Prevention, risk mitigation and coordination

1The 2015 IASC Guidelines: GBV is everyone's business

The IASC Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action (2015) are aimed at non-specialist actors. They cover thirteen thematic areas (shelter and settlement, water, sanitation and hygiene, food security, nutrition, health, education, CCCM, livelihoods, protection, housing, land and property, mine action, child protection, logistics) and follow the programme cycle:

• Assessment, analysis and planning: ask questions about risks, not about cases.
• Resource mobilisation: budget for lighting, locks, female staff.
• Implementation: programming, policies and communication.
• Coordination with other sectors and the GBV sub-cluster.
• Monitoring and evaluation with indicators disaggregated by sex, age and disability.

They rest on three goals: reduce risk in every sector, promote resilience of individuals and communities, and aid recovery by addressing the causes.

2Mitigating risks sector by sector

Mitigation means designing aid so that it does not create or increase risks. Concrete examples from the Guidelines and the Sphere Handbook:

• WASH: sex-segregated latrines and showers, with clear signage, an internal lock, lighting, at a safe distance from shelters; the Sphere Handbook recommends a ratio of about three female latrines to one male latrine in public places.
• Shelter and CCCM: lockable doors, partitions for privacy, grouping of female-headed households near services, lit pathways, mixed committees.
• Distributions and transfers: daytime hours, separate queues, nearby points, female staff, lists held by the organisation and not by intermediaries, an accessible complaints mechanism.
• Food security and livelihoods: fuel or improved stoves to limit firewood collection, analysis of the intra-household risks of cash transfers.
• Education: safe routes, separate latrines, female teachers, code of conduct.

Safety audits carried out by mixed teams, with day and night exploratory walks and focus group discussions with women and adolescent girls, make it possible to identify risky locations. They focus on places and services, never on individual cases.

3Safe spaces and prevention

Women and girls safe spaces are formal or informal places where they feel physically and emotionally safe. They offer psychosocial support activities, information, life skills, peer support groups and a discreet entry point to case management: coming to the space does not signal that one is a survivor. They are designed with the women themselves (hours, location, childcare) and run by trained female staff.

Prevention targets the causes: transforming social norms with men, religious leaders and young people (long-term community approaches such as SASA!), women's economic empowerment, women's leadership in committees, prevention of child marriage. It takes time: in the acute phase, response and mitigation are prioritised while preparing for prevention.

Protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) by humanitarian personnel is a pillar of it: a ban on any sexual relationship with a child and on any exchange of sex for aid, a duty to report, and assistance to the victim following the survivor-centred approach.

4Coordination and data ethics

The GBV Area of Responsibility (GBV AoR), led by UNFPA within the Global Protection Cluster, coordinates the response. At national level, a GBV sub-cluster develops with the authorities the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and the referral pathway: who does what, where, how to refer, with which form and which consent. The Inter-Agency Minimum Standards (2019) set sixteen standards for quality GBV programming.

The GBVIMS enables service providers to collect case data in a standardised and safe way, with consent, and to share only aggregated and anonymous statistics under a signed information sharing protocol. GBV data describe the people who accessed services: they never measure prevalence and must not be presented as such.

Golden rules: never any individual data in cluster reports, presentations or emails; no list of survivors requested by a donor, an authority or a partner; no small numbers published by village when they could identify someone.

5Conducting a safety audit and exploratory walks

The safety audit is the main tool for identifying GBV risks linked to the physical environment and to the way assistance is organised. It does not require a GBV specialist to conduct it, but it must be rigorously prepared, carried out by trained teams and followed by visible action; an audit with no follow-up destroys the trust of the women who took part in it.

Preparation (one week)

• Team: mixed pairs from several sectors (WASH, shelter, CCCM, protection), with at least one woman per pair; women and adolescent girls from the community take part as co-observers and guide the routes.
• Half-day training: objectives, checklist, how to respond to a disclosure (GBV Pocket Guide), referral pathway, rules: no photos of people, no questions about cases.
• Printed site map, on which observations are marked using codes.
• Informing the site authorities and the committee, explaining that the objective is to improve infrastructure and services.

Conduct

At least two rounds: one during the day and one after nightfall (between 7 pm and 10 pm depending on the context and the team's security), with short discussion groups with women and adolescent girls about the places they avoid and the times when they feel in danger. A site of 20,000 people generally requires three to four days of work for four pairs.

