What we are learning about diversity in gender and emergencies work

On 18 September 2025, we first announced our new Certificate peer learning programme for gender in emergencies. The first course, a primer on the topic, then launched on 6 October.

As of 21 January 2026, the gender community of The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) now reaches 6,592 practitioners. This amazing growth is the result of the first primer “going viral”, and a testament to the Foundation’s learning communities that responded to the call to action, joined the course, and spread the call for enrollment far and wide.

On 14 October 2025, The Geneva Learning Foundation issued the first call for domain experts to support and guide the programme’s future development.

In humanitarian work, hiring processes are frequently opaque. Specialized topics like gender in emergencies have relied primarily on closed networks led by Global North gatekeepers with impressive credentials and “field” experience. Our thinking was that this excludes or marginalizes practitioners who live every day in the “field” where global humanitarians deploy during emergencies.

Here is what we learned when we opened our roster to both INGO networks that remain concentrated in the Global North and to our own networks that connect over 80,000 health and humanitarian workers, primarily based in local communities of the Global South.

Seeking a guide on the side

The call for applications issued in October 2025 sought a specific type of professional: the “Guide on the side”. This is a facilitator tasked with holding safe and brave spaces for humanitarian practitioners to find solidarity and deepen their analysis.

The Geneva Learning Foundation prioritized several core requirements for this role:

• Deep domain expertise in gender in emergencies, for example in areas like Rapid Gender Analysis or risk mitigation for gender based violence.
• A practice grounded in intersectional, feminist, and decolonial analysis.
• A practice in line with our conviction that practitioners who are there every day hold the essential knowledge required to solve complex problems.
• Full professional fluency in English, French, and other languages to facilitate complex and nuanced discussions across linguistic divides.

Who answered the call: a demographic profile

We received 61 applications from 26 countries, 49% of them from women. The largest concentrations of applicants are found in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, which together account for 41% of the total. However, for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, men represent 67% of the applicants, while Nigeria shows a more balanced split with 55% men and 45% women. Four countries (Spain, Jordan, Morocco, and South Africa) had only female applicants, whereas applicants from three countries (Ethiopia, India, and Senegal) were all men.

Women from the Global North, primarily residing in countries like Spain, Greece, and Switzerland, consistently presented the most extensive institutional pedigrees, citing decades of experience authoring global strategies and leading interagency coordination for major international organizations. In contrast, applications from women in the Global South, although fewer in number, were characterized by grassroots activism and authority derived from personal lived experiences of conflict and displacement. Men from the Global South represented a significant portion of the pool, particularly from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, and their profiles frequently combined technical public health roles with a deep commitment to adapting global guidelines to complex local realities. Notably, no applications were received from men residing in the Global North for this specific call.

Beyond credentials: vague claims versus tangible artefacts

A critical part of our analysis involved distinguishing between vague, unverifiable claims and tangible examples of achievements. Many applicants stated they were “passionate about gender” or “committed to equity” without providing evidence of how this commitment manifested through what they have actually done in their work or life. Passion may be necessary, but it is unlikely to be sufficient without analysis.

Some candidates provided concrete examples. Here are four examples:

• Localized technical tools: One applicant developed culturally relevant glossaries and training materials in Arabic to decolonize the language of gender and protection. Another led the design of a Menstrual Health and Dignity Project that promoted youth leadership and gender justice in partnership with local networks.
• Documented field leadership: Candidates shared evidence of leading national level Rapid Gender Analyses in displacement sites, where they trained local teams and validated results directly with communities.
• Integration of gender into technical sectors: Several health professionals shared how they successfully integrated gender sensitive strategies into outbreak preparedness and large scale immunization campaigns.
• Strategic policy influence: One candidate led the development of a global gender justice strategy that centers decolonial feminist approaches and prioritizes collaboration with women led organizations.

The intersection of professional background and lived experience

A significant dimension shared in many motivation letters was the “why” that informs their practice. For these individuals, expertise is not just a credential. It is a lived reality that is both personal and political.

• Survivors and activists: Several candidates identified as survivors of conflict and displacement. They stated that their commitment to gender equity was not learned from books but was “painfully and personally lived”.
• Identity as expertise: Applicants from the Global South shared how their own multicultural and multilingual identities allow them to navigate power dynamics that Western centric frameworks might miss.
• Commitment to unlearning: Many senior experts explicitly addressed the need for “continued unlearning” to recognize their own privilege and create truly inclusive spaces.

