum Standards also include proxy indicators for GBV risk mitigation in education, such as “Percentage of children, teachers, and other staff who report feeling safe in school and on the way to/from school” (disaggregated by gender, age, disability, education level, displacement status and other intersecting variables) and “Percentage of targeted learning spaces that offer referrals to specialized health, psychosocial, and protection services”. Applying and adhering to common standards and guidelines is a core cluster function as mandated by IASC. Education Cluster standards serve to adapt and operationalize the INEE minimum standards to the specific context and ensure that all education partners understand the minimum level of service delivery quality expected for each EiE response activity. In the 2024 GEC Guidance on how to establish standards for the Cluster, GBV risk mitigation is explicitly referred to as an enabler for safe and quality EiE responses.