Observation checklist

Analysis and follow-up (two weeks)

Observations are classified by location, by level of perceived risk (high, medium, low) and by responsible sector, then presented to the risk mitigation working group or the site coordination committee. Each recommendation is assigned a person responsible, a deadline and a budget. Feedback is given to the women of the community: what will be done, when, and what cannot be done and why. The audit is repeated every three to six months or after any major change on the site.

A safety audit never produces a list of victims or a map of assaults. It produces a list of places and practices to be corrected, with persons responsible and deadlines.

6Integrating risk mitigation into the programme cycle: indicators, budget, donor requirements

The IASC Guidelines (2015) structure each sector according to the programme cycle. In practice, risk mitigation fails at three points: it is not budgeted, it is not tracked by indicators, and it remains the sole responsibility of the protection team. This section provides the tools to embed it in projects across all sectors.

Questions to ask at each stage

Mitigation indicators by sector

Budgeting for mitigation

Amounts depend on the context, but the order of magnitude must be visible. Examples of lines to include for a WASH project serving 20,000 people: internal locks and latches for all blocks, solar lighting for blocks and main pathways, shower partitions, illustrated signage; a line for female staff (hygiene promoters, committee members); a staff training line; a line for the complaints and feedback mechanism. These costs often represent a small share of the total budget and are easier to justify at proposal stage than to add during the project.

What donors require

• ECHO: the Gender-Age Marker assesses each project on gender and age analysis, adaptation of assistance, prevention of negative effects and participation; the thematic policy on gender (2013) and the GBV guidance note (Gender-Based Violence in Humanitarian Settings, DG ECHO) detail expectations.
• BHA (United States): the application guidelines require protection mainstreaming across all sectors, with a risk analysis, and include a dedicated sector for GBV prevention and response.
• FCDO (United Kingdom): safeguarding and PSEA requirements in partner due diligence, and attention to the effects of programmes on GBV.
• OCHA-managed pooled funds: application of the IASC Gender with Age Marker (2018) and of priorities set by the clusters, including GBV.

A convincing proposal does not merely state that "GBV is taken into account": it cites the identified risk, the measure, the indicator and the corresponding budget line.

7Full example: the multi-sector mitigation plan for Dongolo site

Fictional context. Dongolo site has been hosting 20,400 people (4,100 households) for two months, following floods and subsequent clashes. Composition: 53% women and girls, 1,350 female-headed households (33%), about 2,700 adolescent girls and boys aged 10 to 17. The site has 120 mixed latrine cubicles, 14 water points and no communal lighting. Monthly food distributions are organised at a single point located 3 km from the furthest blocks. The 15-member central committee includes only one woman.

Safety audit findings (4 pairs, 4 days, 12 focus group discussions)

• Women avoid the latrines after 7 pm; several adolescent girls report having been followed.
• Two water points are controlled by young men who demand money or "favours" to jump the queue.
• Distributions often end after nightfall; women are robbed of their rations on the way home.
• Families collect firewood 5 km away, in an area where armed men are present.
• Adolescent girls no longer attend the temporary school because of the lack of separate latrines and harassment on the way.

The plan

Reasoning

Prioritisation follows three criteria: severity of the risk expressed by women, speed of implementation, cost. Quick, low-cost measures (management of water points, distribution timing, PSEA reporting) are launched first. Heavier investments (stoves, lighting) are submitted to the country-based pooled fund with baseline indicators. The GBV team does not implement sectoral measures itself: it analyses, advises, trains and monitors. Three months later, the new audit shows 74% of compliant blocks and 58% of women feeling safe at night; girls' school attendance has risen from 31% to 49%.

8Safe spaces and prevention programmes: design and operation

A specific standard of the Minimum Standards covers women and girls' safe spaces, and the IRC and IMC Women and Girls Safe Spaces Toolkit (2019) details their implementation. A safe space is not a building: it is a set of activities, a team and a relationship of trust with the women of the community.

Step-by-step set-up

1. Consultation (weeks 1-2): focus group discussions with women and adolescent girls on location, opening hours, desired activities, childcare and accessibility; consultation of organisations of persons with disabilities.
2. Choice of location: accessible on foot, discreet but not isolated, away from places frequented by armed men, with separate latrines, a water point, shade, a space for children and a closed room for individual sessions. A temporary structure (tent of 48 to 72 m²) may be sufficient in the acute phase.
3. Typical team for a space receiving 80 to 150 women and girls per day: one coordinator, two to three psychosocial facilitators, one to two caseworkers (in the space or nearby), one childminder, community volunteers; exclusively female staff inside.
4. Programme: recreational and craft activities, information sessions (health, rights, services), support groups, life skills for adolescent girls, literacy, income-generating activities; distribution of dignity kits with information on services.
5. Rules developed with participants: access reserved for women and girls, men received only outside, confidentiality.
6. Monitoring: attendance disaggregated by age and disability, quarterly satisfaction surveys, feedback meetings with participants.

