Gender in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States

1. Gender in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States A Perspective from Africa

2. Our Experience in Demobilization • MDRP: a large demobilization and reintegration program: how well did we do in targeting women? • Not well, despite good intentions and specific objective • Many reasons: • Definitional: who is an ex-combatant? women not seen as security risk • Male domination of demobilization program: benefits for men only • Fear of stigma; harder for women to be accepted by communities • Low participation: despite expectations that women associated with armed forces generally account for 20-30% of ex-combatants, in MDRP ranged between 0.2 (Rwanda)—3.4 (Angola) • Implies many women self-demobilized  no benefits

3. Gender and Demobilization (cont.) • Despite many meetings and reports on how to do a better job in targeting women within MDRP, it wasn’t working • Reached the conclusion that rather than keep arguing about sensitizing or mainstreaming a concern for women in an existing and extremely complex program, only option was a parallel program • Created a separate TF to work in parallel with MDRP—the Learning for Equality, Access and Peace Program (LEAP) • LEAP worked better (though came late), able to provide TA, develop complementary projects, pilot new approaches (working with the family rather than the ex-combatants, focusing on stigmatization of female ex-combatants, gender-based violence, young-men-at risk, and the links between masculinity, power and violence) • Lessons: not clear how applicable to other settings or areas, but (i) we found that trying to mainstream women’s issues within a large program that was under great pressure to show results (esp. contribute to peace in the Great Lakes) did not work; and (ii) it made it clear to the team that to improve the situation of women, we also needed to think about the other side of gender—men

4. Thinking About Men • Gender is relational, so if we have seriously moved away from the initial Women in Development (WID) approach, we must also think about men in development and in relation to women • This does not imply privileging men in any way or taking resources away from programs targeting women, but they must be brought into the conversation and programs should not entirely exclude them • We worry about the backlash when men are excluded: • E.g., do women micro credit programs create more household violence? • In Kenya we found that men’s changing economic role and programs that targeted only women were associated with increased violence by men, alcoholism and mental stress • In Afghanistan, women focus groups argued that there had to be benefits for their men, that it was not good to exclude them, worries about household violence and resentment • Anthropological research from Sierra Leone (Richards) shows that young men’s inability to become adult generated a sense of alienation which was then easy to channel with extreme violence toward society at large

5. Why the reluctance to include men? • Not specific to the Bank • Redressing disadvantages faced by women and girls has understandably been, and needs to remain a priority • Strong and visible outside constituency on women’s issues—advocacy on women’s issues is still critical • Mainstreaming women’s issues in development still a struggle, hence male and gender not the right issue • Reluctance to bring men into the equation—understandable fear of men domination and capture • Assumes a zero sum game

6. How do male issues emerge in Africa? • What to do with male ex-combatants? Are reintegration programs enough for young combatants who defined their social status by a gun • Youth unemployment: what do we do with all these idle young men? A recurrent call by policy-makers across Africa—a destabilizing force, easy to mobilize to challenge the state, to fuel political/ethnic violence, gangs/militias (Kenya, Nigeria) • Violence: concern over violent versions of masculinity Are young men naturally/genetically violent or are there alternative versions of masculinity to be modeled and encouraged (some initial work in South Africa, Rio, Mexico City) • Gender-based violence: a growing problem across the Region When the state weakens can reach dramatic proportions (Eastern Congo, Cote d’Ívoire, Northern Uganda) or political instability (Kenya, Guinea)

7. Where Do We Go from Here? Not a consensus in the Africa Region, but some initial thoughts from our group and specific to the countries and settings we work in. They may or may not be relevant for other Regions: • Women’s economic empowerment is vital, but it is not enough • A rights based approach is useful, especially a better understanding of social exclusion and marginalization, non-economic barriers • We must work with men if we are aiming for greater gender equality…we must gain a better understanding of masculinities in Africa, definitions of manhood, and the transition from a young man to an adult • We have not as yet developed good programming tools to work with men • In a culture where the notion of “the big man” is dominant, it is easier to approach most African policy makers with a notion of gender that includes men rather than only women (eg, youth unemployment, urban violence) • Violence, especially against women, is a growing concern in fragile states…we need a better understanding of how this is associated with the breakdown of the state and how it leads to the breakdown of all social norms and sanctions • We believe that Country Gender Assessments are a useful tool and are still needed, especially in Fragile and Conflict-Affected settings, where women face distinct issues, and where a fuller gender assessment (as opposed to one focused exclusively on women) can provide valuable insights in designing post-conflict and post-crisis recovery strategies.