A gender-sensitive approach implies recognising that peacebuilding, statebuilding and conflict are ‘gendered’ processes in two senses: men and women are affected differently by conflict, and gender roles shape statebuilding outcomes (OECD, 2013a). Peacebuilding and statebuilding processes present opportunities to embed gender equality goals in emerging political settlements and to achieve legal changes to eliminate gender-based discrimination. Greenberg and Zuckerman (2009) call for three related rights to be guaranteed to women post-conflict: the right to participate in policy-making and resource allocation, the right to benefit equally from private and public resources and services, and the right to build a gender equitable society. Such changes can, however, be slow to affect the real dynamics of gender relations. Even where conflict has produced changes in gender roles, discriminatory structures and social norms tend to reassert themselves post-conflict (Domingo et al., 2013).
There is limited research and evidence on the linkages between peacebuilding and statebuilding processes and outcomes and the adoption of gender-responsive approaches aimed at improving gender equality (Domingo et al., 2013; Anderlini, 2011). Guidance on what does and does not work in incorporating gender into peacebuilding and statebuilding processes remains patchy (OECD, 2013c).
There can be tensions between international gender principles and local social and religious norms that may not be supportive of gender equality (Domingo et al., 2013). In addition, international gender commitments may clash with pragmatic, power-based approaches.
Domingo et al. (2013) argue that given the weak state presence prevalent in many fragile and conflict-affected states, gender-responsive approaches should focus not only on formal state institutions but also on non-state actors and informal institutions. Informal patterns of power and resource allocation can, however, be harder to shift (Castillejo, 2011).
Promoting women’s role in peacebuilding
Women have generally been under-represented in peace negotiations, both in numbers and status (where they often constitute ‘informal’ participants) (Justino et al., 2012; UN, 2010). In a review of 31 major peace processes (1992-2011), women made up only 4 per cent of signatories, 2.4 per cent of chief mediators, 3.7 per cent of witnesses, and 9 per cent of negotiators (UN Women, 2012c, p. 3). While an increase in the inclusion of women in formal peace and post-conflict processes has been reported since the adoption of UNSCR 1325, there is little information on efforts to integrate women in peace processes and extremely limited evidence of the impact of this increase (Justino et al., 2012).
Robust evidence indicates that only a small proportion of peace agreements (five out of 48 agreements analysed) concretely address women’s representation, protection, and recognition (Ellerby, 2013). In a study of 585 peace agreements between 1990 and 2010, only 16 percent refer to women (Bell & O’Rourke, 2010, cited in Justino et al., 2012). In addition, UNIFEM (2010, cited in Anderlini, 2011, p. 28) finds that only 18 of 300 peace agreements signed since the end of the Cold War mention sexual and gender based violence.
A key challenge to greater inclusion of women’s issues and concerns in peace agreements and in peacebuilding and statebuilding efforts is that women are not seen as central to ‘making or breaking’ a peace agreement. Other forms of identity, such as ethnicity, are considered to be a more fundamental fault line for conflict (Haynes et al., 2011). The effectiveness of women’s peace initiatives may thus depend on timing: in particular, it may be important to identify points in the conflict cycle when gender identity supersedes other identities, and therefore when women’s platforms might serve as an entry point for breaking the cycle of violence (Aker & Noma, 2012).
Others emphasise, however, that efforts to include and reference women in peace agreements and peace processes are necessary from the outset to maximise the prospects of embedding gender equality goals in the new ‘rules of the game’ (Domingo et al., 2013). The greater mobilisation of women in the peace processes in Burundi, Guatemala, Sudan and Uganda, for example, resulted in their early inputs being channelled into decision making. This enabled gender-related issues to be included in some measures, such as support to victims of sexual violence and services for widows and displaced households (Domingo et al., 2013).
Effective inclusion of women may entail challenging prevailing myths – for example, ‘mediators lose valuable political capital by urging parties to include women’, or ‘women’s issues’ are discrete, separable topics’ (Nderitu & O’Neill, 2013). Success is also associated with the inclusion of a critical mass of women (30-40% is recommended) (Reimann, 2012). Recent research finds that where women were strongly involved in peace processes and negotiations, there was a much greater likelihood that an agreement would be reached and implemented. The research emphasises that the mere presence of women is not sufficient to have an impact on gender equality. Rather, the quality of their participation is important. Where women played a strong role in the negotiation process, they were able to bring more issues to the table that specifically addressed women’s inclusion and rights (Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding, 2015).
