Guidance

UK International Climate Finance guidance note for delivery partners: integration of gender equality, disability and social inclusion, May 2025

Published 16 May 2025

1. Introduction

This note sets out guidance for the integration of Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) into all UK International Climate Finance (ICF) programming. It sets out the UK Government’s ambition on GEDSI for the ICF and outlines a common approach to deliver this ambition across UK ICF programmes. The intended outcome is increased consistency and quality of GEDSI integration across the ICF portfolio and measurable improvement in UK ICF reporting against the OECD DAC Gender Equality and OECD DAC Disability markers.

ICF ambition on GEDSI is in line with the UK’s ambition for a world free from poverty on a liveable planet. It will support a more inclusive and locally-led approach to development, working in partnership with the Global South, to ensure that the ICF delivers positive outcomes for women and girls, indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), people with disabilities, people living in poverty and people that are otherwise marginalised and impacted by climate change and biodiversity loss. This is aligned with the UK’s international commitments made through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)^{[footnote 1]} and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)^{[footnote 2]} to deliver gender-responsive and inclusive climate and nature finance. 

2. What is GEDSI and why is it important to UK ICF?

Taking a GEDSI-responsive approach is about understanding the social context in which ICF programmes operate, ensuring that programmes deliver positive outcomes for climate, people and nature, whilst minimising any potential negative impacts – by delivering on poverty reduction, addressing inequalities and doing no harm.

Gender equality, disability and social inclusion (GEDSI) comprises of 3 closely related and equally important concepts:

• gender equality aims to remove the unequal power relations between different gender identities in the pursuit of equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities for all
• disability inclusion is the process of ensuring the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in all their diversity and ensuring the promotion and mainstreaming of their rights
• social inclusion is the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society, improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity

Social characteristics (such as disability, socio-economic status, migration and displacement status, ethnicity, race, age, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity) combine to influence who has power and access to resources, who makes decisions, and who loses out. Social characteristics are intersectional, and multiple forms of discrimination can compound each other, creating additional barriers. A failure to consider these dynamics risks exacerbating inequalities and causing negative impacts and harms.

Evidence suggests that a high ambition approach on GEDSI is central to the achievement of UK ICF’s international biodiversity and climate goals^{[footnote 3]}. A failure to pursue a GEDSI responsive approach could undermine ICF’s core objectives to drive the clean energy transition, protect and restore nature and support adaptation and resilience to climate impacts in developing countries. Further detail on the interaction between ICF’s core objectives and GEDSI considerations and examples of sector best practice and tools are presented in Annex 2 of this document.  

3. UK ICF ambition on GEDSI

To deliver the UK ICF’s ambition on GEDSI:

• all ICF programmes must comply with the UK’s legal obligations and international commitments. This means that all ICF programmes must contribute to “reducing poverty in a way which is likely to contribute to reducing inequality between persons of different gender.” (International Development Act 2014). ICF programmes must give due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equal opportunities and foster good relations between those that share protected characteristics^{[footnote 4]} and those who do not (Equality Act, 2010). The principle of “do no harm” must be central to any UK ICF intervention^{[footnote 5]} and ICF programmes should align with the UK’s pledge under the Sustainable Development Goals to “leave no-one behind”, prioritising the needs of those left furthest behind, who have least opportunity and who are the most excluded
• all new ICF programmes should be designed to be “GEDSI empowering” at a minimum. This would usually equate to scoring 1/’Significant’ or 2/‘Principal’ under the OECD DAC Gender Marker^{[footnote 6]}
• all new ICF programmes should consider the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities in their design and delivery to ensure a more transformative approach. Relevant programmes should be marked as “significant” or “principal” under the OECD DAC disability policy marker to indicate that they are inclusive of persons with disabilities
• the ICF portfolio will follow a twin-track approach to GEDSI, whereby as well as GEDSI mainstreaming, an increasing portion of ICF programmes will be designed to be “GEDSI transformative” This would usually equate to scoring a 2/principal under the OECD DAC Gender Marker^{[footnote 7]}

ICF GEDSI ambition scale

There are 3 levels of increasing ambition for programmes: 

• minimum compliance: programmes that address basic needs and vulnerabilities of women and marginalised groups  

• GEDSI empowering: programmes that increase equal access to assets, resources and capabilities for women and marginalised groups 

• GEDSI transformative: programmes that address unequal power relationships and seek institutional and societal change

4. Why UK ICF prioritises GEDSI

There are 3 principal reasons why tackling inequalities is critical to the effective delivery of the ICF portfolio:

• to better deliver climate and biodiversity goals and commitments
• to ensure climate and environment equity
• to meet our legal obligations

1. To deliver climate and biodiversity goals and commitments

Mainstreaming GEDSI considerations supports better delivery of ICF programmes, resulting in positive outcomes and impacts for people and nature. A growing body of evidence suggests that an inclusive approach to climate and nature programming supports the attainment of climate and biodiversity goals^{[footnote 8]}. For example, local community engagement has been found to be critical to achieving positive ecosystem restoration^{[footnote 9]}. Environmental sustainability and gender equality share many of the same drivers: inclusive decision-making; effective participation; recognition of the value of diversity; engaged and empowered citizens and support for universal human rights^{[footnote 10]}. 

Women, girls, youth, people with disabilities, people living in poverty, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and other marginalised people are critical agents of change in efforts to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss^{[footnote 11]}. Tackling the barriers they face to participation can help ensure that climate and conservation initiatives benefit from their skills, knowledge and leadership at all levels. For example, women’s socially ascribed roles can mean that the essential knowledge and expertise they hold, that is required for climate change mitigation and adaptation, risks being overlooked. Where Indigenous Peoples and local communities hold secure governance rights to forests, communities provide better protection and management than even legally protected areas^{[footnote 12]}, deforestation rates are lower, and carbon storage can be increased^{[footnote 13]}. Biodiversity indicators show significantly lower declines in land managed by Indigenous Peoples^{[footnote 14]}, and these lands are at least as diverse or more so than protected areas^{[footnote 15]}.  

The UK has made multiple public commitments to address these inequalities and deliver gender-responsive and inclusive climate and nature finance. The UK’s endorsement of the Paris Agreement, Glasgow Climate Pact, Convention on Biological Diversity frameworks^{[footnote 16]} and UNFCCC Gender Action Plan all emphasise the need to empower women and marginalised groups to ensure gender-responsive and disability inclusive action. The COP26 Just Transition Declaration, under the UK Presidency, commits governments to inclusive climate action, including racial equality and social cohesion. The UK also endorses the Principles for Locally Led Adaptation, which support a shift towards programmes, funding and practices to being increasingly owned by local partners.

2. To ensure equity and human rights are at the heart of climate and environmental action

Those that are least responsible for the climate and biodiversity crises are often those that suffer the worst impacts.  Women, girls and marginalised groups including people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and people living in poverty in developing countries are more likely to die in a climate disaster, be displaced by climate change, or die from pollution^{[footnote 17]}. Gendered inequalities also mean that women, girls, people living in poverty, rural communities, sexual and gender minorities, and Indigenous Peoples and local communities are disproportionately affected by biodiversity loss^{[footnote 18]}.

These groups are not inherently more vulnerable, but intersections between gender, power dynamics, socio-economic structures and societal norms result in the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation being experienced more severely. For example, gender inequality in access to land rights in many countries puts women and girls in a situation of vulnerability, with women making up less than 20% of the world’s landholders^{[footnote 19]}. Indigenous Peoples and local communities live on an estimated half of the world’s land, but their tenure rights are only recognised and protected on around 10% of this land^{[footnote 20]}. Around one third of jobs in developing countries are directly dependent on biodiversity and ecosystem services with rural, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities particularly dependent on nature for their livelihoods and subsistence needs^{[footnote 21]}.   

Development progress and gains in addressing inequality have been further set back by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, on top of global crises related to climate, conflict and the economy. A failure to consider these dynamics in ICF programming risks exacerbating existing inequalities and preventing the achievement of climate and biodiversity goals.

3. To meet our legal obligations

ICF programmes have a legal duty to demonstrate compliance with the International Development Act (2002) including the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, which states that before providing development assistance, the Minister needs to demonstrate that it is ‘likely to contribute to reducing poverty in a way which is likely to contribute to reducing inequality between persons of different gender’.

Similarly, the UK is committed to ensuring the rights of persons with disabilities as underpinned by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities.

ICF programmes should also disaggregate data by gender, age, disability and geography to meet UK commitments to the Inclusive Data charter and Government Departments have a legal duty to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010) which requires all public bodies to give due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, and advance equal opportunities and foster good relations between those that share protected characteristics and those who do not^{[footnote 22]}.

5. Safeguarding against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH)

Safeguarding means avoiding harm to people or the environment as outlined in the FCDO’s Programme Operating Framework. ICF’s GEDSI ambition is inextricably bound by this. Prioritising social and environmental safeguarding, and SEAH, is a requirement for all ICF programmes and is critical to ensuring that climate and biodiversity programmes ‘do no harm’^{[footnote 23]}. A critical part of this is ensuring that ICF Delivery Partners have robust policies and approaches to safeguarding, and government departments monitor their compliance to HMG requirements on an ongoing basis.

HMG is committed to prioritising safeguarding against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment (SEAH) in the international aid sector. SEAH has its roots in the power imbalances that are an inherent risk in ODA programming where goods and resources for programme stakeholders are managed by aid actors who hold the power over decision-making and resource allocation and can abuse that power for personal gain. This GEDSI guidance is focused on ensuring that a strong understanding of social and gendered power imbalances informs programme design, procurement, implementation and monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL). As such, this document should be applied alongside FCDO’s Safeguarding Guidance.

6. GEDSI ambition for ICF programmes

The standards for GEDSI mainstreaming throughout the programme cycle are summarised in the ICF GEDSI ambition section below. This should serve as a checklist for ICF programmes to ensure GEDSI considerations are being effectively mainstreamed at each stage of the programme cycle. Further detail on each GEDSI mainstreaming requirement can be found in the annexes of this document.

All ICF programmes must be designed and delivered in such a way as to achieve compliance with the UK’s international commitments and domestic legal obligations – this is defined in the table below as “Minimum Compliance”. A failure to achieve HMG minimum standards on GEDSI is classified in the table below as “GEDSI unaware”.