Divergent paths to expertise: local activism versus institutional pedigree

The call for applications revealed a profound bifurcation in the nature of expertise within the humanitarian sector. On one hand, a significant number of applications originated from practitioners rooted in local communities across Africa, Asia, and the Arab World. These candidates presented profiles characterized by grassroots activism and direct advocacy. What was distinct about their applications was the source of their authority: it was not solely academic but was often described as being painfully and personally lived. Some are founders of grassroots initiatives that work on dismantling systems of forced labor and modern slavery. Others are community health supervisors who coordinate responses in health zones facing extreme poverty and armed conflict. Their applications emphasized the importance of psychological liberation and rebuilding agency from within the community rather than through external intervention.

In contrast, applications from women based in the Global North, particularly from Spain, Switzerland, and Greece, held the most impressive institutional pedigrees. These profiles were marked by decades of experience shaping global policies and leading interagency coordination for major international organizations. They are the authors of global gender justice strategies, senior GenCap advisors who provide technical assistance to United Nations Humanitarian Coordinators, and architects of standardized guidelines for gender-based violence response. Their achievements are measured by the scale of their institutional reach and the creation of universal frameworks intended for deployment across diverse emergency contexts.

From a decolonial feminist lens, these differences illustrate what Ogochukwu Udenigwe and her colleagues describe as “hierarchical knowledge praxis”. In plain language, Global North candidates often function as dispensers of human rights and experts who generate knowledge for others to consume. This reflects the coloniality of power where the West remains the center of production while the rest of the world is positioned as a recipient. 

Conversely, the local activist profiles represent a form of epistemic disobedience. They refuse to be reduced to passive beneficiaries or informants, and assert themselves as knowledge-holders whose firsthand experience is the most critical resource for solving complex challenges. Their applications challenge the saviourism narratives that often characterize international interventions by prioritizing relational accountability and indigenous histories of solidarity.

Solidarity as an act of unlearning and reclaiming

By opening our roster, we are not dismissing institutional expertise but rather creating a site where global strategic knowledge and ‘authentically intelligent’ local experience can meet as equals to solve problems that neither can address alone, to the benefit of both.

In this framework, solidarity does not mean “helping” the Global South from a position of superiority. Instead, it requires a two-way transformation:

• Global North allies can engage in a deliberate process of unlearning positional privilege and recognizing that their “expert” knowledge often excludes the lived realities of those they aim to protect.
• Global South practitioners can reclaim their status as knowledge-holders and experts who are capable of autonomous thought and innovation.
• Both groups benefit from working together to “delink” from Western narratives that pathologize cultures of the Global South and instead value indigenous histories of solidarity, such as the African tradition of “safe spaces”.
• This process fosters “relational accountability,” where the primary responsibility of a consultant is to the community served rather than to a distant donor or state bureaucracy.
• Legitimacy is best defined not only by institutional pedigree but by ‘relational accountability’ to the communities being served and the ability to turn shared insights into concrete action.

By opening the call to everyone with decolonial criteria clearly in mind, we hope to build a bridge across the chasm between “global” and “local” knowledge. True leadership in gender in emergencies requires the humility to listen and the courage to act upon what is heard. As this programme moves forward, our goal is to build an ecosystem where every practitioner, regardless of their geography, identity, or pedigree, can both contribute and benefit.

References

Bian, J., 2022. The racialization of expertise and professional non-equivalence in the humanitarian workplace. Int J Humanitarian Action 7, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-021-00112-9

Sadki, R., 2026. Reimagining Rapid Gender Analysis as decolonial practice. https://doi.org/10.59350/rr0d3-3pk55

Sadki, R., 2025. Gender in emergencies: a new peer learning programme from The Geneva Learning Foundation. https://doi.org/10.59350/j3twk-d9x53

Udenigwe, O., Aubel, J., Abimbola, S., 2026. A decolonial feminist perspective on gender equality programming in the Global South. PLOS Glob Public Health 6, e0005556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005556

Wenham, C., Davies, S.E., 2022. WHO runs the world – (not) girls: gender neglect during global health emergencies. International Feminist Journal of Politics 24, 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2021.1921601

#CertificatePeerLearningProgrammeForGenderInEmergencies #experts #feminism #GenderInEmergencies #guideOnTheSide #hierarchicalKnowledgePraxis #humanitarianResponse #localization #TheGenevaLearningFoundation #unlearning

Reimagining Rapid Gender Analysis as decolonial practice

Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA) is a practical tool designed for humanitarian emergencies that allows aid workers to quickly understand how a crisis affects women, men, boys, and girls differently. Because there is often no time for long, detailed studies when lives are at risk, RGA provides a practical method to gather “good enough” information immediately to ensure that aid is safe, fair, and effective. It works by using existing data and progressively gathering new insights to help decision-makers respond to gender-specific risks without delaying urgent life-saving action.