Points of attention

• The space must not be identified as a "centre for raped women": its name, signage and activities are general.
• Raising awareness among men and leaders about the purpose of the space reduces resistance and risks for participants.
• In contexts of high mobility or difficult access, mobile spaces (a team that travels according to a fixed schedule) complement static spaces.

Prevention programmes

Prevention transforms norms, which takes years. One-off "awareness-raising" campaigns without services or follow-up have little effect and can increase risks if they encourage disclosure of violence without any offer of care.

9Coordinating the GBV response: SOPs, 4W, information-sharing protocol and links with other mechanisms

The Handbook for Coordinating GBV Interventions in Emergencies (GBV AoR, 2019) describes the functions of a coordination mechanism: support to service delivery, needs analysis, strategic planning, monitoring, capacity building, advocacy and preparedness. In many countries, the GBV sub-cluster is co-led by UNFPA and an NGO, ideally a national one, with the participation of the relevant ministry.

Standard operating procedures (SOPs)

They are developed in a workshop with health, psychosocial, security and justice actors and the authorities, then signed by the organisations. Minimum content:

• guiding principles and definitions (GBVIMS classification);
• roles and responsibilities of each actor, including non-specialists;
• referral pathway, common forms, time frames;
• informed consent, care for children, mandatory reporting obligations;
• information-sharing rules and GBVIMS information-sharing protocol;
• prevention, mitigation and coordination with other sectors;
• monitoring of SOP implementation and review date (generally annual).

4W mapping and gap analysis

The GBV 4W (who, what, where, when) lists available services by locality according to standard categories: clinical management, case management, psychosocial support, safe spaces, legal aid, safe shelter, economic empowerment, risk mitigation, prevention. It is updated monthly and cross-referenced with population figures and risks to identify priority areas. It contains no case data.

The information-sharing protocol (ISP)

Links with other mechanisms

• Protection cluster: the GBV AoR is part of it; joint analysis of protection risks.
• Health cluster and reproductive health working group: clinical management, kit supply, training.
• Child protection AoR: cases of child survivors, child marriage; agreement on case management.
• PSEA network: handling of allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, victim assistance through GBV services.
• Conflict-related sexual violence monitoring mechanism (MARA): careful coordination, sharing limited by consent and ethical rules; service data are not transmitted without a framework.
• Inter-cluster group: integration of mitigation into other clusters' plans, a GBV focal point in each cluster.

10Common mistakes, contextual variations, interview questions and references

Common mistakes

What donors and evaluators check

• Recent safety audits and evidence of the corrections made.
• Mitigation indicators in the logical frameworks of non-specialised projects, disaggregated by sex, age and disability.
• Effective participation of women in committees and design.
• The organisation's participation in the sub-cluster and signature of the SOPs and information-sharing protocol.
• PSEA policies, staff training and an accessible complaints mechanism.

Variations by context

• Sudden-onset emergency: mitigation integrated from the design of collective shelters and sites (site plans, lighting, separate latrines); temporary or mobile safe spaces within two to four weeks.
• Protracted crisis: multi-year prevention programmes, handover of safe spaces to local women's organisations, integration into social services.
• Urban settings: little control over the physical environment; work with municipalities, transport providers and landlords; safe spaces in existing community centres.
• Insecurity and restricted access: local partners on the front line, discreet activities, remote coordination, priority to measures that communities can carry out on their own.
• Local partners with low capacity: women's organisations know the risks better than anyone; their management and data protection capacities are strengthened, and their participation in coordination is funded (transport, staff time, translation).

Interview questions

Key references

• IASC, Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action (2015) and their thematic sector areas.
• Sphere Project, The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (2018).
• CHS Alliance, Groupe URD and the Sphere Project, Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (2014, revised in 2024).
• GBV AoR, Handbook for Coordinating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Emergencies (2019).
• IRC and IMC, Women and Girls Safe Spaces: A Toolkit for Advancing Women's and Girls' Empowerment in Humanitarian Settings (2019).
• Raising Voices, SASA! Together; IRC, EMAP and Girl Shine.
• CARE, Women's Refugee Commission and partners, Cash and Voucher Assistance and Gender-Based Violence Compendium (2019).
• IASC, Gender with Age Marker (2018); DG ECHO, Gender-Age Marker Toolkit.
• GBVIMS Steering Committee, Information Sharing Protocol Template.