Gender-sensitive DDR
While women and girls have specific needs in DDR, these processes often do not focus sufficiently on female combatants. In Sierra Leone, for example, despite reports of 12,000 women involved in rebel groups, only 506 went through the DDR process (Save the Children, 2005, cited in Justino et al., 2012). The neglect of women is due in part to the widespread perception of women as victims in armed conflict, rather than as combatants, and also to greater difficulties in tracking them. Given the persistence of traditional gender roles, women tend to disappear after fighting ends in order to avoid stigmatization and associations with killings and violence (Justino et al., 2012).
It is important that DDR processes are gendered processes, taking into consideration not only men and boys, but also the needs of women and girls (and to particularly vulnerable groups among them). Two programmes (in Eritrea and Burundi) considered successful in terms of involving female ex-combatants in reintegration programmes included extensive door-to-door outreach, and the option of opening microfinance accounts at no cost (see Justino et al., 2012).
There are also risks that DDR can result in loss of identity of men as fighters and protectors, and removal of freedom for women who have broken out of traditional gender roles. Tensions may arise between empowered women and frustrated men, which may contribute to gender-based violence (Specht, 2013).
For further resources, see section on Gender and peace-building and state-building in the GSDRC’s Gender Guide, in particular the sub-sections on security sector reform, and gender and transitional justice.
- When women were strongly involved, an agreement was reached in all cases (14 cases, 100%). Where women were involved to some extent, an agreement was almost guaranteed (9 out of 10 cases, 90%). In contrast, when women were not involved, the chances of reaching an agreement were much lower (5 out of 9 cases, 66%). The strong involvement of women also resulted in much higher chances that the agreement is implemented (10 out of 14 cases, 70%), in contrast to when women were not involved (4 out of 10 cases, 40%) (CODAP, 2015).
- Aker, D., & Noma, E. (2012). Gender platforms for conflict transformation (Conference Paper). International Political Science Association.
See full text - Anderlini, S. (2011). World development report gender background paper. Washington DC: World Bank
See full text - Castillejo, C. (2011). Building a state that works for women: Integrating gender into post-conflict state building. Madrid: FRIDE.
See full text - Domingo, P., Holmes, R., Rocha Menocal, A. & Jones, N. (with Bhuvanendra, D., & Wood, J). (2013). Assessment of the evidence of links between gender equality, peacebuilding and statebuilding: Literature review. London: ODI.
See full text - Ellerby. K. (2013). (En)gendered Security? The complexities of women’s inclusion in peace processes. International Interactions, 39(4), 435-460.
See full text - Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding. (2015). Results on women and gender from the ‘broader participation’ and ‘civil society peacebuilding’ projects. Geneva: Graduate Institute of Geneva.
- Greenberg, M., & Zuckerman, E. (2009). The gender dimensions of post-conflict reconstruction: The challenges of development aid. In T. Addison & T. Brück (Eds.), Making peace work: The challenges of social and economic reconstruction. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
See full text - Justino, P., Cardona, I., Mitchell, R., & Müller, C. (2012). Quantifying the impact of women’s participation in post-conflict economic recovery (HiCN Working Paper 131). Brighton: IDS.
See full text - Nderitu, A. & O’Neill, J. (2013). Getting to the point of inclusion: Seven myths standing in the way of women waging peace (Oslo Forum Background Paper). The Institute for Inclusive Security.
See full text - OECD. (2013a). Why integrate a gender perspective into state-building? In Gender and statebuilding in fragile and conflict-affected states (chapter 1). Paris: OECD Publishing.
See full text - OECD. (2013c). Gender and statebuilding in fragile and conflict affected states. Paris: OECD Publishing.
See full text - Reimann, C. (2012). Gender and peace mediation (Peace Mediation Essentials). Bern: Mediation Support Project.
See full text - Specht, I. (2013). Gender, Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration and violent masculinities. Cadernos, 61.
See full text - UN. (2010). Ten-year impact study on implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security in peacekeeping. New York: UN DPKO
See full text - UN Women. (2012c). Women’s participation in peace negotiations: Connections between presence and influence. New York: UN.
See full text