April 2019 Issue no. 12 resilience intel

BRACED aims to build the resilience of up to 5 million Intersectional approaches vulnerable people against climate extremes and disasters. It does so through to vulnerability reduction 15 projects working across 13 countries in East Africa, the Sahel and Asia. and resilience-building

Daniel Chaplin, John Twigg and Emma Lovell www.braced.org @bebraced Intersectional approaches recognise that people will have different identities, needs, priorities and capacities which are not static, and will shift and change over time – affecting their ability to prepare for, cope with and respond to natural hazards and climate variability. This scoping paper explores intersectional approaches to vulnerability reduction and resilience-building, with the aim of informing institutional policy and operational practice.

Key messages

• Intersectional approaches offer a way to emphasises the constant renegotiation understand and respond to the ways different of power relations and how individuals factors, such as gender, age, disability and and groups can experience both power ethnicity, intersect to shape individual identities, and oppression simultaneously. thereby enhancing awareness of people’s needs, interests, capacities and experiences. This in turn • There is no single approach or defined will help in targeting policies and programmes. set of methods for seeking intersectional understandings of vulnerability and resilience • Social groups are neither homogenous nor relating to climate change and natural hazards. static, and intersectional approaches recognise Better collection and sharing of disaggregated this complexity by taking historical, social, data and analyses relating to the circumstances cultural and political contexts into account. of vulnerable, marginalised and at-risk people Intersectional approaches help us understand will also be a necessary input to guide resilience the differentiated nature of vulnerability and policy and programming. resilience. They also draw attention to the social root causes of vulnerability, creating • More research on intersectional approaches a more nuanced picture. to vulnerability reduction and resilience- building is required – in particular qualitative • Intersectional approaches help and contextual research to fully understand to uncover dynamics that can shape how inequalities intersect and affect people vulnerability and resilience. Intersectionality in different contexts. 1. introduction

Natural hazards, including those resilience‑building is that they take influenced by climate change, expose complex contextual realities into account. existing inequalities. Those who face the They recognise that groups of people greatest levels of risk – and therefore who experience marginalisation have require the highest levels of resilience – different identities, needs and priorities. are often those who face the highest inequality and barriers to accessing their This scoping paper reviews academic rights in everyday life. This often includes research and practice-focused literature people with disabilities, women, children, on the relevance and application of older persons, minority and indigenous intersectional thinking and approaches groups, LGBTQIA,1 people with chronic to vulnerability reduction and resilience- health conditions and others who are building, in order to inform institutional contextually marginalised. These are policy and operational practice. Three often brought together under the term academic databases – Academic Search, ‘vulnerable or marginalised’. It can be Scopus and Web of Science – were hard to avoid using this term but it is used to identify relevant publications, crucial to note that these groups are and grey literature was acquired from neither homogenous nor static. the websites of development and humanitarian organisations (see Annex 1 Yet, climate and disaster risk reduction for a description of the methodology). research, policy and programming often It accompanies a forthcoming BRACED focus on vulnerable and marginalised report with case studies in Kenya groups as a collective category, or on and Nepal that look at intersectional specific groups of people separately. approaches to vulnerability reduction The value of intersectional approaches and resilience-building in the case of to vulnerability reduction and two different interesting inequalities.

2. social vulnerability and the need for an intersectional approach

2.1. Defining intersectionality Recently, the concept and its application have travelled across disciplines to Intersectionality is an approach to inform policy and practice in the fields of understanding intra-group difference and development and humanitarian assistance. the existence of multiple axes of identity Davis (2008: 68) defines intersectionality that govern an individual’s or group’s as ‘the interaction between gender, race, relationship to power (Osborne, 2015). and other categories of social difference in

1 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex and asexual or allied.

2 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 individual lives, social practices, institutional have fewer resources and face greater arrangements, and cultural ideologies and barriers to benefiting from social protection the outcomes of these interactions in terms or gaining a political voice, which will of power’. The concept of intersectionality affect their ability to cope with, prepare for was introduced and popularised by the and respond to natural hazards (Osborne, critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw 2015; ADCAP, 2018b; GFDRR and World (1989, 1991), who demonstrated that Bank, 2018). Intersectional approaches can legal frameworks that focus on either build comprehensive understandings of gender or race fail to capture the distinct how social dimensions of gender, identity, experiences of marginalised black women power, governance, and institutions who simultaneously experience both intersect in different ecological, economic, forms of discrimination. and climate contexts to produce webs of distinct exposures, sensitivities and adaptive Intersectional thinking challenges ‘one- capacities (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016). size-fits-all’ approaches – often perceived The aim is to widen the perspective and to be the best way to quickly reach reflect on the factors that may be relevant most people in emergencies – to offer in a particular context (Kaijser and Kronsell, a framework for better integrating social 2014). An intersectional approach can help heterogeneity, by exposing explicit and avoid generalising complex realities and will implicit assumptions about predefined always need to be adapted to the specific social categories. It provides an analytical context (Osborne, 2015; van Aelst and tool for understanding and responding Holvoet, 2016). to the ways in which individual factors or identities intersect with others, to enable The concept of intersecting inequalities more nuanced understanding of people’s goes beyond vertical and horizontal needs, interests, capacities and experiences. inequalities2 (see Figure 1) to capture the combination of multiple disadvantages Intersectionality uses a language that that reinforce the discrimination and reflects these complexities, helping prevent exclusion of certain individuals and the simplification of complex local realities. groups (Kabeer, 2010; Norton et al., 2014). Highlighting complexities is essential to The most enduring forms of identity- understanding the contexts of inequality based inequalities are ascribed from and marginalisation, and what is required birth, such as race, caste and ethnicity, to build the resilience of individuals and and persist over generations (Norton et groups. Intersectionality acknowledges al., 2014). Intersectional approaches to that belonging to multiple disadvantaged vulnerability reduction and resilience- groups or identities compounds and building take historical, social, cultural complicates experiences of oppression and political contexts into account and in different contexts, which can entail have the potential to assist policies greater legal, social or cultural barriers. and practices in being more equitable For instance, marginalised groups may and inclusive, helping prevent vulnerable

2 Vertical inequality ranks everyone by some outcome (e.g. income, education, health). One example is the standard Gini coefficient, which measures the dispersion of outcomes within a given population. Horizontal inequality groups individuals according to some characteristic (e.g. ethnicity, spatial location, wealth quintile), and inequality is determined by the differences between these (e.g. average rural income compared to average urban income) (Lenhardt and Samman, 2015).

3 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Figure 1: Concepts of inequality

Group A

Everyone ranked Group A Group B Group C Group B Group C

Vertical inequality Horizontal inequality Intersecting inequality

Source: Lenhardt and Samman (2015).

and marginalised individuals and groups As such, natural hazards do not affect all from being left behind. Taking an equally, and people will have different intersectional approach thus helps provide experiences depending on the context a more radical, transformational, gendered in which they live (Carson et al., 2013). and power-sensitive framing to the Therefore, it is important to draw issue at hand (Jordan, 2018). attention to the way social differences and power differentials affect the nature of vulnerability and resilience (Huynh and 2.2. The relevance of Resurrección, 2014; Jordan, 2018). The intersectionality to understand vulnerability reduction and resilience- social vulnerability to disasters building discourse has historically been and climate change dominated by natural scientific and top-down technocratic approaches, Although a disaster may be triggered but there is increasing recognition of by a natural hazard, its effect on society these social dimensions (Djoudi et al., is grounded in the social system in 2016; Ravera et al., 2016a; Hackfort which it takes place. The root causes of and Burchardt, 2018). vulnerability to climate change and natural hazards are constructed over many years Intersectional approaches are highly and are influenced by social relationships, relevant to the commitments to determined by a number of intersecting inclusion made in international policy factors, such as gender, ethnicity, class, agreements and agendas. Inclusion is age and disability, coupled with situational a central commitment of the Sustainable variables, such as where people live, their Development Goals (SDGs) under the health, household composition and size ‘leave no one behind’ agenda. SDG 10 calls and the resources available to them to for reducing inequalities based on sex, age, cope. For example, in a Humanity and disability, race, class, ethnicity, religion Inclusion study (Handicap International, and opportunity (HelpAge International, 2015), 27% of persons with disabilities had 2018a; Twigg et al., 2018). Key to this is the experienced secondary trauma as a result prioritisation and fast-tracking of actions of being psychologically, physically or for those often exposed to intersecting sexually abused after the disaster. inequalities and most at risk of being

4 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 left behind (Samman and Stuart, 2017; engage with relevant stakeholders, Norton et al., 2014; Paz Arauco et al., 2014). including women, children and Indeed, without addressing inequality, youth, persons with disabilities, it will not be possible to attain the SDGs poor people, migrants, indigenous (Bhatkal et al., 2015). peoples, volunteers, the community of practitioners and older persons in the The goal of the Sendai Framework for design and implementation of policies, Disaster Risk Reduction is to ‘prevent plans and standards’ (ibid.). Similarly, new and reduce existing disaster the 2015 Paris Agreement acknowledges risk through the implementation of inclusion as key to action to address inclusive economic, structural, legal, climate change (UNFCCC, 2015). social, health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political Recent examples of practical guidance and institutional measures that on intersectional approaches include prevent and reduce hazard exposure the Accessibility, Attitude, Communication and vulnerability to disaster, increase and Participation (ACAP) framework preparedness for response and recovery, (van Ek and Schot, 2017) and the Age and and thus strengthen resilience’ (UNISDR, Disability Capacity Programme (ADCAP) 2015). The Framework also calls for good practice guide on embedding the disaster risk reduction practices that inclusion of older people and people with are ‘inclusive and accessible in order disabilities in humanitarian policy and to be efficient and effective… [and to] practice (ADCAP, 2018a). Some donors

Box 1: Benefits of intersectional approaches to resilience-building

Intersectional approaches appear to offer meaning or identity3 of vulnerable and a number of benefits to vulnerability marginalised groups or individuals reduction and resilience-building policy determines their vulnerability; and practice, including: • Highlighting how categories are changing and renegotiated under • Recognising the socially differentiated stressors such as climate change; nature of vulnerability and resilience; • Providing a more nuanced • Better integrating social heterogeneity, understanding of gender by avoiding inequalities and power into simplistic gender dichotomies; considerations of vulnerability • Yielding insights into people’s and resilience; experiences that non-intersectional • Unveiling explicit and implicit approaches may fail to reveal, assumptions about categories and or even mask, by analysing avoiding the notion that some core a single identity.

