Social forum

GBV, VAW&G, SRHR

GBV, VAW&G, SRHR

by Pallavi Panda -
Number of replies: 3

Hello everyone,

I would like to open a discussion on how we, as practitioners in the gender equality and training space, are currently addressing the intersections between Gender-Based Violence (GBV), Violence Against Women & Girls (VAW&G), and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) in our training, advocacy, and policy work.

To align our dialogue, here are the key terms as defined by various UN frameworks:

  • Gender-Based Violence (GBV): Any harmful act (physical, sexual, emotional) perpetrated against a person's will that is based on socially ascribed gender differences between males and females. 

  • Violence Against Women and Girls (VAW&G): Any act of gender based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life. 

  • Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR): The right of all individuals to make informed decisions about their bodies, sexuality, and reproductive lives, free from discrimination, coercion, and violence. It includes access to contraception, safe abortion, maternal healthcare, and comprehensive sexuality education. 

While each of these areas is urgent and vast on its own, are we doing enough to integrate them into a holistic, trauma-informed, survivor-centered, rights-based approach or are we inadvertently siloing them in our programming and training modules?

Questions to consider and discuss here:

  • In your experience, how well are GBV, VAW&G, and SRHR interconnected in training for gender equality?

  • What challenges do you face in bringing a rights-based, intersectional lens to these topics especially in conservative or resource-constrained settings?

  • Are there specific tools, frameworks, and/or participatory methodologies you’ve used that successfully bridge these areas?

  • How do we ensure that our trainings are inclusive of marginalized populations including LGBTQIA+ persons, adolescents, and people with disabilities?

I would also welcome any resources, case studies, or training materials others have found helpful in connecting these dots meaningfully.

Let’s share, question, and learn together because if we want to advance gender equality meaningfully, we need to center the lived experiences of those most affected by these intersecting injustices.

Looking forward to your thoughts and wisdom.

Most sincerely
Pallavi.


In reply to Pallavi Panda

Re: GBV, VAW&G, SRHR

by Tiphaine Bueke Bolombo -
Hello Pallavi,
Thank you for starting this discussion, which caught my attention. I only saw it yesterday. Please find my contributions below. I work in the humanitarian field and have on several occasions worked with experts in other cross-cutting themes to strengthen gender mainstreaming in humanitarian action. These include accountability to affected people, localization, PSEA, protection, and AoR GBV.

Questions to consider and discuss here:

  • In your experience, to what extent are issues related to gender-based violence, violence against women and girls, and sexual and reproductive rights linked in gender equality training?
This depends largely on the synergies of action and collaboration developed with colleagues who have expertise in these areas, but also on the entry points or commonalities that justify joint action.
I work in humanitarian aid and search through strategic, technical, and operational documents produced at the country level and by the IASC to find those that allow us to bridge the gap between our different subjects. My key tool is the IASC Gender Age Marker, which includes ten measures of gender equality, one related to the prevention of GBV and the others to community engagement. This is the starting point for the collaboration I am developing with both the Protection cluster and the GBV AoR.

  • What challenges do you face in addressing these issues from a rights-based and intersectional perspective, particularly in conservative contexts or where resources are limited?
The main challenge is to achieve a common understanding and harmonize the views of the various stakeholders. The context may be conservative, but by digging deeper, it is possible to find allies. A very thorough analysis of the context is needed to find a way to address these issues. These are usually older women or women with a certain social status, prominent figures, influential men.
Given the limited resources, calls for contributions have been made so that the various actors in the area can make financial or in-kind contributions. Training rooms are provided by an organization in the area where the activity takes place, and training materials (notepads, flip charts) are also contributed by humanitarian organizations. Catering during the days of the activity is the largest expense that needs to be financed. Another format is to organize half-day training sessions once a week until the subject is exhausted.

  • Are there any specific participatory tools, frameworks, and/or methodologies that you have used that have successfully linked these areas?
In the various areas where I have been deployed, humanitarian coordination frameworks or mechanisms have enabled me to implement joint actions. I worked with the Gender in Humanitarian Action Network, the PSEA Network, the Protection Cluster, the GBV AoR, the National NGO Coordination, the Accountability to Affected Persons Working Group, and the Localization Working Group. The detailed presentation of the IASC Gender and Age Marker (GAM) gender equality measures beyond the GAM code and reference number is the main element of success with the other themes. I can also add the various gender roadmaps developed by countries that highlight the links with these themes, and the organization of activities with translation into local languages.

  • How can we ensure that our training courses include marginalized populations, particularly LGBTQIA+ individuals, adolescents, and people with disabilities?
This is quite challenging in general; they may be present but underrepresented. To reach them through training, I organize targeted training courses.
That's my contribution to this discussion. I'm available if you want to discuss this further.
Regards,
Tiphaine
In reply to Tiphaine Bueke Bolombo

Re: GBV, VAW&G, SRHR

by Joviah Obiero -
Hello Tiphaine,

Thank you for sharing your experiences from the humanitarian field. I really agree with your point about the importance of finding synergies and common entry points across themes—it’s often through collaboration with other clusters and networks that we can make the strongest impact.

Your emphasis on context analysis and identifying allies in conservative settings also resonates with me. I’ve found that building on the influence of trusted community figures can open doors to conversations that might otherwise be very difficult.

I also appreciate your mention of the IASC Gender and Age Marker and country-level gender roadmaps—these are indeed practical tools for aligning actors and ensuring GBV, VAW&G, and SRHR are addressed more holistically.

Looking forward to learning more from your experiences and others in this forum.

Warm regards,
Joviah
In reply to Pallavi Panda

Re: GBV, VAW&G, SRHR

by Joviah Obiero -
Hello Pallavi,

Thank you for opening such an important and timely discussion. I agree that GBV, VAW&G, and SRHR are too often addressed in silos, even though in practice they are deeply interconnected. In my experience working on training and advocacy, a few reflections come to mind:

1. Interconnectedness in training:
When these issues are addressed holistically, participants often recognize how violence, lack of bodily autonomy, and limited access to health services reinforce one another. For instance, comprehensive sexuality education sessions that also address power dynamics and consent have been much more effective in shifting attitudes than when topics are treated separately.

2. Challenges faced:
One major barrier is resistance in conservative contexts, where discussions on SRHR are sometimes perceived as culturally sensitive or inappropriate. Another challenge is capacity and resources—trainers may not feel equipped to address the depth of trauma-informed facilitation needed when GBV survivors are part of the audience.

3. Promising practices and tools:

Participatory approaches like storytelling and community dialogues have helped bridge the technical and the personal, allowing participants to see the overlaps between these issues.

Frameworks such as CEDAW and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a useful entry point, since they already highlight these interlinkages.

Incorporating survivor-centered methodologies (e.g., safety planning, confidentiality principles) into training ensures participants feel safe and respected.

4. Inclusion of marginalized groups:
Representation matters—using case studies, facilitators, and examples that reflect the realities of LGBTQIA+ persons, adolescents, and persons with disabilities makes the training more relevant and accessible. Partnering with organizations led by these groups has been invaluable.

I would love to hear from others about any specific participatory methodologies or toolkits that they have found especially effective in weaving GBV, VAW&G, and SRHR together.

Warm regards,
Joviah