In line with UK ICF’s high ambition approach on GEDSI, all new ICF programmes should be designed to be “GEDSI empowering” (usually equating to an OECD DAC Gender Marker score of ‘1/significant’ and “significant” under the OECD DAC Disability Marker), and a portion of ICF programmes should be designed to be “GEDSI transformative” (usually equating to scoring a 2/principal under the OECD DAC Gender Marker and “principal” under the OECD DAC Disability Marker).

GEDSI ambition

This section describes levels of integration across the programme cycle, from GEDSI unaware to GEDSI transformative. For each level of integration, programme characteristics are described that relate to:

• analysis and design
• procurement and calls for proposals
• engagement and participation of women, girls and marginalised groups
• implementation
• team capacity and organisational commitment
• monitoring, evaluation and learning
• communication
• identification of safeguarding risks
• mitigation of safeguarding risks

GEDSI unaware (failure to achieve HMG standard)

Analysis and design

• lack of gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis means that interventions may fail to acknowledge the impacts of gender and broader exclusion
• this may lead to interventions that exacerbate existing inequalities and barriers, create new ones, or fail to deliver on UK commitments for GEDSI responsive programming

Procurement and calls for proposals

• procurement processes and calls for proposals for grants fail to include any GEDSI scoring criteria

Engagement and participation of women, girls and marginalised groups

• inadequate consultation with women and girls and marginalised groups, including people living in poverty, Indigenous Peoples, people with disabilities and local communities, that are affected by the programme directly or indirectly

Implementation

• no GEDSI action plan or strategy in place
• the programme workplan, management information and contractual key performance indicators fail to consider GEDSI

Team capacity and organisational commitment

• lack of expertise or resourcing dedicated to GEDSI in the programme delivery team
• delivery or implementing partners lack a strong organisational commitment, policies, culture, incentives or resources to effectively integrate GEDSI and meet HMG safeguarding standards

Monitoring, evaluation and learning

• programme monitoring, evaluation and learning plan fails to consider or integrate GEDSI considerations
• this may include a lack of disaggregated data and GEDSI specific outputs, outcomes and impacts
• evaluations fail to consider GEDSI impacts
• programme learning activities do not include GEDSI considerations

Communication

• lack of GEDSI sensitivity in programme communications with target populations, the general public or programme stakeholders
• risk of GEDSI discriminatory language

Identification of safeguarding risks

• lack of gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis may result in safeguarding risks not being identified or adequately mitigated

Mitigation of safeguarding risks

• safeguarding policies and procedures are not well established
• project stakeholders are not aware of available channels to raise concerns

Minimum compliance

Analysis and design

• gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis is conducted to assess potential effects of interventions on women, men and marginalised groups relevant to the programme context
• findings are used to mitigate the risk of programming doing harm and exacerbating inequality and barriers in society to equal participation
• see Annex 3 for detailed guidance on GEDSI analysis

Procurement and calls for proposals

• procurement processes and calls for proposals for grants include GEDSI considerations in invitation to tender or bid documents
• suppliers and bids are assessed and scored on GEDSI criteria

Engagement and participation of women, girls and marginalised groups

• stakeholder consultation, including women and marginalised groups and people with disabilities, informs programme design, risk management and safeguarding measures

Implementation

• GEDSI analysis informs programme design and implementation to mitigate the risk of doing harm and exacerbating inequality
• compliance with minimum standards is reviewed and updated regularly, including during annual reviews
• developing and implementing a programme GEDSI strategy or action plan is recommended to support continuous improvement
• the programme workplan, management information and contractual key performance indicators include GEDSI integration targets to ensure minimum compliance
• see Annex 2 for good practice on GEDSI across international climate finance sectors

Team capacity and organisational commitment

• the programme delivery team can draw on relevant GEDSI expertise and resources as needed
• delivery or implementing partners adhere to HMG minimum compliance standards on GEDSI and safeguarding with adequate resourcing

Monitoring, evaluation and learning

• the programme monitoring, evaluation and learning plan considers and mainstreams GEDSI considerations
• results framework includes data disaggregated by protected characteristics and inequalities
• evaluations include some consideration of GEDSI impacts
• some programme learning activities include GEDSI considerations
• see Annex 4 for detailed guidance on integrating GEDSI through monitoring, evaluation and learning frameworks

Communication

• programme partners use contextually appropriate GEDSI sensitive language in communications with target populations and the general public throughout implementation

Identification of safeguarding risks

• gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis and enhanced due diligence support identification of safeguarding and GEDSI risks
• mitigation actions are monitored through the risk management process

Mitigation of safeguarding risks

• delivery partners have robust safeguarding measures in place, assessed through due diligence
• safeguarding policies and procedures are well established and effectively managed
• all project stakeholders are made aware of channels to raise concerns

GEDSI empowering

Analysis and design

• gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis is conducted to assess potential effects of interventions
• findings are used to design interventions that address practical barriers and support opportunities for increased equality in access to assets, resources, capabilities and opportunities
• this includes inclusive and accessible jobs, markets, services, skills, knowledge and decision‑making
• see Annex 3 for detailed guidance on GEDSI analysis

Procurement and calls for proposals

• procurement processes and calls for proposals include GEDSI considerations and scoring criteria
• relevant criteria include organisational commitment, policies, culture, resources and incentives to ensure GEDSI responsive implementation
• dedicated expert staff and the ability to draw on relevant expertise and resources are assessed
• innovative approaches to ensure locally led delivery are valued
• for procurements, social value can be applied to GEDSI criteria, allocating ten per cent of the contract value

Engagement and participation of women, girls and marginalised groups

• regular and meaningful participation throughout the programme of women and marginalised groups, including people with disabilities
• participation informs programme design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and learning, risk management and safeguarding measures

Implementation

• GEDSI analysis informs programme design and implementation to support the ambition to be GEDSI empowering
• delivery on GEDSI is reviewed regularly, including during annual reviews
• a programme GEDSI strategy or action plan supports continuous improvement
• the programme workplan, management information and contractual key performance indicators include GEDSI integration targets to ensure monitoring and accountability
• see Annex 2 for good practice across sectors

Team capacity and organisational commitment

• the programme delivery team includes staff with GEDSI expertise and the ability to draw on additional resources
• delivery or implementing partners have strong organisational commitment, policies, culture, resources and incentives to meet HMG safeguarding standards
• adequate budget is committed to achieving GEDSI empowering ambitions

Monitoring, evaluation and learning

• GEDSI is mainstreamed throughout monitoring, evaluation and learning activities
• data is disaggregated by sex, age and disability
• qualitative and quantitative methods are used to understand differential impacts
• the results framework includes at least one GEDSI focused outcome and indicator
• evaluations appraise opportunities to improve GEDSI impacts and consider unintended consequences
• GEDSI focused learning activities support continuous improvement
• adaptive management approaches are used when needed
• see Annex 4 for detailed guidance

Communication

• programme partners have guidelines to promote contextually appropriate, GEDSI sensitive communications throughout implementation

Safeguarding

• gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis and enhanced due diligence identify GEDSI and safeguarding risks
• mitigation actions are monitored through risk management processes
• robust safeguarding measures are in place and stakeholders are aware of reporting channels

GEDSI transformative

Analysis and design

• gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis informs interventions that address prevailing power relations
• interventions support institutional and societal change to promote greater gender equality, disability inclusion and inclusivity
• this includes challenging social norms, stereotypes and structural barriers affecting women, men and all marginalised people, including people with disabilities
• see Annex 3 for detailed guidance

Procurement and calls for proposals

• GEDSI criteria are core objectives in invitations to tender and bid documents
• procurement focuses strongly on suppliers’ ability to meet gender equality and social inclusion ambitions
• social value can be applied to GEDSI criteria, allocating 10% of the contract value

Engagement and participation of women, girls and marginalised groups

• women and marginalised groups, including people with disabilities, have influence over programme decisions
• this may include membership of programme steering boards
• programme interventions support rights‑based civil society organisations, including women’s organisations, Indigenous Peoples’ organisations and organisations of persons with disabilities
• support strengthens leadership, collective action, agency and control

Implementation

• GEDSI analysis informs programme design and implementation to support GEDSI transformative ambition
• delivery on GEDSI is reviewed regularly, including during annual reviews
• a GEDSI strategy or action plan supports continuous improvement
• workplans, management information and contractual key performance indicators include GEDSI integration targets for accountability
• see Annex 2 for good practice

Team capacity and organisational commitment

• the programme delivery team includes dedicated GEDSI experts as a core part of the team
• delivery or implementing partners are widely recognised for an excellent track record and strong organisational commitment to safeguarding and GEDSI
• adequate budget is committed to achieving GEDSI transformative ambitions

Monitoring, evaluation and learning

• GEDSI is mainstreamed throughout monitoring, evaluation and learning
• data is disaggregated by sex, age and disability
• qualitative and quantitative methods assess differential impacts
• GEDSI specific indicators are included at every level of the results framework
• driving gender equality, disability inclusion and social inclusion is the principal programme objective
• evaluations assess improvements and unintended consequences
• GEDSI focused learning is used to continually adapt and improve implementation
• results are shared with internal and external stakeholders
• adaptive management approaches are used when needed
• see Annex 4 for detailed guidance

Communication

• consistent use of inclusive language that challenges stereotypes, invisibility and subordination of marginalised groups ^{[footnote 24]}
• guidelines promote GEDSI sensitive communications throughout implementation

Safeguarding

• robust safeguarding measures are in place, assessed through due diligence
• safeguarding policies and procedures are well established and effectively managed
• all stakeholders are aware of channels to raise concerns

7. Annexes

Annex 1: Glossary of terms

Age

People of different ages have differing life experiences and face individual discriminations within different contexts, societies and countries. It is, therefore, important to collect data on age within ICF as different age groups may interact and respond to the intervention differently. Countries and societies have differing age demographic structures, and it is important to understand these structures prior to the intervention starting so it can be designed to cater for these structures.

Disability

There is no one definition of disability. However, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) recognises that:

‘disability is an evolving concept: persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’^{[footnote 25]}

Unless we explicitly ensure our policy, programmes and diplomacy includes people with disabilities, they are likely to be excluded.

Gender

The socially constructed roles and relationships, personality traits, attitudes, behaviours, values, relative power and influence that society ascribes to the two sexes on a differential basis. Gender is relational and refers not simply to women or men but to the relationship between them.

Women and girls are often worst affected by climate impacts because climate change and biodiversity exacerbate pre-existing inequalities within society. A focus on gender often leads to a focus on women and girls, however it is crucial to understand how gendered inequalities in society affect men and boys as well.