3 Often referred to as ‘essentialism’ – the notion that some core meaning or identity is determinate and not subject to interpretation. For example, an essentialist view of female vulnerability and victimisation might characterise women as marginalised victims of climate change, given their inherent biological ‘natural’ characteristics (Hackfort and Burchardt, 2018).

5 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 are also attempting to better understand ADCAP notes that, for organisations that intersecting inequalities and how to have implemented the humanitarian respond to these. For instance, the UK inclusion standards, looking at the Department for International Development intersections of gender, age and disability (DFID) Strategy for Disability Inclusive has meant reassessing their approach to Development 2018–2023 recognises that social identities and recognising their ‘People with disabilities face intersecting complexities (ADCAP, 2018a). To achieve and compounding forms of discrimination this, inclusion advisers have encouraged on the grounds of gender, sexuality, their organisations to recognise the impairment type, age, race, ethnicity, intersectionality of social identities and religion or belief, and location which all how different forms of discrimination contribute to disability-related exclusion’ affect each other. An inclusion adviser (DFID, 2018: 5); and DFID’s ‘personas’ for CBM International, which works on approach facilitates a better understanding inclusion of people with disabilities, of intersectionality and identifying people addresses this: ‘For us, disability is the left behind by development (DFID, 2017). key. That is not going to change. It is our mission and it inspires our policies and processes. But we now have cross cutting 2.3. Intersectionality and concepts of age and gender… So we are social heterogeneity looking at disability as an intersectional issue.’ Similarly, an inclusion adviser with Even among very vulnerable and Christian Aid Kenya says, ‘My biggest marginalised people, there is diversity learning is that most organisations of experience, capacities, strengths hesitate to start something new. So the and treatment, in practice and in idea should be to look for entry points in research, that need to be understood, our current work that link with or have harnessed and built upon for successful synergy with inclusion work’ (both in strategies and plans (Osborne, 2015; ADCAP, 2018a). Plan International, 2018). Individuals and groups are categorised as vulnerable Disadvantaged adolescent girls, who often without understanding how face multiple burdens associated with historical, social, cultural and political their gender as well as with their age, factors intersect to create their have little power in society and may vulnerability (Barbelet and Samuels, already have very little choice in their 2018). The use of generic categories and lives. A major disaster exacerbates some the homogenisation of people overlooks of the inequalities they face in everyday specific barriers facing people who are life – early marriage, lack of access to highly vulnerable and marginalised (Lovell education or health care, discrimination, and le Masson, 2014; ADCAP, 2018a). violence or abuse (Plan International, Moreover, reliance on generic categories 2013). Consideration of their specific needs can lead to results that do not adequately is therefore required (Save the Children, inform effective and inclusive vulnerability 2016; Forbes-Genade and van Niekerk, reduction and resilience building 2018). An intersectional approach can strategies (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016). improve understanding of how gender relationships are crosscut by other factors The characteristics of vulnerability and and further shaped by, for example, resilience are complex and dynamic knowledge, access to communication (Ishii and Pongponrat, 2018; Leap, 2018). networks, risk perception, awareness

6 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 and social mobilisation, which ultimately to this – for example work by van Aelst influence people’s ability to undertake and Holvoet (2016) on the intersections adaptive measures and build resilience of gender and marital status in accessing (Ravera et al., 2016b). climate change adaptation and that of Gaillard et al. (2017) on the role of gender Simplistic assumptions about categories minorities in disaster risk reduction. and vulnerability to climate change and climate variability – for example the The experiences of marginalised people assumption that only men are farmers are defined by many identity factors or that women are the poorest and (Oxfam, 2015). An intersectional approach most vulnerable – are seldom backed considers gender in relation to other up by careful empirical investigation. categories of identity in order to facilitate An intersectional approach would give a relational inquiry into different axes of deeper attention to the multiple facets inequality and social difference (Hackfort of farmers’ identities, for example, and and Burchardt, 2018). It situates gender as the way these come together to influence a way of thinking that goes beyond the vulnerability (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016). age- and sex-differentiated understanding Treating identity as one-dimensional of power relations and inequalities masks intra-group disparities and leads between men and women. to ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches, which inevitably leave the most marginalised Despite the recognised importance behind, as larger and more visible of taking gender into account, there groups are easier to identify. remains a lack of nuance and depth of understanding about how best to support different categories of women to cope 2.4. Beyond the gender binary with environmental shocks and stresses (Lovell and le Masson, 2014). Women Gender inequalities deeply shape are often represented as a homogeneous people’s vulnerability and resilience group and/or compared with men (as the to risks, but sometimes other social other homogeneous group) in policies differences, such as ethnicity, access and programmes that aim to build to education and geographic location, resilience (Huynh and Resurrección, may be equally or even more important 2014). Intersectional approaches in to understand who is at risk and who gender analysis are still lacking in most is able to gain protection (Carson et organisations. Djoudi et al. (2016) al., 2013; Carr and Thompson, 2014). conducted a review to determine whether Identifying gender as a single analytical gender was framed using an intersectional category does not adequately capture lens in climate change adaptation and the vulnerability and resilience of all found that intersectionality was not women and men (Carson et al., 2013; sufficiently considered and gender was Huynh and Resurrección, 2014). Gender basically approached from a simplistic intersects with other identities (Hackfort perspective of ‘men’ and ‘women’. and Burchardt, 2018; Jordan, 2018), yet Such representations fail to account for Iniesta-Arandia et al. (2016) found that the complex intersectional interactions the intersectionality of gender with other between gender and other factors, for identities was nearly absent in analysis of example those based on class, age, vulnerability, adaptation and resilience, education, disability, ethnicity, location although there are notable exceptions and sexuality (Carr and Thompson, 2014).

7 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Effective and responsive policies and it is not the most effective approach for programmes that aim to build resilience addressing vulnerability and resilience, need to take into account how gender for which a much broader framing is intersects with other categories of social required (Carr and Thompson, 2014; difference that are subject to disadvantage Owusu et al., 2018). A narrowly framed (Djoudi, 2015). Intersectionality exercises gender analysis of vulnerability is not as can chart the different issues, potentials effective as a wider effort to integrate and constraints at the different nodes several factors in the gender analysis, of intersection across social factors. asking how biological, social and cultural Such a disaggregated approach helps categories determine identities, interact deconstruct homogeneous categories and contribute to marginalisation and and recognise fundamental differences inequality (Djoudi, 2015). within and across categories (Carson et al., 2013). An overly narrow version of gender Organisations do not need to become mainstreaming may lead to ineffective experts on a wide range of identities: policies and the further marginalisation they can strengthen existing gender work of some women and men (van Aelst and using an intersectional approach (ADCAP, Holvoet, 2016). The message here is not 2018a). Mercy Corps’ gender approach to reduce the relevance or importance considers intersectionality in recognising of gender in vulnerability reduction and that complex crises affect men, women, resilience-building but to make it clear boys and girls differently and that that gender is just one identity that vulnerability to crisis is compounded by interacts with others (Carson et al., 2013; intersecting identities, such as age, caste, Hackfort and Burchardt, 2018). ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity (Mercy Corps, 2018). This While binary gender analysis may ease takes the ‘resilience of whom?’ question the design of policies and programmes, in Mercy Corps’ approach to resilience

Box 2: Case study – beyond gender to age and disability inclusion, Christian Aid

Christian Aid’s inclusion advisers have there have been a few projects with introduced age and disability inclusion a disability focus.’ The advisers responded strategically, using an intersectional by emphasising that the aim was not approach and building on the organisation’s for Christian Aid to become experts on primary work on gender. Initially, there was a wide range of identities, but rather some resistance, particularly from gender that the agency’s gender work would focal staff. Questions included: ‘Why do be strengthened using an intersectional you want to water down our gender work? approach to development and Is it strategic to include age and disability humanitarian work. Since then, training and if we don’t have enough capacity? We are webinars by inclusion advisers have taken not specialists… Historically, we haven’t a ‘gender plus’ approach, by including invested in these issues even though age and disability.

Source: ADCAP (2018a).

8 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 a step further. When considering the and programme development (Lovell and intersection of gender and resilience, le Masson, 2014; Ravera et al., 2016a; Rao most past research and programming has et al., 2017). Vulnerable and marginalised focused on the question of vulnerability. people have the right and agency to build ‘Resilience of whom?’ asks how some their own resilience. Such recognition is groups or individuals may be differently critical for building resilience: however, vulnerable. Four guiding questions few approaches and strategies recognise frame Mercy Corps’ resilience analysis, this agency. The resultant failure of helping understand how shocks and policies and programmes to address stresses threaten desired development the root causes of disaster risks further outcomes (ibid.). reinforces inequalities arising within local power structures, while leaving the challenges of climate change and natural 2.5. Avoiding victimisation, hazards unaddressed (Djoudi et al., 2016; understanding power Jordan, 2018; Smith et al., 2017). and enabling agency Moreover, the concept of resilience Presenting vulnerable and marginalised has been criticised for removing the people as passive victims of disasters inherently power-related connotation and climate change misinterprets the of vulnerability. Most resilience discourse institutional and political causes of is power-neutral and under-theorises vulnerability, obscures their role as social difference, socio-cultural contexts, agents of adaptation and resilience inequalities and the often-oppressive and often excludes them from policy ways in which the status quo is maintained

Figure 2: Mercy Corps’ approach to resilience

Resilience Resilience Resilience Resilience of what? of whom? to what? through what?

