Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to capture progress and learning on how gender issues have been taken into account in the Strategic Response Plan (SRP) 2015 as well to provide an analysis on the implementation of the IASC Gender Marker and information on its future evolution. It is meant to inform sectorial programmers, clusters, cluster lead agencies, decision makers, OCHA and donors on how well current appeal processes take gender issues into account and, building on lessons learnt, how consideration for gender issues could be enhanced in future appeals. The findings are derived from reports and interviews with GenCap Advisers, who conducted a review of SRPs and of projects as part of their support to humanitarian actors. As in previous years, GenCap Advisers, either through country deployment or remote support, engaged in various ways to support the different phases of the Strategic Response Plan. Advisors also engaged at global level to ensure that guidance and processes fully integrate gender issues.
Ensuring that the humanitarian programme cycle (HPC) -a coordinated series of actions undertaken to help prepare for, manage and deliver humanitarian response - analyses and responds to the distinct needs of girls, boys, women and men is of critical importance for the provision of an assistance that is effective, equitable and that builds resilience. The HPC consists of five elements coordinated in a seamless manner, with one step logically building on the previous and leading to the next:
1-Needs assessment and analysis
2- Strategic Response Planning
3- Resource mobilization
4- Implementation and monitoring
5- Operational review and evaluation
While consideration for gender issues is key at each step of the HPC, this report focuses on the two first steps of the programme cycle, that is the development of the Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNO), of the Strategic Response Plans (SRPs) and the design of projects, for which the application of the IASC Gender Marker is mandatory. With the transition from a Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) to a SRP, it is worth exploring whether the aims and objectives of this new approach are being better met particularly in terms of the growing emphasis on the needs of affected people and improved targeting of the most vulnerable.