Gender equality, disability and social inclusion

Social characteristics (such as disability, socio-economic status, migration and displacement status, ethnicity, race, age, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity) combine to influence who has power and access to resources, who makes decisions, and who loses out. A failure to consider these dynamics risks exacerbating inequalities and undermining climate and biodiversity goals. Social characteristics are intersectional, and multiple forms of discrimination can compound each other, creating additional barriers.

Through prioritising Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion (GEDSI), climate and biodiversity programmes can tackle intersecting forms of exclusion and barriers to equal participation. GEDSI comprises three closely related and equally important concepts:

• an approach focused on gender equality aims to remove the unequal power relations between different gender identities in the pursuit of equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities for all

• disability inclusion is the process of ensuring the meaningful participation of people with disabilities in all their diversity and ensuring the promotion and full achievement of their rights

• social inclusion is the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society – improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity

Intersectionality

Discrimination can occur on the basis of more than one perceived characteristic. For example, a person who is discriminated on the grounds of their ethnicity may also face discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, age, and so on. Such discrimination can, and often does, create cumulative and additional disadvantage.

Considering intersectionality ensures the cumulative disadvantage that certain groups face is recognised and addressed.

Indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs)

The World Bank^{[footnote 26]} defines Indigenous Peoples as:

“Distinct social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced”.

Although not mentioned specifically in the ICF people breakdowns, Indigenous People and local communities are a social group of particularly interest, particularly within forests and ocean programmes. This is because Indigenous People and local communities are among the first to feel the impacts of climate change and nature loss, due to their dependence on, and close relationship to, the environment and its resources.

Like many other marginalised social groups, climate change will also exacerbate the inequalities faced by Indigenous People and local communities, such as loss of land and unemployment. If done correctly and in meaningful partnership with IPLCs, ICF interventions could contribute to breaking the legacy of inequality and exclusion that has made Indigenous Peoples more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It is therefore important to identify and disaggregate data by indigenous status where possible alongside intersecting characteristics.

Safeguarding

Safeguarding broadly means preventing harm to people – and the environment – in the delivery of international aid.

Sex

The biological characteristics that define humans as female or male.

Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment

• sexual exploitation: any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust for sexual purposes. Includes profiting momentarily, socially, or politically from sexual exploitation of another. Under UN regulations it includes transactional sex, solicitation of transactional sex and exploitative relationship

• sexual abuse: the actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force or under unequal or coercive conditions. It should cover sexual assault (attempted rape, kissing / touching, forcing someone to perform oral sex / touching) as well as rape. Under UN regulations, all sexual activity with someone under the age of 18 is considered to be sexual abuse

• sexual harassment: a continuum of unacceptable and unwelcome behaviours and practices of a sexual nature that may include, but are not limited to, sexual suggestions or demands, requests for sexual favours and sexual, verbal or physical conduct or gestures, that are or might reasonably be perceived as offensive or humiliating

Annex 2: GEDSI good practice across ICF sectors

This annex presents further detail on GEDSI integration within ICF sectors: Nature; Adaptation and Resilience; Clean Energy; Sustainable Cities, Infrastructure and Transport.

The following helpdesks are available for bespoke support to integrating GEDSI in ICF programmes:

• the CLEAN Helpdesk: a dedicated support system for UK officials to fulfil the climate and nature ambitions outlined in UK aid policy
• the Nature Facility: helps UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) staff and partners put nature at the heart of their work
• K4DD: provides rapid synthesis of evidence and learning events on a wide range of topics including climate, health, education, conflict and more.
• Disability Inclusion Helpdesk: The Helpdesk provides research and advice to FCDO and other UK government departments on disability inclusion in policy, programming, and across FCDO’s five minimum standards on disability inclusion
• Work and Opportunities for Women (WOW) Helpdesk: A research, advice and technical assistance service on Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE)

2.1. GEDSI and nature

Context:

• the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognises both the importance of Indigenous groups’ traditional knowledge, practices, and customs, as well as the importance of gender-responsive biodiversity action

• women, girls, rural people and IPLCs are disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation. The disproportionate impacts of biodiversity loss on women and girls include higher domestic work burdens and exposure to Gender Based Violence (GBV), loss of income and declining health^{[footnote 27]}. Although women are more often dependent on land-based resources, globally they make up less than 15 per cent of landholders and face barriers to accessing natural resources. While 164 countries recognise women’s equal land rights, discriminatory social norms mean only 52 countries guarantee these rights in law and practice^{[footnote 28]}. IPLCs also face key challenges with tenure security, resulting in some nature initiatives that fail to respect traditional land-use or Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) being accused of land-grabbing. People with disabilities often lack access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and face multiple barriers to tenure security. The need to travel further to access natural resources (water, fuel) can be prohibitive for those with physical disabilities^{[footnote 29]}. There is also a great importance which must be placed on more intersectional approaches to climate justice^{[footnote 30]}
• women, girls and IPLCs are essential to successful biodiversity and conservation efforts. Lands owned and managed by IPLCs include 36% intact forests and are home to 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Biodiversity declines 30% less and 30% more slowly in indigenous lands^{[footnote 31]}. In many rural communities, women are primarily responsible for managing natural resources, such as drinking water, land management or fuelwood. Within many IPLCs, women and men have differing but crucial expertise (for example, seed collection for women; hunting for men), yet women’s knowledge is overlooked if they are not included in decision-making^{[footnote 32]}.

Tools and best practice:

• leadership, meaningful participation and consent: Nature initiatives should promote and respect the role of IPLCs and women, girls, people with disabilities and people from marginalised communities as agents of change, recognising their valuable knowledge and expertise. This includes providing education opportunities for girls and economic opportunities for women in all their diversity, such as in agro-forestry, forestry value chains and ecotourism^{[footnote 33]}. Efforts to promote the participation of women should consider the impact on their unpaid labour burden; reforestation activities have often tasked women with tree planting, in addition to their household responsibilities, without any compensation. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also sets out IP’s right to FPIC, allowing them to give or withhold consent for a project that may affect them or their territories and negotiate the project’s terms

• land and tenure security: With secure land rights, women are more likely to increase their crop yields, conserve soil and plant trees^{[footnote 34]} Securing IPLC and women’s tenure rights is also an essential step towards sustainable land management, including through national reform and local registration. Adopting a rights-based approach to REDD+ projects, including to land tenure, can help deliver better, longer-term outcomes for people and forests. The UK supports use of the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on Tenure, including FPIC. FCDO has funded guidance on supporting smallholder farmers with disabilities overcomes barriers through digital solutions

• nature finance – including carbon markets: In meeting the need to dramatically scale-up finance for nature, maintaining a strong, rights-based approach to GEDSI and IPLCs is vital. The 2x Gender and Climate Finance taskforce has published guidance on gender-lens investment in biodiversity and agriculture, food and forests. Within voluntary carbon markets, certification is available to demonstrate social impact. For example, as well as maintaining/enhancing biodiversity and having a positive carbon impact, Plan Vivo-certified projects must demonstrate community ownership, positive livelihood and socioeconomic impacts and share benefits equitably. Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards also require land management projects to demonstrably benefit local communities and smallholders. The W+ standard provides a framework to assess gender impact. It is also important to consider networks that look at the intersection of disability and Indigenous People’s rights, as outlined by reports from the Indigenous Persons with Disabilities Global Network (IPWDGN)

• National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs): Despite increased attention to gender in CBD decisions, NBSAPs still do not reflect this sufficiently. There are continued gaps in a) the profile of women and girls, b) sex-disaggregated data, c) gender-responsive indicators, (d) women’s participation in NBSAP development, e) connections to national gender policies^{[footnote 35]}. Recommendations to tackle this available here

Case study: +Mujeres +Natura (Costa Rica)

The +Mujeres +Natura programme directly promotes women-led nature projects. Activities include, for example, sustainable biodiversity or agriculture enterprises, ecotourism, and scientific research. Various financial instruments are available, including prioritised access to payments for ecosystem services, and credit line with fixed interest rate (4%) for women-only, with streamlined requirements and support, for example providing collaterals through a bond.

2.2 GEDSI, adaptation and resilience

Context

Women, girls, people with disabilities, IPLCs and marginalised people face disproportionate and differential climate impacts. For example, they may have less access or face barriers to access resources such as education, finance, climate information and markets needed to build resilience. Tackling the gender-based, economic, social and political activities that are root causes of climate vulnerability is essential to driving effective adaptation efforts. As the Paris Agreement specifies, adaptation action should be gender-responsive, disability inclusive, participatory and consider vulnerable groups and communities.

Tools and best practice

• national adaptation planning: The UNFCCC Gender Action Plan, agreed by all Parties, makes provision for gender-responsive National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and national communications. Technical assistance is available from NAP-Global Network (NAP-GN), NDC-Global Partnership (NDC-GP), UNDP’s Climate Promise and others. For example, NAP-GN’s gender-responsive NAP toolkit sets out three elements of a gender-responsive NAP process: 1) Recognition of gender differences in adaptation needs and capacities; 2) gender-equitable participation in decision-making processes; and 3) Gender-equitable access to financial resources and other adaptation benefits. It also provides an overview of entry points and activities to achieve this in practice. Other guidance on gender best practice for national climate planning includes: UNDP – gender and NDCs resources (for example, Gender analysis and NDCs; Gender-responsive climate indicators; IUCN gender analysis 2021 revised NDCs. Disability: CBM guidance on Disability Inclusion within Climate Plans, Disability status Report of NDCs (June 22).. Disability inclusion is a key aspect of the development of National Adaptation Plans and Nationally Determined Contributions at country levels. However, evidence from DICARP shows that not enough countries are considering disability in these key processes. More evidence has also been produced through the Disability Inclusive Development (DID) programme helpdesk on climate/disability topics which can be searched via this link. A report by the Bond Disability and Development Climate Group also highlights the importance of including people with disabilities in climate action efforts, highlighting recommendations and case studies

• locally led adaptation (LLA): The UK has endorsed and championed the LLA Principles which provide a framework for ensuring adaptation is owned by local partners, including addressing structural inequalities

• adaptation finance: The 2x Gender and Climate Finance taskforce, co-led by British Investment International (BII), provides tools and resources on gender-lens climate investment (for example, adaptation, water and agriculture. British International Investment (BII) also has a guidance note on disability inclusion. The UK also aims to address barriers to accessing climate finance faced by Organisations of Persons with Disabilities, Women’s and Indigenous Peoples’ organisations (see K4D evidence summary)