Understanding Developing Mapping shocks Identifying resilience system dynamics: vulnerability profiles: and stresses: capacities: • What needs to • Whose resilience • To what types of • What resources and become more capacity needs to shocks and stresses strategies do people resilient? be enhanced? should individuals, need to maintain • How are different households, progress, even people vulnerable to communities and when facing shocks differnent shocks and systems be resilient? and stresses? stresses, and why?

Source: Adapted from Mercy Corps (2018).

9 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 (Smith et al., 2017; Jordan, 2018). Further, power and inequalities as zero-sum there is a risk of classifying people games in which individuals and groups into fixed categories as ‘oppressed’ or are considered either privileged or ‘oppressor’ and neglecting the complexity oppressed, intersectional analysis and constant renegotiation of power emphasises the fact that individuals relations that produce and (re-)enforce and groups can experience both power inequalities (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014). and oppression simultaneously because of Recent work on resilience-building who they are and how they are positioned stresses the need to integrate inequalities vis-à-vis intersecting inequalities. and power into considerations of Intersectional approaches reject either/ how communities are reorganised in or conceptualisations of both power response to climate change and natural and inequalities (Djoudi et al., 2016; hazards (Bond, 2018; Leap, 2018). From Leap, 2018), instead enabling people an intersectional understanding, how to express and experience their own different individuals and groups relate capacity because such an approach creates to climate and disaster risks depends on a pathway of analysis enabling agency their position in context-specific power across and beyond social categories. structures based on social categorisations (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014). An intersectional approach can reveal agency and emancipatory pathways in Development is as much about power as it adaptation processes by providing a better is about technical solutions, as those who understanding of how the differential have power can support or hinder change. impacts of climate change shape, and are Vulnerability and resilience to climate shaped by, the complex power dynamics change and natural hazards must be of existing social and political relations conceived in part as political phenomena (Djoudi et al., 2016). Intersectionality and should not be isolated from power. gives policy-makers the ability to identify Thinking politically helps us identify where the complex interplays of structure power lies in practice and how decisions and agency across scales of space and take place. It can also help us understand time that present opportunities and how those who may seem relatively barriers for reorganising communities in powerless can still effect change (Hackfort response to socio-ecological disruptions and Burchardt, 2018; Haines and O’Neil, (Leap, 2018). Such an approach offers 2018). The power relations that determine a framework for better integrating power access to resources, information and the into considerations of vulnerability and availability of options and choices are resilience (ibid.). Inclusive practice should shaped by the identities and positions of lead to vulnerable and marginalised vulnerable and marginalised individuals people having greater voice and agency and groups (Djoudi et al., 2016). over the decisions that affect their everyday lives as well as their resilience An intersectional approach can analyse to environmental shocks and stresses. how power differentials work together This ensures that vulnerability reduction to produce differentiated vulnerabilities and resilience-building activities build on and shape the development of adaptation local knowledge, account for contexts and strategies to climate change and other power relations and facilitate ownership associated drivers of change for different and agency of those most likely to be categories of men and women (Owusu affected by environmental shocks and et al., 2018). Instead of approaching stresses (Smith et al., 2017).

10 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 3. intersectional approaches in policy and practice

Though vulnerability and resilience for a range of vulnerability reduction are largely shaped by social, gendered, and resilience-building strategies political and economic conditions and (Rao et al., 2017). Intersectional analysis processes, often the focus of programme offers an opportunity to highlight rather interventions is on climatic or other than disregard complexities, which is environmental drivers (Huynh and essential to understanding the contexts Resurrección, 2014; Rao et al., 2017). of inequality and marginalisation (although this is a potential barrier In relation to resilience thinking, a number to uptake by operational agencies). of factors come into play when a disaster strikes, making people vulnerable in Despite the benefits that intersectional different ways (Barbelet and Samuels, approaches offer, climate change 2018). While resilience can be important adaptation and disaster risk reduction for the functioning of systems, it may also research, policy and programming tend to maintain a system in an undesirable state. focus on vulnerable groups as a collective Indeed, pervasive aspects of a community, category, or on specific vulnerable and such as uneven gender relations, poverty marginalised groups. And yet the inclusion and exploitation, can be highly resilient of vulnerable and marginalised groups to change (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016). and individuals can bring more informed Resilience should not therefore be detached opinions and different perspectives to from the underlying causes of vulnerability. discussions of vulnerability and resilience, Failure to recognise the differentiated improving the effectiveness of policies nature of resilience risks exacerbating and programmes (UNISDR, 2017a; van Ek vulnerability instead of addressing its and Schot, 2017; Forbes-Genade and van underlying determinants (Jordan, 2018). Niekerk, 2018; Mercy Corps, 2018).

Intersectionality emphasises the For example, in the humanitarian sector, importance of context: intersections are policy, guidelines and programming are experienced in different ways from one increasingly addressing the inclusion context to another. For example, a study of older people with disabilities. This looking at the impact of inequalities involves not just addressing their needs associated with ethnicity found clearly for assistance and protection but also differentiated outcomes on women’s enabling them to participate in decision- education between Spanish speakers making on issues that affect them, so and indigenous groups in Bolivia and they can exercise their rights in full Peru, while in the Philippines ethnicity (HelpAge International, 2018b). Their appears to have had less of an impact inclusion is motivated by a range of on education outcomes (Lenhardt and humanitarian and good programming Samman, 2015). Given this multiplicity of principles: the need to uphold impartial contexts and everyday lived experiences, humanitarian action, support to the most the key lesson for policy, practice vulnerable, rights-based approaches and research is to be cautious about to humanitarian action, the ‘Do No generalising and to recognise the need Harm’ approach and commitments

11 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 to gender-sensitive programming or Policy-makers and operational agencies protection (Barbelet, 2018). Human are beginning to adopt intersectional rights commitments and commitments thinking and approaches. Various under the Inclusion Charter4 require approaches have been suggested. humanitarian organisations and donor For example, Jones et al. (2018) governments to ensure inclusion of highlight the case for policy and older people, including understanding programmatic action to ensure more how age intersects with sex and inclusive development in line with disability (Barbelet and Samuels, 2018; the SDGs. They suggest five key areas HelpAge International, 2018b). Barbelet for action to support adolescents (2018) on the South Sudan response with disabilities, including addressing found respondents from humanitarian intersecting disadvantages. Specific organisations felt the Inclusion Charter, recommendations include undertaking the leave no one behind ethos of the comprehensive mapping of programming SDGs and the work and advocacy of and services to identify gaps and solutions HelpAge had all contributed to progress. for the hardest-to-reach groups and

Box 3: Community Resilience Assessment and Action in Myanmar

The BRACED Alliance in Myanmar risk factors including people’s age or developed a method to collect and ethnicity. Therefore, each community- analyse data that can be used to assess based assessment was different and each the resilience of a community and to intervention was designed accordingly use this information to design specific to the context of the community. This interventions that will strengthen resilience approach can also generate trade-offs: (BRACED Alliance, 2015). Their method for practitioners involved in supporting built on established vulnerability and women’s rights, important resources capacity assessment tools to bridge (time, funding, human capacities) were disaster reduction and climate change therefore spent on assessing what the approaches. While the method was problems were, whereas women and girls informed by, and mindful of, existing social are subjected to numerous discrimination inequities in Myanmar, including gender and inequalities that are already known inequalities, the assessments also aimed and documented (see also Le Masson, not to make any assumptions about who 2016). In other words, an intersectional the most vulnerable groups were in each approach is necessary to tackle community. This involved looking beyond assumptions (who is most at risk?) but gender inequalities as a major factor of there is a risk that pervasive inequalities marginalisation, but also exploring other remain unchallenged.

4 Signed at the World Humanitarian Summit, the Inclusion Charter consists of five steps, on participation, data, funding, capacity and coordination, that humanitarian actors can take to ensure assistance reaches those most in need and supports them to move out of crisis and on to a path toward the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. See www.inclusioncharter.org

12 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 individuals and tackling invisibility reinforce (or otherwise influence) existing to ensure involvement in planning social relations; what programmes and and programming. policies are in place to bolster individual and community resilience; and what, if At a strategic level, agencies have any, examples there are of the resilience begun to adopt approaches to give of vulnerable and marginalised people staff, partners, governments and donors being enhanced by these interventions. a better understanding of how different Humanity and Inclusion requires field factors intersect to shape vulnerability teams to conduct disability, gender and and exclusion. HelpAge International age analysis and to explore how these (2018a) sets out a framework to stimulate three factors intersect to create exclusion better understanding of the intersection or marginalisation. Other context-specific of gender and ageing by international factors are also considered to evaluate the non-governmental organisations and exposure to risk of an individual, group governments. It recommends that or community by taking an intersectional governments adopt legal and policy approach (Bond, 2018). frameworks to ensure gender equality throughout the life course, and that funding Operational guidance incorporating bodies prioritise research on older age intersectional thinking is also beginning from a gender perspective. Bond (2018)’s to appear. Christian Aid’s inclusive recommendations for all stakeholders to programming guide (2017) recognises that address multiple discriminations include achieving the goal of ‘equality for all’ ensuring programmes clearly identify requires that responses be driven by a deep intersecting inequalities in order to reach understanding of intersecting inequalities the most marginalised and undertaking in different contexts and at different qualitative and contextual research to fully times. The ACAP framework approaches understand how inequalities intersect inclusion by focusing on four areas: and what their impacts are on vulnerable Access, Communication, Attitude and and marginalised individuals and groups. Participation. It then demonstrates how It is also recommended that donors support this framework can be applied to projects civil society organisations to strengthen and programmes. A project or programme their capacity to identify and address that fulfils the requirements (Box 4) is likely intersecting inequalities and share that to be successful in recognising diversity, learning (ibid.). removing barriers, ensuring participation and providing tailored approaches to Lenhardt and Samman (2015) present development (van Ek and Schot, 2017). a methodological approach to the measurement of intersecting inequalities ADCAP’s extensive good practice guide on and empirical evidence on their links to embedding inclusion of older people and human development. They demonstrate people with disabilities in humanitarian that tracking the outcomes of excluded policy and practice (2018a) includes the people is both possible and necessary need to address intersections between to ensure future progress in human social identities to embed inclusion within development is inclusive. Smith et al. programmes. Three recommendations (2017) outline questions that could be are made here: 1) identify entry points in used in investigating intersectionality. current work that can link with or have These should draw out existing social synergy with inclusion work and promote divisions and inequalities; how these inclusion as a cross-cutting concept;

13 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Box 4: Accessibility, Attitude, Communication and Participation Framework

Accessibility: Do project activities Communication: Do all people lead to removal of barriers? understand the messages delivered • Do practices address causes through project activities? of exclusion? • Are messages accessible by all? • Do they lead to relevant actions? • Are messages conveyed properly • Are they supportive of and in acceptable language? an enabling environment? • Will they lead to desired actions? • Will they be sustained? Participation: Can (and do) all people Attitude: Does the project recognise participate in all stages of the project, there are different people with different including decision-making? characteristics? Does it recognise • Do they have a voice? • That people face different issues? • Are they active? • That they face different barriers? • Are their decisions accepted • And that people have and incorporated? different strengths?