This analysis examines the reference article on Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA) by Isadora Quay, using a decolonial feminist framework proposed by Udenigwe Ogochukwu, Aubel Judi, and Abimbola Seye. These authors argue that many gender equality initiatives in the Global South unwittingly host oppressive forces by reinforcing colonial and capitalist hierarchies.

The following sections evaluate RGA against the four key themes identified by Udenigwe and her colleagues: hierarchical knowledge praxis, the culturalization of violence, the framing of work, and the universalization of rights.

Keenly aware of public, political attacks against equity, this reflection is offered in solidarity with practitioners whose advocacy carved out space for Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA). It is precisely because of its established use and prevalence that humanitarian leaders stand to gain by analyzing it through a decolonial lens.

Hierarchical knowledge praxis

Udenigwe et al. critique the tendency of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to prioritize Western knowledge systems while viewing local communities through a deficit lens. They argue that this practice silences knowledge originating from the Global South.

Quay’s account of the origins of RGA reveals tensions regarding knowledge hierarchy. She notes that RGA was born because standard gender analysis tools failed in the Syrian humanitarian context. However, the justification for creating new tools relies on a deficit framing of local partners. Quay writes that local partners had “limited development or humanitarian experience and no gender analysis skills”. She describes a situation where a local gender focal point asked, “How do I find the answers to these questions?” as the catalyst for the toolkit.

From a decolonial perspective, this framing delegitimizes local knowledge. It assumes that because local actors did not know how to use specific humanitarian assessment tools, they lacked gender analysis skills entirely. Udenigwe et al. argue that such narratives ignore the fact that women in the Global South have long possessed their own methods of organizing and understanding their social worlds. By standardizing RGA into a “toolkit” designed by specialists in an international NGO and rolled out globally, the approach risks reinforcing the epistemic hierarchy where international NGOs defines what counts as valid gender analysis.

Culturalizing violence

A central critique by Udenigwe et al. is the “culturalizing of violence,” where violence and inequality are attributed to the culture or traditions of the Global South. This narrative obscures the roles of colonialism, conflict, and global structural inequality in exacerbating violence.

Quay’s analysis frequently attributes gender limitations to local culture. RGA reports cite “cultural limitations on mobility” in Bangladesh and describe decision-making in Kurdish areas as being perceived “culturally and traditionally as men’s business”. While these observations may reflect immediate realities, Udenigwe et al. warn that identifying “culture” as the primary problem suggests that the Global South is inherently backward or patriarchal compared to the West.

The RGA approach focuses on how “traditional gender roles” play out in crises. It does not appear to deeply interrogate how the crises themselves – often fueled by geopolitical and colonial histories – reshape or weaponize these cultural norms. Udenigwe et al. argue that a decolonial approach must look beyond culture to see how structural violence and imperialist histories create the conditions for gender-based violence.

The vision of work and labor

Udenigwe et al. challenge the neoliberal assumption that integration into the market and paid work is intrinsically liberating for women. They argue that this perspective ignores the exploitative nature of global capitalism and the reality that work does not always equal empowerment.

Quay’s article touches on labor primarily through the “gendered division of labour” and the protection risks associated with unemployment. She notes that in displacement camps, men struggle with “having nothing to do” and the inability to fulfill their role as providers. This analysis aligns with the critique that development narratives often center on economic productivity as a primary human value.

While RGA acknowledges the burden of unpaid care work increasing during crises, the solution implies a restoration of “productive” roles or a better management of time. It does not explicitly critique the global economic systems that create poverty, which Udenigwe et al. identify as a critical missing piece in standard gender programming.

Universalizing human rights discourses

Udenigwe et al. argue that international NGOs often apply universal human rights discourses that reflect Western individualistic values, ignoring local understandings of rights and community.

Quay explicitly frames CARE as a “rights-based organisation”. RGA is celebrated for its inclusion in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Gender Handbook, a global standard for humanitarian action. This standardization allows for rapid deployment across “more than 50 crises”.