Sector-specific resilience-building

• disaster risk reduction (DRR) and financing: During disasters, GBV surges and women, girls and marginalised people are more likely to die and face barriers to accessing services and support. For example, 77% of deaths from the 2004 Aceh Tsunami were women^{[footnote 36]}. People with disabilities and older people are more likely to be abandoned during evacuation due to a lack of planning, as well as inaccessible facilities and transport^{[footnote 37]}. During crises, LGBT+ people may avoid, or be turned away from, relief distribution sites. Including diverse needs and voices of at all stages of the disaster management process, especially planning and preparedness, can significantly reduce vulnerability and increase response effectiveness. GBV and sexual and reproductive health services are also essential. UN Women has set out a framework for assessing gender, age and disability in DRR efforts and the InsuResilience Centre of Excellence on Gender-smart Solutions provides guidance for delivering inclusive Disaster Risk Finance and Insurance

• inclusive, shock-responsive social protection plays a critical role in building climate resilience, contributing to disaster preparedness and response, and accelerating just transitions to green economies. It can also reach women, girls and people with disabilities. SPACE Social protection and climate change summary brief (PDF, 588 KB) provides a framework for addressing the socio-economic challenges arising from climate change. UNICEF Innocenti sets out how gender-responsive and age-sensitive social protection can build climate resilience

• quality education for all: Girls’ education has been identified as the most important socioeconomic determinant in reducing vulnerability to climate change^{[footnote 38]}. But climate change is devastating education; extreme weather events already disrupt the education of 40 million children a year. FCDO will release a new education and climate policy in 2022. Where education programmes contribute to climate outcomes, they are eligible as ICF (for example, climate resilient school infrastructure and curricula development)

• disability inclusion resources: These include research pieces on adaptation from CBM UK and the International Disability Alliance, Humanity and Inclusion,  UNHCR  

Case study: FCDO’s Community Resilience Partnership Programme (CRPP)

The £45 million CRPP empowers local communities in Asia and the Pacific to challenge gender inequalities and build climate resilience. The CRPP’s dedicated gender window supports the design and financing of women-led community-level climate adaptation solutions, including by targeting investments and cash transfers towards women. It takes rights-based approach that amplifies women’s voices in decision-making, and facilitates the participation of civil society organisations, especially grassroots women’s groups.

2.3 GEDSI and clean energy

Context:

• women, people with disabilities and older people, particularly those in rural areas, are disproportionately impacted by lack of clean energy access, and benefit significantly from inclusive, clean energy solutions. More than 60% of all premature deaths from household air pollution are among women and children^{[footnote 39]}. Some people with disabilities have a greater demand for electricity to operate assistive technologies^{[footnote 40]}. Women and girls can spend up to 20 hours a week collecting firewood for household use, restricting their time available for paid employment or entrepreneurship, school, leisure, and civic engagement. The provision of sustainable, grid and off-grid energy solutions reduces “time poverty” and enables major improvements in livelihoods for women and marginalised people. In Kenya, solar-powered streetlamps and lanterns have been associated with decreased violence against women. Clean cook stoves dramatically reduce the amount of time spent collecting firewood, freeing girls up for school, or women for work^{[footnote 41]}

• a just transition to a green economy offers significant opportunities to shift social norms around equality and inclusion, support economic empowerment through green jobs, and improve human development outcomes. Women and people with disabilities face economic, educational and cultural barriers to participation in the green economy, and women currently only make up 32% of the renewable energy workforce. These barriers include: low representation in STEM subjects; social norms and gender roles; lack of accessibility and reasonable accommodation and exclusive hiring practices. Tackling these barriers can be transformative for equality and benefit the clean energy sector. Globally, there is a disproportionately low representation of people with disabilities in the labour market with unemployment rates as high as 70 to 80%^{[footnote 42]}. At global levels, companies with improved gender diversity on boards are more likely to reduce energy consumption by 60% and GHG emissions by 39%^{[footnote 43]}. Woman-led businesses in energy supply chains also tend to perform as well or better than male counterparts. At the household and community levels, women’s role as primary “energy managers” enables them to contribute significantly to sustainable energy solutions as co-designers and employees^{[footnote 44]}

Tools and best practice:

• recognise the role of women, young, and other marginalised people, including people with disabilities, as critical agents of change in driving clean energy solutions. This includes supporting their meaningful participation in clean energy decision-making and ensuring they benefit from employment in non-traditional areas of value chains as metal workers, installers, and inspectors. For example, in parts of Asia and Africa, employing female meter readers has been essential to enabling them to access homes when male relatives were not home^{[footnote 45]}. Supporting inclusive, quality education for all children, as well as greater diversity in those graduating in STEM subjects, is essential to enabling a more diverse energy sector. Potential backlash against women for participating in traditionally male sectors (which can include GBV) should also be considered, and efforts made to tackle these attitudes. This ILO policy brief highlights the role of disability rights in the just transition

• embed a GEDSI lens in clean energy investment decision-making (encourage and enable partners – including in the private sector – to do the same). Women-led SMEs have unmet credit needs, presenting a huge untapped market opportunity of $1.5 trillion. The 2X Gender and Climate Finance Taskforce (co-led by BII) provides gender-lens guidance for clean energy investors. Demonstrating that adopting gender and inclusion strategies can help address business challenges, such as better understanding the consumer base, increases interest in doing so from SMEs^{[footnote 46]}. This should include consideration of GEDSI impact and labour rights throughout supply chains – for example, mining for minerals such as cobalt has been associated with widespread human rights abuses^{[footnote 47]}

• support national and local governments to consider GEDSI and the rights of IPLCs in energy strategies, including by supporting diverse participation of civil society in planning. Government energy policies are too-often gender insensitive, which inhibits their effectiveness^{[footnote 48]}. In Tanzania, women’s participation in decision-making has enabled successful energy governance and rural electrification strategies, such as by ensuring clinics, community centres and street lighting were connected to mini-grids^{[footnote 49]}. Energy Sector Management Assistance programme has helped countries shape gender priorities in national energy policy and USAID provides guidance on gender in large-scale renewable energy. Policies should also consider rights of IPLCs; initiatives such as hydropower dams that displace communities disproportionately impact the most marginalised

Case study: FCDO’s Transforming Energy Access (TEA) programme

The TEA research and innovation platform, scaled-up at COP29, effectively integrates GEDSI strategies to empower women across Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and the Indo-Pacific in the clean energy sector through  training, masters programmes and work placements. Since 2016, it has improved clean energy access for over 15 million women, created more than 30,000 green jobs for women, and trained 866 women in clean energy businesses. In partnership with Value for Women, TEA provides tailored technical assistance to delivery partners for implementing GEDSI strategies. For example, the Global Distributors Collective (GDC) - a network of over 200 last-mile distributors in 60 countries, of which 47% of member organisations are owned by women - developed the guide Gender in Business: Lessons Learned for Last Mile Distributors offering actionable recommendations for SMEs on gender inclusion. A significant success from this initiative is Yellow, the leading distributor of pay-as-you-go solar home systems in Malawi, which increased its female sales agents from 11 to 94 in just one year. Furthermore, TEA and the Shell Foundation recently co-funded a $1m gender results-based financing pilot to incentivise distributors in promoting energy appliances among women. Other TEA GEDSI publications include: GESI Commercialisation Guide (PDF, 2 MB),  Gender and Inclusion Strategies for SMEs in the Off-Grid Energy Sector, Hiring for Equity in Clean Energy (PDF, 12.4 MB), Energy Portfolios of the Rural Poor, Gender Implications of Energy Use and Energy Access (PDF, 386KB).

GEDSI and sustainable cities, infrastructure and transport

Context and evidence:

The transition to net-zero, resilient cities, infrastructure, and transport systems offers opportunities for greatly improved access to water, sanitation, education, and jobs. However, access to these services typically differs by wealth, gender, age, family position, and disability. Women use urban infrastructure differently from men, and it is often wrongly assumed women will automatically benefit from urban infrastructure investments. For example, women tend to walk and use public transport more than men, have different travel patterns (shorter distances, more non-work-related travel, multi-stop trips) and have more security concerns. Too often, city infrastructure is not accessible to people with disabilities, which can prevent them from benefiting equally from investment^{[footnote 50]}.

Tools and best practice

• promote participatory approaches and economic empowerment: Women often catalyse change in cities, and are spearheading innovation in waste management, the circular economy, and urban nature-based solutions. Nonetheless, in the infrastructure sector, the gender gap is significant: women occupy 2% of CEO roles, 9% of senior roles, 13% of mid-level roles and 22% of junior roles^{[footnote 51]}. Ensuring women and people with disabilities can access jobs in this sector, as well as utilities and other service providers, and participatory approaches that enable diverse engagement in decision-making, can ensure they benefit equitably from investment

• embed a GEDSI lens in infrastructure planning and investment: Embed a GEDSI lens in infrastructure planning and investment: Infrastructure strategies and city plans should apply universal design principles and concepts, ensuring that systems are usable by all, including through the use of disability, age and gender sensitive indicators and collaboration with diverse groups, including people with disabilities. Best practice includes embedding these considerations at all levels of infrastructure project design and implementation, including to reduce the risk of gender-based violence. The rights of those in informal settlements and without secure property rights (women are less likely to own their homes) must also be respected. The 2X Gender and Climate Finance Taskforce provides gender-lens investment guidance on cities, transport, manufacturing, water supply, energy, financial services, green jobs, and mitigation. The UK funded AT2030 programme also has an Inclusive Cities Infrastructure programme which uses case studies of disability inclusion in cities across the world to create a Global Action Report on Delivering Inclusive Design in Cities. The report provides practical steps for cities worldwide to enhance accessibility and inclusion in their physical infrastructure, buildings, services and operations. Additionally, the Green Cities and Infrastructure Programme has developed a GEDSI toolkit for Infrastructure Project Developers as guidance

• water and sanitation infrastructure: Women are often the primary users of water (particularly for domestic purposes, market gardens and other forms of local production. In many cases they are also responsible for water bill payments. However, they are often not consulted on tariff setting, bill payment modalities and service design. An analysis of 100 water projects found that when initiatives included women, they were 6 to 7 times more effective than when they were not involved^{[footnote 52]}. People with disabilities disproportionately lack access to WASH services but involving them in the design process can help ensure barriers to accessing services are countered and essential needs are met^{[footnote 53]}

• transport: Women are more likely than men to adopt sustainable travel and make 80% of travel decisions. When urban transport services cater for their needs, women can access job opportunities further away from home. When female passenger numbers rise as a result, this can improve municipal revenue (depending on the size of the city, such actions can create value of $1.5 million to $1.8 billion)^{[footnote 54]}. Ensuring transport systems and zero-emissions vehicles are accessible to people with disabilities is essential. The Infrastructure and Cities for Economic Development programme contains good practice guides on disability inclusive infrastructure

• waste management systems should cater for diverse needs (for example, public drop-off systems in some contexts may be challenging for women to use due to social norms, or for those with physical disabilities). Women often engage in voluntary or informal waste management activities, but are more likely to lose out when these activities become paid or formalised. Best practice includes embedding GEDSI considerations in planning, consulting women and marginalised people, and supporting their access to resources and quality jobs

Case study: UK partnering for Accelerated Climate Transition Programme

The UK Partnering for Accelerated Climate Transitions (UK PACT) programme has committed to ensuring gender equality and disability inclusion considerations are prioritised through delivery of technical assistance for climate mitigation. In Indonesia, UK PACT has been working with the Ministry of Transport to encourage more women and people from marginalised groups to use public transport by improving its safety and accessibility at the same time. The project delivered by Arup has been gathering insights into people’s requirements and will run a demonstration project with the aim of informing national policy making. The project integrates and mainstreams disability and access into the entire design, including establishing baselines, identifying barriers to transport and background data on people with disabilities to map their journeys and use of transport, all while meaningfully engaging with and involving people with disabilities and their representative organisations throughout.