Source: Van Ek and Schot (2017).

2) highlight the intersections between the context. An intersectional approach social change agendas, such as gender should not attempt to include as many equity, and inclusion work and integrate analytical categories as possible or age and disability inclusion in social list all the factors that may determine change programmes to make them more vulnerability, but it should widen the inclusive; and 3) promote the message perspective and reflect upon what factors that addressing the equality agenda may be relevant. To do so, it may be requires addressing the diversity of needs necessary to select and prioritise the most and capacities. ADCAP has also recently important or relevant intersections of finalised a set of nine humanitarian social difference, while keeping the bigger inclusion standards for older people and picture in mind (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014; people with disabilities (ADCAP, 2018b) Osborne, 2015). Relatedly, intersectionality (see Box 5). emphasises that individuals and groups are often simultaneously (dis)advantaged In practice, an intersectional approach (Leap, 2018). By disputing predefined may have to foreground a particular categories and positioning individuals intersection as an entry point. and groups in the context of power Vulnerability and resilience are not shaped relations, it can refine, unpack and enrich by a single identity, and some identities understandings of vulnerability reduction will be less relevant than others in and resilience-building (Iniesta-Arandia determining vulnerability, depending on et al., 2016).

14 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Box 5: ADCAP’s Humanitarian inclusion standards for older people and people with disabilities

ADCAP aims to strengthen the capacity 5 Feedback and complaints: Older of humanitarian agencies to deliver people and people with disabilities an age- and disability-inclusive emergency have access to safe and responsive response using an intersectional feedback and complaints mechanisms. approach. ADCAP has recently finalised a set of nine humanitarian inclusion 6 Coordination: Older people and people standards for older people and with disabilities access and participate people with disabilities. in humanitarian assistance that is coordinated and complementary. 1 Identification: Older people and people with disabilities are 7 Learning: Organisations collect identified to ensure they have and apply learning to deliver more access to humanitarian assistance inclusive assistance. and protection that is participative, appropriate and relevant 8 Human resources: Staff and to their needs. volunteers have the appropriate skills and attitudes to implement 2 Safe and equitable access: inclusive humanitarian action, Older people and people with and older people and people with disabilities have safe and equitable disabilities have equal opportunities access to humanitarian assistance. for employment and volunteering in humanitarian organisations. 3 Resilience: Older people and people with disabilities are not negatively 9 Resource management: Older people affected, are more prepared and and people with disabilities can expect resilient and are less at risk as that humanitarian organisations are a result of humanitarian action. managing resources in a way that promotes inclusion. 4 Knowledge and participation: Older people and people with Through ADCAP, organisations have disabilities know their rights and changed their policies, practices and entitlements and participate in standard operating procedures to decisions that affect their lives. embed age and disability inclusion.

Source: ADCAP (2018b).

Methodological approaches for is DFID’s ‘personas’ approach, which establishing relevant categories enables a better understanding of in particular places and at particular intersectionality and identifying vulnerable project scales are therefore required and marginalised groups and individuals (Carr and Thompson, 2014). One example (DFID, 2017). DFID has also undertaken

15 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 work in Mozambique and Nigeria that decisions and reveal power dynamics seeks to profile target beneficiaries based and negotiation within the household on attributes such as gender and disability and the community, as well as barriers to and then evaluate whether development adaptation. Overall, the findings suggest and humanitarian programmes are an intersectional approach is useful and reaching such people and what the worth further exploration in the context barriers are if not (Bond, 2018). of climate change adaptation.

Intersectional analyses need to grasp Vulnerability assessments that examine how relations of power are manifested how gender intersects with other at different levels, from social structures factors are potentially valuable for to symbolic representation and identity understanding differing vulnerabilities construction (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014). and capacities, and informing effective Mixed approaches are also necessary. and responsive policies and programmes In their article on how to conceive and that aim to build resilience. In a review implement climate change adaptation of the literature on differences in how projects with a gender-transformative men and women experience climate lens, Ravera et al. (2016b) use a two- change-related problems, Djoudi (2015) tier interdisciplinary research approach conclude that evidence-based and in two contrasting research cases from context-specific gendered vulnerability Bihar and Uttarakhand, India. This assessments are needed to specifically integrates qualitative and quantitative identify not only different needs and methods and tools in order to implement perceptions but also different capacities an intersectional approach. The article to adapt. It is not clear how well these concludes that intersecting identities, such assessments capture intersectional as caste, wealth, age and gender, influence aspects in practice.

4. challenges to intersectional approaches

Tackling intersecting inequalities and intersectional tools or frameworks to power in practice is a challenge for identify areas of intersectionality, or most development actors (Bond, 2018). indeed to measure – and address – the While intersectionality is recognised as impact of intersectional approaches valuable for understanding intersecting (Smith et al., 2017). Methodological inequalities and power, its practical issues have been described as one applicability has been debated. For of the greatest remaining challenges instance, how can complex power in implementing intersectionality relations be studied in practice? frameworks (Iniesta-Arandia et al., Intersectionality is not associated with 2016). Facilitating the implementation of any specific methodology but attempts intersectional approaches to vulnerability have been made to outline methods reduction and resilience-building for applying it empirically (Kaijser and will require further methodological Kronsell, 2014). As yet, there are few innovations (Carr and Thompson, 2014).

16 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Intersectional analysis has been Research on the interconnectedness critiqued for understanding social between human societies and climate difference and inequality principally as change encompasses a multitude of identity categories and focusing on the disciplines and methods. Given this, small scale, while giving insufficient it is not feasible to provide a common consideration to large-scale societal intersectional methodology: the methods structures and axes of inequality always need to be adapted to the specific (Hackfort and Burchardt, 2018). Another context or case under study (Kaijser criticism is that the concept is too and Kronsell, 2014). There is currently abstract for the practical analysis of no one approach or defined set of societal interrelations (Kaijser and methods that represent best practices Kronsell, 2014; Hackfort and Burchardt, for seeking intersectional understandings 2018). Understanding how to respond of vulnerability and resilience relating in practice to the intersection between to climate and disaster risk (Thompson- people’s overlapping identities and Hall et al., 2016). Broader forms of experiences is a challenge. Most context analysis, tools and assessments development actors still target their that better capture intersecting risk and programmes at supporting certain key use that information to build long-term groups, in particular women, children resilience are required. Developing a tool and people with disabilities (Bond, 2018). that is both sensitive enough to measure It has proved difficult enough to keep specificities while being used in the field is the promotion of gender equality on the a challenge (Smith et al., 2017); however, agenda without additionally nuancing adding an intersectional dimension to the intersection between gender and age existing methods does not require new (Plan International, 2013). systems or approaches.

There is also a tension between Inclusion cannot be achieved without approaches that subscribe to the ethos addressing discrimination, marginalisation of ‘inclusion for all’, such as the ACAP and exploitation experienced in disasters framework (van Ek and Schot, 2017) and and at other times (Twigg et al., 2018). It the need to target specific disadvantaged is necessary to identify which vulnerable groups, particularly those facing and marginalised individuals and groups intersecting inequalities (Lenhardt and are being excluded, based on analysis Samman, 2015). Principles of equity and of power dynamics as a result of social inclusion are often considered an ‘add-on’ differences. Such analysis must also in practice rather than central to effective identify how categories of social difference programme design; and conceptualisations and forms of disadvantage interact and of resilience and associated language tend intersect. Overcoming these entrenched to exclude issues of inclusion (Smith et barriers to inclusion is a major challenge al., 2017; Bond, 2018). For example, one for operational agencies; however, reason the needs of older people with an intersectional approach can help disabilities are often not well met is the identify the voices being heard and those disconnect between organisations and being neglected (Osborne, 2015; Smith programmes focused on older people and et al., 2017). those focused on people with disabilities. As such, older people risk being left out A review by Paz Arauco et al. (2014) of efforts towards disability inclusion and of countries that have made significant vice versa (HelpAge International, 2018b). progress in addressing intersecting

17 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 inequalities reveals four enabling factors: guarantees, opportunity enhancements social movements demanding changes in and developmental affirmative actions; the ‘rules of the game’; political trajectories and specific policies and programmes that and processes of constitutional change that show commitment to reducing intersecting facilitate and actualise these changes; social inequalities over time.