However, this universal application risks flattening local contexts. By using a standardized toolkit and templates, RGA may prioritize data that fits into global humanitarian reporting structures over local, nuanced understandings of justice and rights. Udenigwe et al. suggest that such universalism arrogates the position of “dispensers of rights” to experts, justifying intrusion into the lives of populations in the Global South.

Comparative overview

The table below contrasts the RGA approach described by Quay with the decolonial feminist critiques provided by Udenigwe et al.

ThemeRapid Gender Analysis (Quay)Decolonial feminist critique (Udenigwe et al.)Knowledge productionDeveloped by INGO experts because local partners lacked “gender analysis skills”. Knowledge is standardized into a global toolkit.Views local populations as knowledge holders. Critiques the deficit lens that assumes locals lack capacity.Culture and violenceIdentifies “cultural limitations” and “traditional” norms as key barriers to mobility and decision-making.Rejects “culturalizing violence” as it stereotypes Global South cultures as inherently violent or backward.Labor and economyFocuses on the gendered division of labor and the risks of male unemployment. Highlights time burdens on women.Critiques the assumption that market participation is the solution to poverty. Highlights the role of global capitalism in structural violence.Rights and standardsRelies on global frameworks like the IASC Gender Handbook. Aims for standardized reports across diverse crises.Critiques universal human rights for imposing Western values. Advocates for “delinking” from universal narratives to value local epistemologies.

Is Rapid Gender Analysis a tool of colonization?

Isadora Quay presents Rapid Gender Analysis as a necessary innovation to bridge the gap between complex gender theory and the urgent needs of humanitarian response. It succeeds in making gender analysis “fast, easy to administer” and practical for decision-makers. When viewed through the decolonial feminist lens of Udenigwe et al., RGA reveals the tensions inherent in the humanitarian sector. By prioritizing speed and standardization, RGA may inadvertently reinforce hierarchical knowledge practices that center the INGO as the expert and the local population as the subject of analysis.

RGA’s reliance on global standards and its framing of culture as a barrier align with the “coloniality of knowledge” that Udenigwe et al. seek to dismantle. While Quay argues that the tool allows for “imperfection” and aims to support local actors, the decolonial perspective suggests that true support requires a fundamental shift: moving away from viewing communities as lacking skills and towards recognizing them as producers of their own solutions and knowledge.

Can we reimagine a decolonial RGA?

If we recognize the premise that local women are the primary agents of their own survival, the practical application of a Rapid Gender Analysis shifts from extraction to amplification. In the chaotic constraints of a sudden-onset emergency, a decolonial RGA does not require an international specialist to land, hire a translator, and conduct focus group discussions to “discover” needs. That approach wastes precious time and assumes the knowledge does not yet exist.

In a decolonial model, the “Rapid” aspect relies on the fact that women and men who support them are already analyzing the context. Because they are there every day, they know which shelters are unsafe, where food distribution excludes female heads of households, and how social norms are shifting under pressure. Furthermore, when there are women-led organizations, known as “WLOs” in humanitarian jargon, they may be able to articulate a collective perspective.

Here is a sketch of how we might reimagine RGA as part of decolonial practice:

• Immediate resource transfer: Instead of deploying an assessment team, the international agency deploys flexible, unrestricted cash to pre-identified WLO partners within 24 hours, allowing them to mobilize their own networks without the burden of writing a proposal first.
• The role of the scribe: The international specialist stops being the “analyst” and becomes the “translator of systems.” Their job is to receive the raw intelligence coming from WLOs – often via WhatsApp, voice notes, or brief phone calls – and repackage that reality into the bureaucratic language required by donors. The international actor absorbs the administrative burden so the local actors can focus on the response.
• Knowledge validation: The final report explicitly credits the WLOs as the authors of the analysis. The international organization uses its branding not to claim ownership of the findings, but to lend its institutional credibility to the local voices, ensuring that the funding appeals that follow are shaped directly by those living the reality.

This approach does not ignore the urgency of the emergency. Rather, it acknowledges that the fastest way to understand a crisis is to listen to the women who are already managing it.