Annex 3: Gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis

ICF programmes must, first and foremost, demonstrably contribute to reducing poverty. gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis should be performed as part of any new and ongoing intervention which involves people. gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis is a critical step that is required to assess inequalities and social exclusion, tackle rather than perpetuate inequalities, remove barriers, and leave no one behind. This should be undertaken alongside Equalities Impact Assessments, which provide assurance that the Public Sector Equalities Duty is met.

Gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis can be a standalone analysis or integrated in wider programme assessments. There are many different tools and approaches to gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis, including and not limited to: Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) analysis, or a gender-sensitive Political Economy Analysis (PEA) or a PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal Environmental) analysis. Gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis can be in depth (for example involving field visits, qualitative interviews, focus group discussions with key stakeholders involved in the intervention) or more light touch (for example, a desk-based review of existing literature covering the issue you are working on).

The approach you chose should be proportionate - it will depend on the scale of the intervention. A light touch gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis may be conducted using solely desk-based research. A more comprehensive approach could include: using FCDO helpdesks to synthesise evidence; consulting technical experts, local civil society (including indigenous, women’s and LGBT+ rights^{[footnote 55]} orgs and organisations of people with disabilities - OPDs); holding an accessible stakeholder workshop; consulting beneficiaries. Programmes may choose to conduct or commission a single analysis covering a thematic area, or several analyses – for example for each country/region your intervention will operate in. Costs to carry out gender, disability and social analysis, including meaningful consultation with beneficiaries, should be factored into programme budgets.

Questions to consider, both during programme design and throughout delivery, include (note this is non-exhaustive and examples only illustrative):

A. Who may be left behind?

Consider who is likely to be affected by/involved in the project/programme? Who are the poor? Who holds power and influence, who does not, and why? Which groups have recognition, visibility and value in different spaces (decision-making, livelihoods)? What do macro-level indicators and indices show about the state of gender equality and the position of marginalised groups in the country? What barriers may exist preventing equal participation?

A gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis takes an ‘intersectional’ approach, recognising that groups are not homogenous, and that people face overlapping discrimination based on socio-economic status, age, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity and other characteristics. For example, an ethnic minority woman with a disability may face multiple discrimination and barriers.

You should consider whether a certain social group may:

• be directly or indirectly discriminated or disadvantaged by the current context and/or planned intervention

• receive unwanted attention with the purpose or effect of violating one’s dignity and/or creates a hostile or offensive environment

B. Why?

Consider the processes, barriers, and institutions (formal/informal structures) that cause and perpetuate poverty, inequality, discrimination, and exclusion.

For example, this could include consideration of:

• Who holds the informal and/or formal power? How do existing power relations (such as control of household finances, discrimination by investors, access to economic resources, or social attitudes) impact women, marginalised people, people with disabilities’ ability to engage with/benefit from the project? What roles are prescribed for different genders, ethnicities etc? Who has the power to make decisions at the household/community level? Whose knowledge and expertise are recognised? What legal frameworks and policies are in place to promote gender equality/address discrimination and how effectively are they enforced? Are there existing national legislation that may perpetuate gender and other inequalities?

• Who has access to and control over natural resources and assets (relevant to the project), who makes the decisions and how does this differ based on poverty, gender, age, disability, education levels and ethnicity? This might include Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities (IPLCS), including men and women within them, formal, legal rights to natural resources or land/forest tenure, as well as the social and customary norms that prevent them from exercising these rights in practice. Are there capacity gaps in education, language, knowledge, skills, etc? Are there gaps in access to credit, assets, training, information, technology?

• What is the gendered division of labour? What work do different identities (women, men, youth) do? What roles and sectors? Is employment secure or insecure? Is it in the informal or formal market?  How are they remunerated? Are certain roles or sectors dominated by certain groups? Why? What barriers are there to entering these sectors/roles?

• What are the differential barriers to participation in decision-making and leadership positions faced due to factors such as poverty, gender, age, disability and ethnicity? Do women, youth, Indigenous People or people with disabilities tend to voice their opinions during community decision making? Why or why not? How are decision-making roles (Chairperson etc.) distributed? Is decision making forums held in at a time and location that is inclusive (for example – with accessible transport options and at a time that is compatible with women’s caring responsibilities)?

• What practical needs and security/safeguarding issues might impact how certain social groups interact with/benefit from the programme? Are services disability accessible? Is GBV or SEAH prevalent in this community, sector, workplace? What other safety/security threats are there (human-wildlife conflict)? Is law enforcement accessible, reliable and effective?

• Do partners through the delivery chain have robust safeguarding measures in place? Are safeguarding policies and procedures well established and effectively managed by all project partners? Are all project stakeholders aware of channels to raise any concerns? (Note: safeguarding should also be assessed through due diligence)

• Is reasonable accommodation being considered to ensure participation of people with disabilities in programmes throughout? Do partners have a policy on this internally? It may be worth conducting accessibility audits with OPD partners at country levels for example, to ensure people with disabilities will not be excluded from programme participation.

C. What harm will this do?

Consider the risks to individuals and groups if the processes, barriers, and institutions (formal/informal structures) that cause and perpetuate inequality, discrimination, and exclusion are not addressed by the project/programme.

How will I respond and mitigate the risks?

The practical implications of gender equality and social inclusion analysis on the project/programme. This should include consideration of how your response will:

• remove and/or mitigate discrimination, harassment, and victimisation
• advance equality of opportunity of the diverse groups involved/affected by the project/programme
• foster good relations between the social group(s) affected by marginalisation and the group(s) without
• ensure diverse voices are involved in and influence project design, delivery and evaluation
• introduce practical measures to safeguard against risks to individuals and groups affected by marginalisation

It is important to remember throughout the analysis that social groups and/or persons with a protected characteristic are not homogenous. For example, women may also have a disability, or gay men may also identify as an ethnic minority. Where possible, consider how different characteristics intersect and compound forms of discrimination.

Gender equality, disability and social inclusion analysis and Safeguarding against risks of sexual exploitation, abuse and sexual harassment (SEAH)

ICF GEDSI analysis can provide an important contribution to HMG’s policy and programme requirements to avoid harm to people or the environment, explained in the FCDO Programme Operating Framework, particularly the due diligence requirements that all partners take a risk-based approach to avoiding harm through managing potentially adverse social and environmental impacts. GESDI analysis can also contribute to HMG’s specific zero tolerance to inaction policy on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment in the aid sector outlined in the Safeguarding Policy and related 2020 Strategy Safeguarding against SEAH within the Aid Sector. GESDI analysis helps to understand social exclusion and related power dynamics to support understanding of the contexts in which HMG operates, that inform policy and programme operations, from design and stakeholder participation, through implementation and monitoring and evaluation. This information can be used to inform SEAH risk assessments, in particular to shape prevention and response approaches; and can feed into social and environmental impacts assessments that analyse, monitor and manage intended and unintended consequences, positive and negative of HMG interventions.

Annex 4: Monitoring, evaluation and learning

Evidence gathered through GEDSI analysis should inform the programme Theory of Change, and support the development of a monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) plan that integrates GEDSI objectives into the programme results framework, all progress reporting, and periodic evaluations if undertaken. This includes annual reviews (ideally both considered throughout and with a bespoke section). Reporting should build on the challenges, barriers and opportunities identified through GEDSI analysis, as well as the programme’s GEDSI objectives, to consider whether the programme’s benefits are equally distributed; any challenges encountered in taking an empowering/transformative approach; and how/whether these have been or can be addressed.

Results frameworks and indicators need to be meaningful and go beyond counting numbers to capturing the quality of results, where possible. For example, if measuring women’s participation in forest management, as well as counting the ‘number’ of women involved in decision-making, consider the proportion of women who believe their views are listened to and acted on. Often this can be achieved through consideration of both quantitative and qualitative measures. Evaluations can be used to deepen knowledge where needed.

All commissioned evaluations should have at least a sub-question on GEDSI and a GEDSI lens should be applied throughout, that is, data analysis and when considering the intervention context. Evaluations should consider unintended consequences, and look for opportunities for programmes to maximise positive GEDSI impacts.

4.1 Disaggregation of data in ICF

All people-related data should be disaggregated by sex, age, disability and geography (urban/rural), where this can be meaningfully collected. Data analysis should consider any differences between these groups. The UK has signed up to the Inclusive Data Character, and the principle should be followed accordingly.

Where context permits, the additional social characteristics listed above should be included in disaggregation and indicator wording to adopt an intersectional approach. The more social group data that can be collected, the more disaggregation that will be available to allow for better reporting and programme evaluation. 

Including/disaggregating by such social groups would be in line with the public sector equality duty^{[footnote 56]}, as well as the Government Equality Office Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) Action Plan^{[footnote 57]} which commits the UK to improve the lives of LGBT+ people on a global scale.

If suitable in the context of the programme, the following questions (not exhaustive) can be used to gather data on a person’s gender identify and social group^{[footnote 58]}.