5. disaggregated data collection and analysis

Key to understanding intersectionality is gender, disability, geography and age. collecting the right data, including data However, this needs to be supplemented disaggregated by sex, age and disability, by intersectional analysis and data which is a critical step towards making disaggregation that makes visible those better informed decisions and allocating people who may be most marginalised resources more effectively (van Ek and in specific contexts and are not included; Schot, 2017). This helps determine these groups and individuals will vary differential impacts and expose hidden from one context to the next and may trends and problems that may lead to also be deliberately ‘uncounted’ for vulnerable and marginalised people political reasons (Bond, 2018). Monitoring being left behind (IFRC, 2018). It can of disaster impacts under the Sendai help establish the scope of the problem, Framework does not require national enable the identification of marginalised governments to disaggregate data by sex, populations with specific needs and age, disability or income: disaggregation capacities and make them more visible is merely ‘desirable’ (UNISDR, 2017b). to policy-makers (van Ek and Schot, 2017; National census data are ‘generally not Smith et al., 2017). However, if it is not disaggregated by gender, age, or type of done systematically, the complexities of disability, resulting in a lack of reliable at-risk communities will not be properly statistics and data’ (Plan International, understood (HelpAge International, 2017: 9) and between countries. While the 2018b). Furthermore, limited disaggregated logic for collecting data disaggregated by data may hinder the inclusion of certain sex, age and disability is increasingly well vulnerable and marginalised groups and understood and accepted, categorisation individuals in programming (Barbelet and and consistency may vary (ADCAP, 2018b). Samuels, 2018). In practice, disaggregation Data on different people’s facets are rarely does not often progress beyond the combined to create a more holistic picture gathering of sex-disaggregated data of the situation and needs of particular towards critical interrogation of the more vulnerable and marginalised people complex impacts of intersecting dimensions (IFRC, 2018). of identity vulnerability (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016). A number of operational agencies, including HelpAge International (2018a, Donors and governments are increasing 2018b) recognise the need for more investment in the disaggregation disaggregated data collection at all of programme data in the areas of levels, to inform research and policy

18 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 development and enable more inclusive SDG indicators and support the analysis programming. HelpAge International of intersecting inequalities (Bond, 2018; (2018b) also argues for building on older Save the Children, 2018). Figure 3, taken people’s capabilities in humanitarian from GRID, shows child mortality rates response. Save the Children’s Group- in Uganda, first by gender and then by based Inequality Database (GRID) takes gender and location (urban/rural). The an intersectional approach. It is based example reveals the difference between on a dataset of disaggregated data on girls’ under five mortality rate in rural child outcomes for nearly 80 developing areas (48 per 1,000) and in urban areas countries (Save the Children, 2018). The (40 per 1,000), and the difference between data tools provide a visual representation boys’ under five mortality rate in rural of the inequalities that persist between areas (59 per 1,000) and in urban areas different groups of children across key (47 per 1,000).

Figure 3: Child mortality rate in Uganda disaggregated by gender and location

GROUP Male CHILD POPULATION 909,261 60 GROUP Male/Rural VALEU 57.0 [51.9–62.1] CHILD POPULATION 747,466 58 VALEU 59.0 [54.7–63.3] Male 56

54 National average 52 GROUP Female

50 VALEU 52.0 [46.5–57.5] GROUP Female/Rural CHILD POPULATION 737,057 48 VALEU 48.0 [46.8–49.2]

Female GROUP Male/Urban 46 CHILD POPULATION 161,794

GROUP Female VALEU 47.0 [28.2–65.8] 44 CHILD POPULATION 899,625 VALEU 47.0 [45.4–48.6] 42

Under-five mortality rate per 1,000 live births per 1,000 mortality rate Under-five GROUP Female/Urban 40 CHILD POPULATION 162,568 VALEU 40.0 [30.2–49.8]

Source: Save the Children (2018).

6. conclusions

Only through inclusive development in vulnerability reduction and resilience- that includes the most vulnerable building policies and practice. They help and marginalised in society will the us understand the differentiated nature of international community be able to vulnerability and resilience, challenging deliver on the SDGs. Intersectional the implementation of ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches offer a number of advantages approaches, and draw attention to the

19 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 social root causes of vulnerability, creating marginalisation. However, the practical a more nuanced picture. Policies and applicability of such approaches has been programmes that fail to address the root debated, and few tools or frameworks causes risk further reinforcing inequalities. exist. Examples of intersectional approaches in practice include the ACAP Intersectional approaches offer framework (van Ek and Schot, 2017) a framework for integrating social and the ADCAP good practice guide on heterogeneity into considerations of embedding inclusion of older people and vulnerability and resilience by assisting people with disabilities in humanitarian in unveiling explicit and implicit policy and practice (ADCAP, 2018a). assumptions about predefined social categories. They also offer an analytical Intersectional approaches can refine, tool for understanding and responding unpack and enrich the understanding to the way gender intersects with other of vulnerability and resilience, enabling identities. Power is also a defining feature policies and programmes to be more of intersectional analysis. Intersectional inclusive and ensure no one is left behind. approaches illuminate how different vulnerable and marginalised individuals This requires some methodological and groups relate differently to climate innovations. There is no one approach and disaster risk, given their situatedness or defined set of methods that represent in power structures based on context- best practice for obtaining intersectional specific and dynamic categorisations. understandings of vulnerability and Furthermore, instead of viewing resilience relating to climate and disaster individuals and groups as either privileged risk: methods will always need to be or oppressed, intersectional analysis adapted to the specific context or emphasises how they can experience both case. Although experience has shown power and oppression simultaneously. that adding an intersectional approach to existing approaches is beneficial, Intersectionality provides a more refined developing a tool that is both sensitive way of reflecting these complexities and enough to measure specificities while being in doing so prevents the overgeneralisation used in the field is a challenge, given the or simplification of local realities that may lack of data and standard methodological misinform policy and practice. Highlighting approaches, in a context of limited complexities is essential to understanding resources and limited local capacities. the contexts of inequality and Some trade-offs may be necessary.

7. recommendations for policy and practice

• Policy-makers and operational agencies policy formulation and implementation. working on vulnerability reduction and This can reduce the risk of producing and resilience-building should make more use reinforcing unequal power relations relating of intersectional approaches to better to access to resources and decision-making account for inequalities and power in structures. The first step towards achieving

20 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 inclusive development is identifying who and more effective context analysis, are the excluded or marginalised groups or programme design and implementation. individuals in each context so that no one The rollout of the ACAP framework is left behind (Bond, 2018). involved civil society and community- based organisations representing Dalit • For more effective and inclusive groups, disabled people’s organisations development, organisations should and women’s groups in the process, and consider the wider context beyond their this was a major factor in its success target groups and how interventions could benefit everyone, as intersectional • There is a need to raise awareness approaches can support multiple vulnerable of intersectionality and intersectional or marginalised groups and individuals. approaches in research, policy and programmes targeting vulnerable and • Policies and programmes should marginalised people. Intersectionality start by identifying the reasons why is beginning to be more widely some people are more at risk and recognised; however, leadership is how their social identities influence required from donors and organisations their vulnerabilities. to bring intersectionality into focus in vulnerability reduction and • Establishing consortia of organisations resilience-building. More research on that represent different vulnerable and intersectional approaches to vulnerability marginalised groups can bring together reduction and resilience-building like-minded actors and influence donors is required to inform and influence to create space and promote an enabling governments, United Nations agencies environment to support intersectional and development stakeholders – approaches in wider vulnerability in particular qualitative and contextual and resilience research, policies research to fully understand how and programmes. inequalities intersect and affect people in different contexts. • More collaboration between organisations is needed to operationalise • Better data are essential. intersectional approaches. In doing The disaggregation of data must so, expertise on different elements be strengthened and go beyond of intersectionality can be shared the gathering of sex, disability, geography and invisible groups and individuals and age data towards supporting analysis identified, with their needs and priorities of more complex intersecting dimensions promoted in programme design and of vulnerability and make visible those implementation. Programmes should people who are most marginalised in be designed in an overlapping way to specific contexts. Better collection and use target intersectional inequalities. of disaggregated data is essential, both for understanding intersecting inequalities • Empowerment of local actors is an and for targeting interventions that build important way to ensure greater inclusion resilience for all.

21 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 references

ADCAP (Age and Disability Capacity Programme) Carr, E.R. and Thompson, M.C. (2018a) Good practice guide: embedding (2014) ‘Gender and climate change inclusion of older people and people with adaptation in agrarian settings: disabilities in humanitarian policy and practice. current thinking, new directions, ADCAP. London: HelpAge International and research frontiers’ Geography Compass 8: 182–197 ADCAP (2018b) Humanitarian inclusion standards for older people. ADCAP. London: Carson, M., Remling, E. and Johanssen, HelpAge International A. (2013) Institutionalizing gender equality in disaster risk reduction. Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. (2005) ‘Scoping Stockholm: MSB and SEI studies: towards a methodological framework’ Journal of Social Research Christian Aid (2017) ‘Christian Aid and leave Methodology 8: 19–32 no one behind’. Programme Practice Paper. London: Christian Aid BRACED Alliance (2015) Community Resilience Assessment and Action Handbook. BRACED. Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing www.braced.org/resources/i/?id=127f0e24- the intersection of race and sex: a Black a44a-4468-abca-96db853f6558 feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist Barbelet, V. (2018) ‘Older people in politics’ University of Chicago Legal Forum displacement: falling through the cracks 140(1): 139–167 of emergency responses’. ODI Report. London: ODI Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, Barbelet, V. and Samuels, F. with G. Plank and violence against women of colour’ (2018) ‘The role and vulnerabilities of older Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299 people in drought in East Africa: progress, challenges and opportunities for more Daudt, H., Mossel, C. and Scott, S. inclusive humanitarian response’. ODI (2013). ‘Enhancing the scoping Report. London: ODI study methodology: a large, inter- professional team’s experience with Beerens, R.J.J. and Tehler, H. (2016) ‘Scoping Arksey and O’Malley’s framework’. the field of disaster exercise evaluation – BMC Medical Research Methodology a literature overview and analysis’. 13: 1–48 International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19: 413–446 Davis, K. (2008) ‘Intersectionality as buzzword: a sociology of science perspective on Bhatkal, T., Samman, E. and Stuart, E. (2015) what makes a feminist theory useful’ ‘Leave no one behind: the real bottom Feminist Theory 9(1): 67–85 billion’. ODI Report. London: ODI DFID (UK Department for International Bond (2018) Leave no one behind: how Development) (2017) ‘Using human-centred the development community is realising design at DFID’. London: DFID. the pledge. London: Bond https://diytoolkit.org/tools/personas

