“Light Touch” Approaches” are Deficient - Shifting Gender Norms is Intensive

The experience of practitioners is full of encounters which often involves recognizing the impact of gender inequality and negative gender norms on project outcomes. This holds truth regardless of whether the project is in the humanitarian or development context.

This experience is seen across various sectors, including projects related to the environment, economic empowerment, sexual and reproductive health rights, politics, leadership, engineering, science, and technology. Diverse norms consistently play an influential role.

Development actors are aware that if norms are ignored, project results could be compromised. Unfortunately, this awareness is not usually met with sufficient measures to counter the negative influence of certain social and gender norms.

Despite substantial evaluative evidence demonstrating that gender integration could maximise development impact, commitment to fully embrace this approach is often lacking.

#GenderConversations often encounters situations where actors just want to do the bare minimum. In some circles, this is known as taking a “light touch” approach.

 In contrast, actors who are committed to achieve both project outcomes and promote gender transformation, often invest intensively to bring about this desired change. They devote adequate resources to ensure that gender transformation is achievable through standalone programs or carefully integrated projects.

This significant investment is not solely about financial resources and budgets. It also includes adequate allocation of human resources, as well as the development and skilled adaptation of models to spur transformation.

Furthermore, it requires commitment to ensure that what is designed and planned is implemented as intended. Robust implementation involves monitoring using appropriate tools that track change. It includes identifying unintended consequences and generating solutions to ensure that transformation stays on course.

Evaluations are designed with tools to capture not only program outcomes but also transformation in norms, meaning it is not business as usual.

The lessons learned from the evaluations should inform the next cycle of programming so that sustainability is ensured.

We have also observed that holistic models that have interventions targeting the individual, the relations around the individual, the broader social structure, local, sub-national, national, and global advocacy are more sustainable. These are complex models that require substantial investments and commitment. But if we are to pursue gender transformation, whether through stand alone or gender integrated programs, such commitment is unavoidable.

Therefore, while gender and social norms transformation are possible, the pathways are complex and require robust investment. This investment should involve implementers who roll-out models to the greatest extent possible. This means tools must be available to the last mile actors at community and household levels.

The monitors should ensure we are on track. Evaluators and researchers should assess what works so that scarce resources are not put to waste. Committed donors should judiciously invest in the solutions and governments should scale-up working ones.

In this endeavour, organisations targeting norms transformation especially Women Led and Women Rights Organisations should be prioritised beyond the current levels of funding so that they have budgets to do what they are committed to do.