Sex:

Disaggregate using 2 categories: male and female. Disaggregation should be based on actual data that has been observed by the programme’s implementing partner, not models or estimates from surveys or elsewhere.

We do not collect or publish sex-disaggregated data using more than 2 categories for safeguarding and data quality reasons. We wish to protect gender minorities from risk of harm in countries where they may experience persecution. Where a beneficiary’s transgender, intersex or non-binary status is known, classify according to their gender identity where a ‘male’ or ‘female’ designation fits with this. Otherwise leave blank.

Age:

Disaggregate direct beneficiary counts by age using 4 categories: children (age 0 to 14); youth (age 15 to 24); adults (age 25 to 64); and elders (age 65+).

Geographical/regional location:

Disaggregate using 2 categories: urban and rural. In the absence of internationally agreed definitions of urban and rural, follow the definitions set by the national statistics office in the country the programme is operating.

Disability:

If a country or project has access to data using a relevant local definition (for example, a disability register, or definition based on legislation such as a census question), the recommendation is to use that wording. Where there are established methods of collecting disability data. Where the word “disability” is used, this may result in under-reporting due to potential stigma related to the word. Where no definition exists, the recommended question sets are the Washington Group Questions. These are useful where there are contexts without any suitable definitions and language for data collection purposes and the sets allow comparison and an outline is shared below.

Further information on the Washington Group Questions (WGQs):

For disability disaggregation, partners should ideally use the Washington Group Questions. These ask about how much difficulty the respondent has in different domains of functioning and provides insight into whether people with disabilities are benefitting from the programme interventions. Anyone who answers ‘a lot of difficulty’ or ‘cannot do at all’ to any of the questions should be counted as disabled. Anyone who answers ‘no difficulty’ or ‘some difficulty’ to all questions should be counted as not-disabled.

See the question sets below.

The Washington Group Short Set on Functioning (short version)

The short version looks at functioning domains outlined in the following six questions:

• do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses?
• do you have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid?
• do you have difficulty walking or climbing steps?
• do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating?
• do you have difficulty (with self-care such as) washing all over or dressing?
• using your usual language, do you have difficulty communicating or being understood?

The short version should only be used if the extended version cannot be accommodated, though the extended set has a more robust and enhanced set of questions covering more impairments.

The Washington Group Short Set on Functioning (extended version)

The extended version looks at the questions covered by the short version and the following additional questions:

• do you have difficulty raising a 2-litre bottle of water or soda from waist to eye level?
• do you have difficulty using your hands and fingers, such as picking up small objects, for example, a button or pencil, or opening or closing containers or bottles?
• how often do you feel worried, nervous or anxious?
• thinking about the last time you felt worried, nervous or anxious, how would you describe the level of these feelings?
• how often do you feel depressed?
• thinking about the last time you felt depressed, how depressed did you feel?

Data protection and confidentiality

Some of the data collected for GEDSI indicators will be personal and sensitive. Data should be collected confidentially, and assurance must be given that no identifiable data of individuals will be shared beyond the programme or made public.  It is advisable to give individuals the choice to provide GEDSI data by making it optional, in case providing GEDSI information discourages participation in ICF programmes. Any data collected by HMG should comply with laws under The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Where data is collected by an external organisation or delivery partner, they will be required to comply with the data protection legislation in their region and UK GDPR.

Safeguarding

In some instances disclosing information on gender or other social characteristics or participating in certain activities may place individuals in danger of discrimination and persecution in their local environment. If this is the case ICF safeguarding procedures should be followed and participant safety prioritised over data collection or participation

4.2 Example GEDSI indicators

Technical assistance

Technical Assistance (TA) is used to create an enabling environment through legislation, policies, and piloting to build capability with governments and the private sector. TA can be used as a tool for empowerment.

Indicator	Indicator level	Purpose	Data source/method of acquiring data	Consideration
Number or percentage of training/workshop/event participants broken down by sex/social group	Output/intermediate outcome	Monitoring that participation of TA events are inclusive	The delivery partner or organisation running the event should collect data from the event registration or feedback forms after the event	Target set based on local context and baseline
Number or percentage of successful and unsuccessful applications to access TA activities disaggregated by sex/social group.	Output	To assess any barriers to access TA activities. Understanding whether the requirements to participate in a TA activity was a barrier, for example, education requirements	Delivery partners accepting applications to TA activities should collect relevant data on gender or social group in the application	If GEDSI characteristics are not part of the selection criteria for applications, then make it clear the information is for monitoring purposes only
Number or percentage of knowledge products disseminated to individuals broken down by sex/ social group	Output/intermediate outcome	Monitoring the dissemination of TA knowledge products	Delivery partner	-
Number or percentage of knowledge products that incorporate knowledge of marginalised groups such as IPLCs	Output/intermediate outcome	Monitoring the dissemination of TA knowledge products Delivery partner	Delivery partner	-
Number or percentage of people participating in TA activity and in follow-up initiatives, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	To show if TA resulted in change in outcome for different groups	Delivery partner	Follow-up initiatives should be partly or wholly because of the TA activity
Number of policies or regulations, or other changes made by stakeholders in response to TA that positively addresses people belonging to a certain sex/social group.	Outcome	If stakeholders are including GEDSI groups in their policy decisions, then their issues are more likely to be addressed	Policy publications by stakeholders (such as governments and other institutions) and other documents outlining changes	-
Number or percentage of people in decision-making roles, disaggregated by sex/social group.	Intermediate outcome/outcome	Understanding whether GEDSI groups are given positions of influence.	Request information from decision making bodies.	It may be difficult to get personal information about people in an organisation. Asking for aggregate information rather than individual level data might be easier
Number of people benefitting from the incentive framework, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	To understand whether beneficiaries have been limited to a certain type of person	Partner Authority	-
Payment differentials of salaries between employees, disaggregated by sex and race/ethnicity	Output	Base: male from dominant social group Comparison by gender and social group	Delivery partner	-
Number of people/members consulted during policy development, disaggregated by sex/social group	Output	Yes/no answer. Alternatively, a proportionate breakdown of those consulted, reflecting the value the authorities placed on hearing their opinions	Delivery partner/partner authority	-
Number of projects that are disability inclusive in their design	Outcome	To understand the extent to which disability has been considered and included	Delivery partner	It is important to ensure people with disabilities and their representative organisations (OPDs) are consulted and meaningfully involved in the programmes directly and indirectly impacting them

Investment projects

Where the UK provides funding either to mobilise private finance or to top-up projects which otherwise would not be completed. After consideration of the investment vehicle, refer to the other sections in this note based on the type of project that is invested in for further indicators.

Indicator	Indicator level	Purpose	Data source/method of acquiring data	Consideration
Percentage of board members/investment fund members disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	To measure equity in access and decision making in fund managers and institutional investors	Board meetings or institutional investor/fund manager documentation	Targets can be set for percentage of the specified gender or social group
Percentage of board members/investment fund members who are from the target geography(ies) and/or developing countries	Outcome	To measure equity in access and decision making in fund managers and institutional investors	Board meetings or institutional investor/fund manager documentation	-
Percentage of employment opportunities supported by ICF investments that are taken up, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Looking at the equity in the employee-base of projects which the vehicle invests in – particularly in management	Investment papers/ delivery partner reporting evaluation evidence	Assessing appropriate progress against this indicator will require baselining the ‘business-as-usual’ employment by gender in the target sector/geography
Percentage of employment opportunities supported by ICF investments that are in the target geography(ies) and/or the developing countries	Outcome	Looking at whether local/regional communities are benefiting from the investment beyond the direct outputs	Investment papers/delivery partner reporting/evaluation evidence	Assessing appropriate progress against this indicator will require a baseline study of investments in the sector to determine the average percentage of employment opportunities created in target geographies
Number or percentage of proposed investments/projects that include a GEDSI strategy	Activity	To understand whether investment partners have strategies in place to ensure GEDSI impacts are considered	Investment Committee/ partner Papers	The team will need to assess whether the present GEDSI plans are sufficiently ambitious
Number or percentage of projects or consultations which consulted the local community/ indigenous peoples before investment was made and/or actively engaged them implementation	Activity	Ensuring local communities can influence the programme spend and to decrease the likelihood of harming those communities	Investment Committee/board papers, evaluation	Local community may not be easy to identify
Number of knowledge products focused on advancing GEDSI financial inclusion and entrepreneurship published	Output	To measure whether best practice is being shared to catalyse further change	Tracking knowledge products	-
Number or percentage of projects that are disability inclusive in their design	Outcome	To understand the extent to which disability has been considered and included	Delivery partner	It is important to ensure people with disabilities and their representative organisations (OPDs) are consulted and meaningfully involved in the programmes directly and indirectly impacting them
Number or percentage of programmes that achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value	Outcome	Ensure that the project has achieved a just transition, considering the needs of all social groups	Delivery partner	-

Nature programmes

Nature programmes include those that support the protection, sustainable management and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems and their biodiversity; the protection, restoration and sustainable management of ocean and coastal ecosystems and resources that support climate change mitigation and adaptation and build coastal communities’ resilience; support for just transitions to more sustainable food systems; activities that protect, restore or sustainably manage forests.