22 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 DFID (2018) ‘Strategy for Disability Inclusive HelpAge International (2018a) Development 2018–2023. London: DFID. ‘Transforming gender relations in an ageing world’. Policy Discussion Paper. Djoudi, H. (2015) ‘At the intersection of London: HelpAge International inequities: lessons learned from CIFOR’s work on gender and climate change HelpAge International (2018b) ‘Missing adaptation in West Africa’. Gender Climate millions: how older people with disabilities Brief 4, Bogor: CIFOR are excluded from humanitarian response’. London: HelpAge International Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., Vaast, C. et al. (2016) ‘Beyond dichotomies: gender and Huynh, P.T.A. and Resurrección, B.P. (2014) intersecting inequalities in climate change ‘Women’s differentiated vulnerability and studies’ Ambio 45: 248–262 adaptations to climate-related agricultural water scarcity in rural central Vietnam’ Forbes-Genade, K. and Niekerk, D. (2018) Climate and Development 6: 226–237 GIRRL power! Participatory action research for building girl-led community resilience in IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross South Africa. Action Research, 12 February and Red Crescent Societies) (2018) World disasters report, leaving no one behind. Gaillard, J. C., Sanz, K., Balgos, B. C., Geneva: IFRC Dalisay, S. N. M., Gorman-Murray, A., Smith, F., and Toelupe, V. A. (2017) Iniesta-Arandia, I., Ravera, F., Buechler, S. et al. Beyond men and women: a critical (2016) ‘A synthesis of convergent reflections, perspective on gender and disaster. tensions and silences in linking gender and Disasters, 41(3), 429–447 global environmental change research’ Ambio 45: 383–393 GFDRR (Global Fund for Disaster Reduction and Recovery) and World Bank (2018) Ishii, K. and Pongponrat, K. (2018) ‘Social Disability inclusion in disaster risk vulnerability of marginalized people in management: promising practices and times of disaster: case of Thai women in opportunities for enhanced engagement. Japan tsunami 2011’ International Journal Washington, DC: GFDRR and World Bank of Disaster Risk Reduction 27: 133–141

Hackfort, S. and Burchardt, H.J. (2018) ‘Analysing Jones, N., Presler-Marshall, E. and socio-ecological transformations – a relational Stavropoulou, M. (2018) ‘Adolescents approach to gender and climate adaptation’ with disabilities: enhancing resilience Critical Policy Studies 12(2): 169–186 and delivering inclusive development’. ODI GAGE Report. London: ODI Haines, R. and O’Neil, T. (2018) ‘Putting gender in political economy analysis: Jordan, J.C. (2018) ‘Deconstructing resilience: why it matters and how to do why gender and power matter in responding it’. Practitioners’ Guidance Note. to climate stress in Bangladesh’ Climate and Gender and Development Network Development: 1–13

Handicap International (2015) Disability Kabeer, N. (2010) Can the MDGs provide in humanitarian context: views from a pathway to social justice? The challenge affected people and field organisations. of intersecting inequalities. New York: UNDP Advocacy Study for the WHS

23 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Kaijser, A. and Kronsell, A. (2014) ‘Climate Paz Arauco, V., Gazdar, H., Hevia-Pacheco, P. change through the lens of intersectionality’ et al. (2014) ‘Strengthening social justice to Environmental Politics 23: 417–433 address intersecting inequalities post-2015’. ODI Report. London: ODI Leap, B. (2018) ‘Not a zero-sum game: inequalities and resilience in Sumner, Plan International (2013). Because I am a girl, Missouri, the Gooseless Goose Capital the state of the world’s girls 2013, in double of the World’ Gender, Place and Culture jeopardy: adolescent girls and disasters. 25(2): 288–308.Le Masson, V. 2016. Worthing: Plan International Gender and Resilience: from theory to Practice. BRACED working paper. Plan International (2017) Let me decide and London: BRACED thrive: global discrimination and exclusion of girls and young women with disabilities. Lenhardt, A. and Samman, E. (2015) Worthing: Plan International In quest of inclusive progress: exploring the intersecting inequalities in human Plan International (2018) Adolescent girls in development. London: ODI crisis: voices from South Sudan. Worthing: Plan International Lovell, E., and le Masson, V. (2014) Equity and inclusion in disaster risk reduction: building Rao, N., Lawson, E.T., Raditloaneng, W.N. et resilience for all. London: CDKN and ODI al. (2017) ‘Gendered vulnerabilities to climate change: insights from the semi-arid regions of Mercy Corps (2018) Priming resilience with Africa and Asia’ Climate and Development: 1–13 intra-household change, addressing gender norms. Portland, OR: Mercy Corps Ravera, F., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Martín-López, B. et al. (2016a) ‘Gender perspectives in Norton, A., Mariotti, C., Shepherd, A. resilience, vulnerability and adaptation and Kabeer, N. (2014) ‘What can be done to global environmental change’ to address intersecting inequalities? Ambio 45: 235–247 Social justice post-2015’. ODI Report. London: ODI Ravera, F., Martin-Lopez, B., Pascual, U. and Drucker, A. (2016b) ‘The diversity of Osborne, N. (2015) ‘Intersectionality and gendered adaptation strategies to climate kyriarchy: a framework for approaching change of Indian farmers: a feminist power and social justice in planning and intersectional approach’ Ambio 45: 335–351 climate change adaptation’ Planning Theory 14(2): 130–151 Samman, E. and Stuart, E. (2017) ‘Defining “leave no one behind”’. Briefing Note. Owusu, M., Nursey-Bray, M. and Rudd, London: ODI D. (2018) ‘Gendered perception and vulnerability to climate change in Save the Children (2016) Every last child. urban slum communities in Accra, Ghana’ London: Save the Children Regional Environmental Change (in press) Save the Children (2018) ‘Save the Children’s Oxfam (2015) Building gender sensitive resilience Group-based Inequality Database (GRID)’. through women’s economic empowerment https://campaigns.savethechildren.net/grid lessons learnt from pastoralist women in Ethiopia. Oxford: Oxfam

24 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Smith, F., Simard, M., Twigg, J. et al. (2017) UNISDR (2017b) ‘Technical guidance for ‘Disability and climate resilience: a literature monitoring and reporting on progress review’. London: Leonard Cheshire in achieving the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Thompson-Hall, M., Carr, E.R. and Pascual, Reduction: collection of technical U. (2016) ‘Enhancing and expanding notes on data and methodology’. intersectional research for climate change Geneva: UNISDR adaptation in agrarian settings’ Ambio 45: 373 Van Aelst, K. and Holvoet, N. (2016) Twigg, J., Kett, M. and Lovell, E. (2018) ‘Intersections of gender and marital ‘Disability inclusion and disaster risk status in accessing climate change reduction: overcoming barriers to progress’. adaptation: evidence from rural Briefing Note. London: ODI Tanzania’ World Development 79: 40–50

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Van Ek, V. and Schot, S. (2017) ‘Towards Convention on Climate Change) (2015) inclusion: a guide for organisations ‘Paris Agreement’. Bonn: UNFCCC and practitioners’. Mission East, Light for the World and ICCO. UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster https://missioneast.org/sites/default/ Risk Reduction) (2015) ‘Sendai Framework files/2018-01/Towards%20Inclusion%20-%20 for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’. A%20guide%20for%20organisations%20 Geneva: UNISDR %26%20practitioners.pdf

UNISDR (2017a) ‘Consideration of marginalized and minority groups in a national disaster risk assessment’. Geneva: UNISDR

acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Fred Smith (Sightsavers), Jessica Cooke Maarten van Aalst, Virginie le Masson, (Plan International), Ken Bluestone (Age Colette Benoudji, Fred Smith and International), Nigel Ede and Madeleine Christophe Belperron for their review Green-Armytage (British Red Cross), of the paper; Charlotte Rye for her Madeleine McGivern (HelpAge), Maggie help with production; Roo Griffiths for Ibrahim (World Vision) and Maureen copyediting; and Soapbox for designing Fordham (University College London) the paper. They would also like to for participating in the ODI workshop thank Christophe Belperron (Save the on intersectionality, vulnerability and Children), Daniel Morchain (Oxfam), resilience, and for their expert insights.

25 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 annex 1: methodology

The approach of this report was exploratory searches were conducted in academic in nature and relied upon qualitative databases in order to develop a broad research methods. Evidence was gathered understanding of the literature, where in three phases. First, academic databases it might be found and the terminology were searched using a scoping method so used (Beerens and Tehler, 2016). as to provide a comprehensive overview of the scientific literature on intersectionality Step 2. Identifying relevant articles: and intersectional approaches specifically The academic databases Academic in relation to vulnerability reduction and Search, Scopus and Web of Science were resilience-building. Grey literature was then chosen. All three are large databases acquired from the websites of development of peer-reviewed scientific literature and humanitarian organisations. Finally, and cover a wide range of research additional grey literature was gathered fields. The search string was developed by sending requests through the research from the research question’s three key team’s network of contacts working on words (intersectionality, vulnerability vulnerability and marginalisation in climate and resilience) and based on a Boolean and disaster risk contexts. approach. As these key words have synonyms, searching these words alone Scoping study: The aim of scoping studies would be insufficient. Therefore, a list is to map the literature on a particular of synonyms was compiled by searching topic or research area and to provide thesauruses and reflecting on the results an opportunity to identify key concepts, of the quick-scan searches of Step 1. The gaps in the research and types and sources synonyms were systematically combined, of evidence to inform research, policy and and the various combinations of search practice (Daudt et al., 2013; Beerens and terms were used to search the academic Tehler, 2016). As the aim of this paper is databases and the number of results was both to advance understanding and to noted for each query. Synonyms that encourage improved policy and practice, generated irrelevant results were removed the use of a scoping study is well justified. from the list. Additionally, ‘inequality’ The scoping study was conducted in was paired with intersectionality, given August 2018 using an adapted version the close relationship to intersecting of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) inequalities. Relatedly, because of the framework as a guideline. wider research context of equity and inclusion to this report, ‘inclusion’ was Step 1. Identifying the research question: also paired with intersectionality. Finally, The broad and open research question: the search terms ‘climate’ and ‘disaster’ ‘what is known in the scientific literature were added to restrict the results to about intersectionality, vulnerability contexts of climate and disaster risk. and resilience?’ was chosen in order to generate breadth of coverage (decisions on Search terms: how to set parameters can be made once intersect* OR inequal* OR inclus*; some sense of the volume and general vulnerab* OR marginal*; scope of the field has been gained). Before resilien* OR adapt*; starting the systematic search, quick-scan disaster OR climate.

26 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Figure A1: The scoping study process

Research question: ‘what is known in the scientific literature about intersectionality, vulnerability and resilience?’

Web of Academic Scopus Science Search (Elsevier) (Thomson (EBSCO) Reuters)

Search string: TITLE-ABS-KEY (intersect* OR inequal* OR iclus*) AND (vulnerab* OR marginal*) AND (resilien* OR adapt*) AND (disaster OR climate)

228 523 668

Duplicate removal (-169)

1,250

Title analysis (-1,078)

Websites 172

Abstract analysis (-148) Key words: intersectionality AND intersectional approaches AND vulnerability AND resilience 24

Executive summary analysis

13 53

Limited Network Executive summary analysis 16 to last 5 years (-7)

46

27 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 Figure A1 shows the search string and Grey literature: 24 websites of the initial number of results 228, 523 development and humanitarian and 668 (total 1,419). The results were organisations were searched for exported to Excel and 169 duplicates grey literature using the key words: were removed. This left 1,250 articles intersectionality, intersectional for the study selection. approaches, vulnerability and resilience. The papers were Step 3. Study selection: Articles that shortlisted using a similar method to were clearly irrelevant as determined the academic literature. Twelve papers through the analysis of their titles were were selected. Requests were also sent removed and borderline cases were through the research team’s network retained for further analysis. This led to of contacts working on vulnerability the removal of 1,078 articles. The abstracts and marginalisation in climate and of the remaining 172 articles were read disaster risk contexts (including and assessed against the inclusion criteria individuals who took part in an ODI described below, which was devised ad informal workshop on intersectionality, hoc, based on increasing familiarity with the vulnerability and resilience in June literature. This led to the removal of 148 2018 (Annex 2). Fifteen papers were articles. The research team decided to limit shared and incorporated into the the articles to within the past five years. literature review. Nineteen articles were selected for the scoping study from the scientific literature. Step 4: Analysis: Articles were analysed in-depth to identify Inclusion criteria: intersectional approaches to 1. Article describes intersectionality, vulnerability reduction and resilience- intersectional approaches and/or building. Through reviewing the articles intersecting inequalities; and placing their key findings into 2. Article focuses on vulnerable and/or categories, themes were identified. marginal groups; The articles were also assessed using 3. Article examines vulnerability reduction, the Ctrl-F function to identify any resilience-building and/or adaptation; explicit or implicit references to 4. Article is set in the wider context keywords of the search string of disaster and/or climate risk. and the emerging themes.

annex 2: workshop notes on intersectionality, vulnerability and resilience

ODI’s Risk and Resilience Programme vulnerability reduction and resilience- invited selected experts to an informal building in the context of climate workshop on Thursday 7 June 2018 and disaster risk, with a view to to explore intersecting inequalities advancing understanding of this and intersectional approaches to issue and encouraging improved

28 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 practice and policy. The core question 1. Intersectionality and discussed was: intersectional approaches: Meanings and understandings How can effective intersectional approaches to vulnerability reduction and resilience- • Participants agreed that the relevance building be developed and integrated and importance of intersectionality into policy and programming? and intersectional approaches could be framed within the ‘leave no one behind ODI’s Risk and Resilience Programme’s agenda’, a commitment central to the new strategy on ‘Equity and Inclusion SDGs. ‘Leave no one behind’ means in a Multi-Hazard Context’ seeks ending extreme poverty in all its forms to promote equitable and inclusive and reducing inequalities among groups access to all systems, processes and individuals (Samman and Stuart, and policies that support people’s 2017). Key to this is the prioritisation escape from poverty and longer-term and fast-tracking of actions for the development outcomes in the contexts most vulnerable and marginalised of environmental shocks and stresses, groups (ibid.) – groups that will often in a way that leaves no one behind. be exposed to intersecting inequalities. This is also a core strand of the Building For this agenda to be successfully Resilience and Adaptation to Climate implemented, policies and programmes Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) must recognise that certain groups Knowledge Management work under are deliberately excluded, which can the Gender and Social Inclusion Theme. exacerbate their vulnerability and This work will consider intersectionality exposure to climate and disaster risks. in vulnerability reduction and resilience- building across practice, exploring the • Intersectional approaches to value of intersectional approaches, vulnerability reduction and resilience- the opportunities and challenges these building take historical, social, present to operational agencies and cultural and political contexts into strategies for adopting them in their account, recognising that vulnerable policies and programming. and marginalised groups are neither homogenous nor static. Different Ten participants working on vulnerability identities, conditions, contexts and and marginalisation in climate and forms of oppression, discrimination disaster risk contexts from academic and marginalisation intersect and people institutions and operational organisations will experience these exclusionary attended the workshop. Expertise on processes in various ways at different gender, age (older persons, children and stages of their lives. young people), disability and poverty were brought in, while recognising other • Intersectional analysis cuts across intersecting factors. Participants shared simple categorisation to unpack their experiences and ideas through vulnerabilities and resilience. discussions and explored opportunities However, disaster risk reduction for future work on this issue. The meeting and climate research policy and was planned and facilitated by John Twigg programming continue to focus on and Emma Lovell (ODI) and written up by ‘vulnerable groups’ as a collective Daniel Chaplin. The following key issues category, or on specific vulnerable and ideas were discussed. and marginalised groups.

29 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 • Participants acknowledged that, on identities perceived and ascribed while there is general recognition that to them, with subsequent impacts different vulnerability factors intersect, on policies and programming. few interventions specifically target This ignores the hidden and multiple groups at risk to intersecting inequalities identities people have. Dealing with in policy and practice. There is a tendency the complexity of identity is a challenge; to ‘list’ vulnerabilities rather than however, it must be recognised. It was examining intersectionality. suggested that, rather than attempting to capture all the identities, drivers • Intersectional approaches require going of exclusion should be identified to beyond inclusivity to examine interactions understand the barriers facing vulnerable between the different vulnerability factors and marginalised groups. that vulnerable and marginalised groups are exposed to in order to understand • Participants acknowledged the context and inform interventions that addressing vulnerability and so that no-one is left behind. marginalisation was inherently complex and programming must be ‘chaotic and messy’5 to be real. It was also recognised 2. Lessons from experience that it was not pragmatic for programmes of addressing vulnerability to attempt to cover everything and there and marginalisation in would always be limitations. Instead, disaster contexts the focus should be on the process of attempting to capture the complexity • As highlighted in the section above, of a context rather than the end result: many organisational attempts to be ‘It is not about trying to do everything inclusive simply list vulnerable and at the same time but rather recognising marginalised groups or target broad groups, that to do what you want to do, you have without examining how vulnerability factors to have clarity of vision.’ affecting those groups interact. As a result, some vulnerable and marginalised groups • There is a conflict between the ability of are ‘invisible’. Ultimately, if interventions organisations to remain impartial and abide fail to be inclusive and fail to recognise by humanitarian standards while targeting that marginalised groups are not specific vulnerable and marginalised homogenous or static, they will not be groups as guided by their mandates. effective. By examining the interactions Organisations that target specific groups of vulnerabilities, the ‘ultra-vulnerable’ can are at risk of excluding other groups, thus be targeted. Understanding intersectionality not fulfilling humanitarian commitments. and utilising intersectional approaches can Participants questioned the need for enable policies and programmes to be more vulnerability-specific organisations inclusive and ensure they are reaching in the current system; however, they those who are most at risk. acknowledged that historically these organisations were formed as they sought • Participants agreed there was to include vulnerable and marginalised a tendency by individuals and groups that were often excluded in policies organisations to ‘box’ people based and programming.

5 All quotations from here in relation to the workshop are anonymised quotations from participants who attended.

30 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 • Lack of understanding of the capabilities 3. Experiences of intersectional that people who are in need of assistance approaches and lessons learned have often leads to discriminatory interventions. Participants agreed that • Participants agreed that, in order interventions, policies and programming to be able to design programmes that must treat vulnerable people with dignity account for intersectionality, the local and recognise their existing capabilities, context must be adequately understood, and the fact that they have the right to be and that working across different consulted and to participate in decision- contexts was a challenge in terms of making over issues that affect them. replicating approaches. For intersectional Relatedly, vulnerability reduction and approaches to be operational, they resilience-building approaches can remain must be context-specific and recognise disempowering: ‘It is more complicated the different political, economic, social, than viewing vulnerable groups as being cultural and environmental contexts passive and in need of assistance.’ within which people live that constrain or enable people living there in different • It was discussed that, while empowering ways and at different times. Context and devolving responsibility to local actors analysis should be one of the first steps in humanitarian contexts will strengthen in designing policies and programmes, their capacity and will likely make and this can be achieved through tools interventions more context-specific and such as community vulnerability and relevant, it is important also to recognise capacity assessments (VCAs). While the that power dynamics still exist and need for VCAs is not new, participants discrimination and exclusion often play out acknowledged that understanding the at the local level. As such, there is a role for intersecting inequalities that people can external actors in promoting impartiality face was necessary for effectively targeting and ensuring the most marginalised or at the most vulnerable and marginalised, and risk in society are not left behind. must be considered in every context.