Indicator	Indicator level	Purpose	Data source/method of acquiring data	Considerations
Number of People with Sustainable Livelihoods created or protected	Outcome	To assess how far diverse groups are benefitting from income streams / means of subsistence that are environmentally and socially sustainable	Programme results framework; Evaluation	Type of livelihood, Sector, created or protected. Beneficiaries: gender, age, urban/rural, type of communities
Number of People with improved tenure or access rights (land and sea)	Outcome	To understand how far rights of ownership or use of land / natural resource by local communities are improved	Programme results framework; Evaluation	Local/regional/national, country. Beneficiaries: gender, age, urban/rural, type of communities (including IPLCs)
Number of People with Improved Income	Outcome	To understand how diverse groups have benefited from increased income as a result of the intervention	Programme results framework; Evaluation	Direct/indirect. Beneficiaries: gender, age, urban/rural, type of communities
Number of People with improved food security	Outcome	To understand how diverse groups have benefited from improved access to sustainable food sources as a result of the intervention	Programme results framework; Evaluation	Sex, Age, Disability, Geography
Number of IPLC / marginalised households who have benefitted from the programme/policy/activity	Outcome	Easily quantifiable benefit that extends beyond the ‘do no harm’ commitment	Partner Authority / Government This could cover any social group, for example, individuals who are not male	-
Number of indigenous people trained in sustainable land practices by the programme disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Easily quantifiable benefit that extends beyond the ‘do no harm’ commitment, capturing the involvement of different individuals in the programme	Deliver Partner/Partner Authority	-
Qualitative assessment of degree to which land disputes between social groups resolved	Outcome	Quantifiable and extends beyond the ‘do no harm’ commitment	Partner Authority / Government: This could be compared to a baseline figure pre-programme to demonstrate progress over time	Will need to ensure they have been resolved to a satisfactory level of the social group and not have been assumed to be resolved from an external/privileged perspective
Number or percentage of individuals who were consulted during policy development, disaggregated by sex/social group/indigenous communities	Output	Measure to reflect the value the authorities placed on hearing opinions from a range of social groups	Delivery Partner / Partner Authority/ Government: Depending on available data, this could be captured as a proportionate breakdown of those consulted	-
Number or percentage of individuals who are actively engaged through policy delivery, disaggregated by sex/social group/indigenous communities	Output	Measure to reflect the value the authorities place on marginalised groups having an active decision-making role in governance / oversight mechanisms	Delivery Partner / Partner Authority/ Government: Depending on available data, this could be captured as a proportionate breakdown of those consulted	-
Number of representative roundtables on forest governance organised by the programme	Output	Easily quantifiable benefit that extends beyond the ‘do no harm’ commitment to reflect the value authorities place on involving a range of social groups	Deliver Partner/Partner Authority: Would need to define representative and consider what an appropriate baseline would be	What counts are ‘representative’ will be dependant on programme location, aims and context
Percentage change in the number of people who show awareness of particular social group/GEDSI issues	Outcome	Awareness can lead to attitudinal change, and therefore the potential for stringer transformational change at the end of the programme lifetime. This can be attributed to the programme if it is specifically asked in relation to the programme in a survey	Delivery Partner/MEL partner – baseline pre-programme survey compared to a post-programme survey. This could be measured as a percent change in the number of people who show awareness of particular social group/gender issues that are pertinent to the programme or a self-reported attitudinal measure captured through a longitudinal survey with the same cohort of individuals	Will need to measure this via a survey before any programme activity has taken place
Project allocated funds to contracting GEDSI experts, conduct a gender assessment, develop gender specific actions	Activity	Measure of design of programme to include GEDSI considerations	Partner Authority/ Government/Delivery Partner This could be a yes/no measure	Phrase as a Y/N question, for example, “Are there project allocated funds to hire gender experts” If Yes, follow up with how much the funding is
Hectares of indigenous territories protected	Outcome	Easily quantifiable benefit	Partner Authority / Government	-
Number of new permanent dwellings created after protection ensured of land	Outcome	Measure of security for indigenous communities, who may not have been able to settle if they feared illegal logging, for example	Delivery Partner / Partner Authority/ Government	-
Number or percentage of population who are participating in REDD+ financed projects as a result of the programme, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	To identify engagement of individuals in REDD+ projects	Delivery Partner / Partner Authority/ Government	-
Percentage change in quality of life measures such as reduced poverty, income, increased livelihood, security of landowners being disaggregated by sex/ social group	Outcome	To identify direct benefits beyond protection. The survey must specifically ask whether improvements resulted from the protection of land	Delivery Partner – baseline pre-programme survey, compared to a post-programme survey	Defining quality of life is a contested subject; Definition of will have to be standardised and clearly defined to ensure valid results[footnote 59]. However, definitions will differ between programme aims and context. Measuring Quality of Life is also notoriously difficult due to its subjective nature
Number of green jobs create, for example, in non-timber forest products broken down by sex/ indigenous peoples/ social group	Output/ Outcome	Just transition indicator identifying job creation (as a secondary benefit) of ICF programming	Delivery Partner / Partner Authority/ Government	-
Number of / % of projects that are disability inclusive in their design	Outcome	To understand the extent to which disability has been considered and included	Delivery partner	It is important to ensure people with disabilities and their representative organisations (OPDs) are consulted and meaningfully involved in the programmes directly and indirectly impacting them

Energy

Renewable energy construction/implementation programmes such as solar, wind, geothermal. It is understood that many projects are ‘on grid’ – contributing to a grid where the energy is dispersed along with other power sources, so outcomes can be difficult to attribute. Therefore, some suggestions below would be best applied to an ‘off grid’ context, where energy is directly supplied to beneficiaries.

Indicator	Indicator level	Purpose	Data source or method of acquiring data	Consideration
Percentage of attributable MWs generated used by the local community (if disadvantaged)	Outcome	To assess whether the clean energy is supporting disadvantaged groups access to energy sources	Board papers/ evaluation, data requested from energy supplier	If on-grid, the energy supplier may not be able to identify where the MW have been used
Number or percentage of projects or consultations with the local community prior to programme activity/investment	Activity	Ensuring local communities can influence the programme spend and to decrease the likelihood of harming those communities	IC/board papers, evaluation	Local community may not be easy to identify
Number or percentage of proposed investments/projects that include a GEDSI strategy	Activity	To understand whether investment partners have strategies in place to ensure GEDSI impacts are considered	Investment Committee Papers	The team will need to assess whether the present GEDSI plans are sufficiently ambitious
Percentage of employment opportunities supported by ICF investments that are taken up, disaggregated by sex/social group.	Output	Looking at the equity in the employee-base of projects which the vehicle invests in – particularly in management	Investment papers/ delivery partner reporting evaluation evidence	Assessing appropriate progress against this indicator will require baselining the ‘business-as-usual’ employment by gender in the target sector/geography
Number or percentage of managerial positions generated by ICF support disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	To understand whether the ICF investment is supporting social mobility for disadvantaged genders	Board papers/ evaluation	To assess whether progress is sufficient the programme will need a baseline estimation to understand the ‘business-as-usual’ employment of non-cisgender men in managerial positions
Number of / percent of local community households affected or displaced by projects that build energy infrastructure through land acquisitioned	Output	To understand whether infrastructure is disproportionately harming local communities	Evaluation	-
Number or percentage of a staff that are members of a worker’s union	Output	To understand whether the infrastructure development has accounted for labour rights and created ‘good jobs’	Board papers/delivery partner reports	In some geographies union membership may lead to persecution
Number or percentage of Individual’s involved in training supplied supported by ICF, disaggregated by sex/social group.	Output	Measuring with the programme is contributing to social mobility of disadvantaged groups	Delivery partner reports/ training reports/ evaluation	-
Number or percentage of clean energy projects supported by ICF that have policies to incentivise recruitment of women and minority groups	Outcome	Measuring with the programme is contributing to social mobility of disadvantaged groups. Understand recruitment into jobs, stakeholder groups, TA activities, etc.	Delivery partner reports/ training reports/ evaluation	-
Number or percentage of projects supported by ICF that have policies to incentivise recruitment of individuals who are from the local community	Outcome	Measuring with the programme is contributing to social mobility of disadvantaged groups	Delivery partner reports/ training reports/ evaluation	-
Number or percentage of projects supported by ICF that have policies to incentivise recruitment of individuals who are from a social group within the target geography	Outcome	Measuring with the programme is contributing to social mobility of disadvantaged groups	Delivery partner reports/ training reports/ evaluation	Collecting data on ethnicity/religious group may be political sensitive in some geographies
Number of households connected to renewable energy project, where the head of the household is female	Outcome	Ensuring no discrimination at the programme delivery stage – may be difficult in some contexts	Board papers/evaluation	If the energy is on-grid it would be challenging to meaningfully assess the number of houses in receipt of clean energy from ICF investments. May be hard to gather data on who a ‘head’ of a household is and disaggregate it by sex
Number of participants attending participatory planning and consultation meetings, disaggregated by sex/social group	Output	Ensuring the UK meets its ‘do no harm’ commitment	Delivery Partner	-
Number or percentage of people in energy/fuel poverty at the end of programme lifetime, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Assess whether the programme has contributed to the elevation of fuel poverty	Delivery Partner/evaluation	Women are more likely to be in fuel poverty due to their lower earning power, caring responsibilities so baseline should be higher if aiming to improve fuel poverty here
Number or percentage of projects that are disability inclusive in their design.	Outcome	To understand the extent to which disability has been considered and included	Delivery partner	It is important to ensure people with disabilities and their representative organisations (OPDs) are consulted and meaningfully involved in the programmes directly and indirectly impacting them

Infrastructure

Programmes involving improvement of transport, agriculture, housing, waste for example.

Indicator	Indicator level	Reasoning	Data source/method of acquiring data	Consideration
Number of beneficiaries, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	For example, a new transport system may be created in a city but only runs through districts/areas where certain social groups live. Accessibility of project outcomes therefore needs consideration. Did one group benefit more than another?	Delivery Partner or Partner Authority	-
Number of individuals included in the project consideration stage, disaggregated by sex/social group	Activity	Understanding whether their concerns and voices have been heard is important for both the ‘do no harm’ commitment, as well as influencing change.	Delivery Partner or Partner Authority	-
Hectares of land acquired, disaggregated by social group	Output	Was one group particularly impacted by the project – part of the ‘do no harm’ commitment	Delivery Partner or Partner Authority	Will need data on who/what social group owns the land
Management structure of project – disaggregated by sex/social group	Output	Assessment of the lasting involvement of discriminated groups, particularly beyond the end of construction. For example, a rail system will operate for decades beyond its construction, assessing whether the team in place will continue to be diverse immediately beyond the project could be plausible	Delivery Partner	-
Number of employees of the project, disaggregated by sex/social group	Output/Intermediate outcome	To determine the gender split of the workforce and enable tracking of improving the representation of the minority group	Delivery Partner	-
Usage of project, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Can be a measure of project design/awareness, for example, separate facilities for women, and safety for discriminated social groups. A safe service is more likely to be used	Partner Authority – acquired after the end of the project	-
Ownership/beneficiary owners, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Looking at the communities/type of individual who benefitted from infrastructure. For homes – which social group did purchasers belong to? For agriculture – which social group did most beneficiary farmers of farming infrastructure belong to?	Delivery Partner	-
Number or percentage of people with improved access to adequate sanitation infrastructure, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Sanitation is a vital aspect of infrastructure to improve the health of citizens, so important to measure if the programme has had a positive impact in relation to the ‘do no harm’ commitment. Women and girls also have a specific sanitation and hygiene needs, so important to disaggregate by gender	Delivery partner	What falls under ‘sanitation infrastructure’? Domestic, for example, showers and toilets, or commercial- sewer systems, sewage treatment and solid waste landfills
Number or percentage of people with improved access to adequate water supply/infrastructure, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Women are disproportionately impacted by lack of water supply as they usually have the responsibility of fetching water, so important to disaggregate by gender	Delivery partner	-
Number or percentage of people with improved access to (sustainable?) housing, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Women often face unequal property rights and security of tenure so need to ensure that any improvement of access to housing equally benefits women as much as it does men	Delivery partner	-
Number or percentage of people with improved access to public transport systems, disaggregated by sex/social group	Outcome	Public transport systems are key to sustainable urban development, with significant implications for economic growth, social progress, and environmental protection. Women rely on public transport than men, and poorer citizens are more likely to rely on it than richer citizens, so important to disaggregate by gender, disability and social class. Public transport systems also must be accessible in design and therefore programmes should involve OPDs and experts on disability inclusion in design, planning, delivery and monitoring	Delivery partner	May be hard to get a baseline number for public transport usage
Number or percentage of projects that are disability inclusive in their design.	Outcome	To understand the extent to which disability has been considered and included	Delivery partner	It is important to ensure people with disabilities and their representative organisations (OPDs) are consulted and meaningfully involved in the programmes directly and indirectly impacting them