• Organisations are increasingly • Intersectionality and intersectional understanding the need to use approaches can assist in bringing intersectional approaches when targeting attention to power and oppression in vulnerable and marginalised groups. Some vulnerability reduction and resilience- organisations are starting to change their building. Participants noted that policies as a result. For instance, HelpAge’s addressing power dynamics through humanitarian model is based on pillars policies and programmes would always of protection, inclusion and advocacy. be political, ‘both with a big P and a little Others are deprioritising areas not within p’. Participatory approaches can help us their expertise and collaborating with understand power dynamics and design other organisations that have expertise in equitable and inclusive interventions. those areas. However, intersectionality and intersectional approaches to vulnerability • Capturing contextual discrimination reduction and resilience-building should be the first step for inclusive remains a new area for the majority resilience programming. While some of organisations and is a challenge for vulnerable and marginalised groups organisations that are trying to respond to will exist everywhere and others will multiple donor requirements, within short not, ‘there will always be contextually timelines and with limited funding. discriminated people’. By using

31 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 intersectional approaches to understand a checklist to ensure that at least at this discrimination, programmes can be a minimum level, vulnerability factors made more effective. Not doing so risks are taken into consideration’. However, bringing about collateral damage, doing participants raised a concern related to more harm than good and deepening the adding more to the toolkits of actors gap between groups. Participants agreed who are already struggling to use a range that discrimination could be used as of tools to be inclusive, and reinventing a lens to understand intersectionality. the wheel.

• Relatedly, intersectional approaches • The intersectional tool, ACAP, presented help us address the blanket exclusion of in the practitioner guide ‘Towards inclusion’ vulnerable and marginalised groups. Certain (Van Ek and Schot, 2017) was highlighted groups may be ‘invisible’ as dimensions of as a useful tool, which examines four a person’s experiences are hidden. Using key drivers of exclusion (attitude, generic labels masks important invisibilities. communication, access and participation) Intersectional approaches ‘help to make in order to be able to understand the the invisible visible’. They can also promote situation rather than attempting to capture a ‘process of discovery’ as recognition and all the identities of vulnerable individuals. inclusion of a vulnerable or marginalised group may reveal additional, previously • It was discussed how the use of broad invisible, groups. categories like ‘men’ and ‘women’ was insufficient to understand the complexity • Attention was drawn to how often of gender. This was linked to the issue of data collection tools are not designed identity and who defines and applies the to capture intersectional inequalities categories. Relatedly, using ‘sex’ in data effectively. An example of age ranges collection tools reduces disaggregation ending at 60+, which can be an issue in to simply ‘male’ and ‘female’. middle- and high-income countries, was shared. There was also an example of • Participants noted that gender a gender-based violence data collection could be considered an entry point for tool that ended at 49, thus ignoring intersectionality. Intersectionality has its the intersection of gender and old age. roots in gender, thus it should continue Participants also agreed that the collection to be a big part of the debate and of disaggregated data (e.g. by sex, age, moving the agenda forward. disability, ethnicity and socio-economic status) was often encouraged but not • It was agreed that, for programming to mandatory. This often results in only the be more inclusive and effective, systemic bare minimum being collected, meaning change is needed to ensure intersecting that different identities and aspects of equalities are considered and that no social vulnerabilities are not captured. one is left behind. Furthermore, when data are disaggregated, the interactions are rarely examined or • Participants suggested that agencies used to inform policies and programmes. must be more propositional to donors to ensure these approaches are taken into • Intersectional tools for analysis (along account in a meaningful and realistic way; with relevant skills) are critical for putting the length of existing funding streams intersectionality into practice. They was highlighted as a critical barrier would give actors ‘a frame of reference, to achieving such change.

32 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 4. Opportunities for that represent different vulnerable intersectional approaches and marginalised groups.

• Participants discussed the opportunity • Intersectional approaches are useful for intersectionality to encourage in understanding and supporting life interdisciplinary research that ‘examines course approaches. Different intersecting the spaces in-between, through multiple factors will influence individuals at lenses, to generate something new’. different periods in their lifetime and Such research would help us understand will recognise the different needs and intersecting inequalities. Relatedly, the kind of approaches required. This intersectionality can help promote a more demonstrates the common ground of social element in resilience policies and organisations’ target groups. Participants programmes, presenting an opportunity noted that many organisations were to change the narrative, as resilience is implicitly using intersectional approaches often treated as a technical issue. in their programmes and policies.

• Intersectionality was recognised as • Organisations should link with becoming increasingly important for local organisations such as disabled influencing governments and donors, people’s organisations and older especially with respect to inclusion, as ‘it people’s associations in communities allows you to demonstrate the relevance to ensure inclusivity and more effective of your issue in relation to other issues’, context analysis, programme design and resulting in more effective influencing. implementation. If organisations do not Nevertheless, participants felt there was have expertise in working with specific still a lack of awareness among government vulnerable and marginalised groups, they actors when it came to intersectional issues. should partner with local organisations that do. Participants questioned • Intersectional approaches that address why organisations should have to the needs of one vulnerable or marginalised be a ‘jack of all trades’. group can support other marginalised or at-risk groups. Organisations should therefore consider the wider context 5. Barriers to beyond their target groups and how intersectional approaches interventions could benefit everyone. This would result in more effective and • Organisations target specific vulnerable inclusive development. Participants agreed and marginalised groups as outlined that intersectionality was useful as ‘it in their mandates. Participants gave allows people to understand that you are examples of organisations that, even when not just talking about your own issues. It supposedly collaborating on programmes, allows you to demonstrate how your issue focused on specific vulnerability factors affects their issue’. and did not consider how they intersected with vulnerability factors targeted by • Establishing consortia is necessary in the partner organisations – the result of order to work on intersectionality, as an ‘organisational mind-set problem’. it is to work effectively on resilience. Consortia should be supported by • Participants discussed how the organisational partnerships to influence humanitarian system was not set up donors and should include organisations to support intersectional approaches

33 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 in humanitarian crises, as organisations • Participants discussed how cost was that target specific groups are influential often cited as a barrier to addressing in the cluster system. Organisations intersectionality; however, there is a lack are therefore at risk of excluding other of data and evidence to support the claim vulnerable and marginalised groups. that tackling intersecting inequalities is too expensive: ‘It is an easy excuse’. • Space for organisations to utilise Ultimately, ‘if poverty is to be eradicated intersectional approaches in vulnerability it will probably be expensive’. reduction and resilience-building is limited owing to donor structures. Donors • Participants highlighted that the have their own mandates and interests language of intersectionality was too and, if these are not aligned with what academic and often regarded as jargon – organisations identify as necessary that is, it is not an operative term. for a programme to be equitable and Fundamentally, it is also a term that inclusive, they will not receive funding does not come from the vulnerable and or they will not be able to give as much marginalised groups it is seeking to assist. prominence to the identified needs or priorities in order to meet donor demands. Participants described how 6. Conclusions and next steps some donors were also not socially progressive and did not recognise • There is a need to raise awareness the importance of intersectionality. of intersectionality and intersectional approaches in research, policy and • Identifying where intersectionality programmes targeting vulnerable and fits within organisations is a challenge. marginalised groups. Intersectionality Relatedly, determining who from is beginning to be more widely recognised; the organisation would take the lead however, leadership is required from in policies and programmes related donors and organisations to bring to intersectionality remains difficult to intersectionality into focus in vulnerability clarify. Participants outlined the risk that reduction and resilience‑building. only the individual designated as the lead on intersectionality would focus on • More collaboration between intersectionality. Conversely, participants organisations that target vulnerable and agreed that, in reality, the assumption marginalised groups is needed in order to ‘everyone can do it’ never works. operationalise intersectional approaches. In doing so, expertise on different elements • Time is a constraint in both of intersectionality can be shared and humanitarian and development contexts invisible groups identified and their needs and represents a barrier to intersectional and priorities promoted in programme approaches, which require time to design and implementation. Programmes understand the complexity of different should be designed in an overlapping contexts. Especially in humanitarian way to target intersectional inequalities. responses, there is often a ‘trade- Currently, this is inhibited by the off between speed and complexity’. rigidity of donor funding, organisational Participants also criticised the length of mandates and existing politics. vulnerability reduction and resilience- building funding streams and programmes • Consortia can bring together likeminded as often being too short in term. organisations and influence donors to

34 resilience intel 12 – april 2019 create space and promote an enabling • The growing attention being given to environment in which intersectional disability in international development approaches can be supported in wider (e.g. the DFID-hosted Global Disability vulnerability and resilience research, Summit in 2018) is an opportunity to policies and programmes. bring intersectionality into the discussion on equity and inclusion. It should be • Universal design – that is, interventions highlighted that effective disability that are accessible by all and benefit programmes need to emphasise that ‘no broader society – should be emphasised. one is just someone with a disability’; This is especially relevant with regard there will always be other intersecting to influencing donors. Universal design inequalities to consider. approaches that benefit a specific vulnerable group are not exclusive to that • Ultimately, if intersectionality is not group and can in fact benefit everyone considered, objectives and goals are at risk in society – meaning they can be more of not being achieved as vulnerable and inclusive and cost-effective. marginalised groups will be left behind. references for annex 2

ADCAP (Age and Disability Capacity Van Ek, V. and Schot, S. (2017) ‘Towards Programme) (2018) Humanitarian inclusion inclusion: a guide for organisations and standards for older people. ADCAP. London: practitioners’. Mission East, Light for the HelpAge International World and ICCO. https://missioneast.org/ sites/default/files/2018-01/Towards%20 Samman, E. and Stuart, E. (2017) Defining “leave Inclusion%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20 no one behind”’. Briefing Note. London: ODI organisations%20%26%20practitioners.pdf

The BRACED Knowledge Manager generates evidence The views presented in this paper are those of the and learning on resilience and adaptation in partnership author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views with the BRACED projects and the wider resilience of BRACED, its partners or donor. community. It gathers robust evidence of what works to strengthen resilience to climate extremes and Readers are encouraged to reproduce material from disasters, and initiates and supports processes to ensure BRACED Knowledge Manager reports for their own that evidence is put into use in policy and programmes. publications, as long as they are not being sold The Knowledge Manager also fosters partnerships commercially. As copyright holder, the BRACED to amplify the impact of new evidence and learning, programme requests due acknowledgement and a copy in order to significantly improve levels of resilience of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link in poor and vulnerable countries and communities to the original resource on the BRACED website. around the world.

Cover image: © UN Photo/Kibae Park Designed and typeset by Soapbox, www.soapbox.co.uk