*[FCDO] Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office *[UNFCCC]: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change *[IPLCs]: Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) *[CBD]: Convention on Biological Diversity *[MEL]: Monitoring, evaluation and learning

1. UNFCCC (2014) Gender Action Plan (PDF, 260 KB) ↩

2. CBD (2022) Gender Plan of Action (PDF, 352 KB) ↩

3. K4DD (2024) How Women’s Empowerment Contributes to Climate Change and Natural Resource Management Outcomes, K4DD (ids.ac.uk) ESPA (2018). An environment for wellbeing: Pathways out of poverty Policy messages from the ESPA programme Edinburgh: Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation;  UN Women (2022) Explainer: Why women need to be at the heart of climate action, UN Women – Headquarters; UNFCCC (2022) How Indigenous Peoples Enrich Climate Action, UNFCCC ↩

4. Protected characteristics defined by the Equality Act 2010 include age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy/maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage/civil partnership ↩

5. This means avoiding unintentional harm through deep understanding of the social context, rigorous programme design and risk management. Examples of ‘doing harm’ include: ill-designed natural resource programmes that impact on the livelihoods of people living in poverty through disrupting resource use, land management and ownership, affecting those with least power and voice; Well-intentioned engagement on LGBT+ inclusion and rights could detrimentally affect the lives and safety of LGBT+ people as the perception of external interference, particularly from developed countries such as the UK, can lead to political and social backlash against LGBT+ communities; Similarly, a strong understanding of the local context is required for any social inclusion efforts in relation to race and ethnicity. The IFC’s Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability provide guidance for avoiding harm in ODA programming ↩

6. A score of 1/Significant under the OECD DAC Gender Marker signifies that “Gender Equality is an important and deliberate objective, but not the principal reason for undertaking the project/programme.” See: Handbook-OECD-DAC-Gender-Equality-Policy-Marker.pdf ↩

7. “2/’Transformative’ under the OECD DAC Gender Marker signifies that “Gender equality is the main objective of the project/programme and is fundamental in its design and expected results.” See: Handbook-OECD-DAC-Gender-Equality-Policy-Marker.pdf ↩

8. K4DD (2024) How Women’s Empowerment Contributes to Climate Change and Natural Resource Management Outcomes, K4DD (ids.ac.uk) ESPA (2018). An environment for wellbeing: Pathways out of poverty Policy messages from the ESPA programme Edinburgh: Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation;  UN Women (2022) Explainer: Why women need to be at the heart of climate action, UN Women – Headquarters; UNFCCC (2022) How Indigenous Peoples Enrich Climate Action, UNFCCC ↩

9. ICF (2023) Cost-effective ecosystem restoration, London. Science Search (defra.gov.uk) ↩

10. Seager, J. 2021. Gender and illegal wildlife trade: Overlooked and underestimated. WWF. Gland, Switzerland ↩

11. Hou-Jones, X, Roe, D and Holland, E (2021) Nature-based Solutions in Action: Lessons from the Frontline. London. Bond ↩

12. New York Declaration on Forests Assessment Partners (2018). Improving Governance to Protect Forests: Empowering People and Communities, Strengthening Laws and Institutions – New York Declaration on Forests Goal 10 Assessment Report (PDF, 4.3 MB) ↩

13. World Resources Institute 2014: https://www.wri.org/publication/securing-rights-combating-climate-change ↩

14. Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. (London: HM Treasury) ↩

15. Schuster et al. (2019). Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas (PDF, 1.1 MB) Environmental Science and Policy 101: 1-6. See also IPBES (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ↩

16. GBF Target 22: Ensure Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice and Information Related to Biodiversity for all; GBF Target 23 Ensure Gender Equality and a Gender-Responsive Approach for Biodiversity Action ↩

17.  WOW Helpdesk (2021) Women’s Economic Empowerment and Climate Change: A Primer Work and Opportunities for Women: Women’s Economic Empowerment and Climate Change: A Primer (PDF, 894 KB); Disability Inclusion Helpdesk  (2020) Climate resilience and disability inclusion: mapping and rapid evidence review Query 30 - Climate resilience and disability inclusion.pdf (sddirect.org.uk) (PDF, 381 KB); BBC (2022) Why climate change is inherently racist - BBC Future ↩

18. Booker, F., Allison, H., Nash, F., Green, A. (2022). Women, girls and biodiversity loss: an evidence and policy review. DEFRA, London ↩

19. World Economic Forum (2017)  Women own less than 20% of the world’s land. It’s time to give them equal property rights, World Economic Forum (weforum.org) ↩

20. IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany ↩

21. IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 1,148 pages ↩

22. Protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy/maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage/civil partnership, caring responsibilities, socio-economic background ↩

23. This means avoiding unintentional harm through deep understanding of the social context, rigorous programme design and risk management. Examples of ‘doing harm’ include: ill-designed natural resource programmes could impact on the livelihoods of people living in poverty through disrupting resource use, land management and ownership, affecting those with least power and voice; Well-intentioned engagement on LGBT+ inclusion and rights could detrimentally affect the lives and safety of LGBT+ people as the perception of external interference, particularly from developed countries such as the UK, can lead to political and social backlash against LGBT+ communities; Similarly, a strong understanding of the local context is required for any social inclusion efforts in relation to race and ethnicity. The IFC’s Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability provide guidance for avoiding harm in ODA programming ↩

24. See: Disability-Inclusive-Language-Guidelines.pdf (ungeneva.org) (PDF, 286 KB) ↩

25. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, OHCHR ↩

26. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples ↩

27. Booker et al. 2022. Women, girls and biodiversity loss: an evidence and policy review ↩

28. Cited in 2x guidance on gender-smart biodiversity (PDF, 965 KB) ↩

29. Further examples can be found in this research conducted for UN Human Rights Council (PDF, 262 KB) ↩

30. OSF, 2021 Disability and Climate Justice A Research Project ↩

31. Dasgupta. 2021 Final Report - The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review - GOV.UK ↩

32. Convention on Biological Diversity Addressing Gender Issues and Actions in Biodiversity Objectives (PDF, 5.1 MB) ↩

33. Cited in 2x guidance on gender-smart biodiversity (PDF, 965 KB) ↩

34. Work and Opportunities for Women: Women’s Economic Empowerment and Climate Change: A Primer (PDF, 894 KB) ↩

35. Booker et al. 2022. Women, girls and biodiversity loss: an evidence and policy review ↩

36. Cited in 2x Guidance on gender and water (PDF, 980 KB) ↩

37. Disability-Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Situations United Nations Enable ↩

38. Streissnig et al., 2013, p. 5; Blankespoor et al., 2010, p. 12 (PDF, 742 KB) ↩

39. Cited in 2x guidance on gender and sustainable energy (PDF, 770 KB) ↩

40. UN Flagship Report on Disability and Development, 2018 (PDF, 4.4 MB). EEG Insight Paper on Energy Disability (PDF, 199 KB) ↩

41. Cited in 2x guidance on gender and sustainable energy (PDF, 770 KB). ↩

42. ILO (2022) Just Transition Policy Brief wcms_860569.pdf (PDF, 3.7 MB) ↩

43. Cited in 2x guidance on gender and sustainable energy (PDF, 770 KB). ↩

44. World Bank /ESMAP (2022) Opening Opportunities, Closing Gaps - advancing gender-equal benefits in clean cooking (PDF, 2.1 MB). ↩

45. Wilhite. 2016. Gender Implications of Energy Use and Energy Access (PDF, 386 KB) ↩

46. Lessons Learned: Gender Inclusion Strategies for SMEs in the Off-Grid Energy Sector (PDF, 88 KB) ↩

47. How to overhaul mining and build an ethical battery World Economic Forum (weforum.org) ↩

48. Wilhite. 2016. Gender Implications of Energy Use and Energy Access (PDF, 386 KB) ↩

49. Winther, Tanja. 2009. The Impact of Electricity: Development, Desires and Dilemmas. London: Berghahn Books; Wilhite. 2016. Gender Implications of Energy Use and Energy Access (PDF, 386 KB) ↩

50. Cited in 2X. 2021. Gender-Smart Climate Finance: Sustainable Cities (PDF, 1.1 MB) ↩

51. Cited in 2X. 2021. Gender-Smart Climate Finance: Sustainable Cities (PDF, 1.1 MB) ↩

52. OECD Library, Benefits of Investing in Water and Sanitation ↩

53. Inclusive WASH and disability Source) ↩

54. Cited in 2X. 2021. Gender-Smart Climate Finance: Sustainable Cities (PDF, 1.1 MB) ↩

55. The Edge Effect is monitoring /encouraging LGBT+ inclusion in humanitarian and disaster risk reduction sectors ↩

56. “The public sector equality duty is a duty on public authorities to consider or think about how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act” (Citizens Advice) ↩

57. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgbt-action-plan-2018-improving-the-lives-of-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-people ↩

58. These surveys could be sent out after a capacity building or knowledge workshop to allow for attendance to be disaggregated by social group. If your programme doesn’t run such events, for example, is a capital investment project, the surveys could be sent to intended beneficiaries prior to the programme starting to allow for demographics to be understood and so the programme can be adapted where needed. It can also be sent to programme beneficiaries after programme completion ↩

59. WHO defines Quality of Life as “an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns”. While the NHS defines Quality of Life as “your physical, emotional and social well-being” ↩