The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) offers the Certificate peer learning programme for gender in emergencies that is explicitly decolonial, intersectional, and grounded in the lived experience of humanitarian practitioners based in local communities. Learn more about the programme…

About the featured image: The Empty Face of Authority © The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection 2026. This installation presents itself as a monumental mask, a face assembled from weighty planes of wood, its gaze fixed yet uninhabited. The eye sockets open not onto an interior, but onto a distant urban landscape, exposing an absence where presence is expected. Authority here is revealed as a constructed surface, persuasive in scale and material, yet fundamentally hollow. The use of wood, cut from living trees, deepens this tension between life and form. Organic matter is reduced, segmented, and reassembled into a rigid geometry, echoing how living realities are often abstracted into fixed categories. The work resists expression or identity, inviting the viewer to question what is lost when complex, living systems are carved into legible shapes, and whether seeing clearly requires learning to look past the face that power presents.

References

Quay I. Rapid Gender Analysis and its use in crises: from zero to fifty in five years. Gender & Development. 4 May 2019;27(2):221–36. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13552074.2019.1615282

Udenigwe O, Aubel J, Abimbola S. A decolonial feminist perspective on gender equality programming in the Global South. Meudec M, editor. PLOS Glob Public Health. 7 January 2026;6(1):e0005556. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005556

#AbimbolaSeye #AubelJudi #decolonial #GenderInEmergencies #IsadoraQuay #RapidGenderAnalysis #UdenigweOgochukwu

A decolonial feminist perspective on gender equality programming in the Global South

The article “A decolonial feminist perspective on gender equality programming in the Global South” provides a critical analysis of how international non-governmental organizations design and execute gender equality programs. The authors, Udenigwe Ogochukwu, Aubel Judi, and Abimbola Seye, argue that many current initiatives adapt to existing systems of oppression rather than dismantling them. They contend that these programs often inadvertently reinforce racist, capitalist, and patriarchal structures, which can hinder true equality and potentially worsen the well-being of women and girls in the Global South.

The authors identify four central themes that characterize these problematic narratives within development programming.

1. Reinforcing hierarchical knowledge praxis

The first theme critiques the exclusion and silencing of knowledge originating from the Global South. The authors highlight how development programs often overlook indigenous histories of collective organization. For instance, while organizations often present “safe spaces” as new interventions, African women have long utilized similar cultural structures, such as the Nhanga in Shona/Bantu traditions, to discuss health and social issues. By ignoring these existing forms of leadership, programs perpetuate a colonial dynamic that positions the Global North as the sole source of innovation.

2. Culturalizing violence

The second theme addresses the tendency to portray violence as an intrinsic characteristic of cultures in the Global South. The article argues that reports frequently blame culture or tradition as the primary oppressor, suggesting violence results from “backward” customs rather than structural inequalities. This narrative obscures the roles of colonialism and global capitalism in fostering violence and reinforces stereotypes that depict men in the Global South as uniquely dangerous. The authors emphasize that decolonial feminism rejects this simplification and calls for an analysis of how violence is structural.

3. Labelling work as inherently liberating

The third theme challenges the neoliberal assumption that economic participation is the primary solution to gender inequality. Many programs operate on the logic that providing jobs will automatically liberate women and girls from poverty. The authors argue this perspective depoliticizes poverty by ignoring exploitative global economic structures. It places the burden of solving poverty on individual women and girls while overlooking the lack of decent work conditions and social protections in the informal sectors where many are employed.

4. Universalizing human rights discourses

The final theme critiques the imposition of Western understandings of human rights as universal standards. The authors note that many programs rely on individualistic frameworks that may conflict with local values of community and interdependence. For instance, viewing care work solely as a burden ignores how such activities can be essential for social solidarity in some cultures. The article suggests that relying exclusively on formal legal systems, which are often colonial legacies, overlooks the potential of local, non-state justice systems.

The authors conclude that effective gender equality programming must “delink” from Western narratives and integrate a decolonial feminist perspective that prioritizes indigenous identities and values local knowledge systems.

Gender in emergencies: a practical space for grappling with these challenges

The critiques raised by Udenigwe, Aubel, and Abimbola highlight the difficulty of “doing” gender work without reinforcing the very power structures its advocates in the Global North aim to dismantle. The Certificate peer learning programme for gender in emergencies attempts to navigate these complexities not by claiming to have all the answers, but by changing how practitioners learn and collaborate. It offers a structured space for professionals to reflect on the tensions between international standards and their local realities.

Shifting the source of knowledge

The programme aligns with the call to challenge “hierarchical knowledge praxis” by explicitly rejecting the traditional expert-student model. Instead of relying on lectures from the Global North, the course treats the lived experience of practitioners as the “primary text” of the learning. It frames the primer not as a rulebook, but as an “invitation to a conversation” where participants test ideas against their own reality. This design aims to honor the knowledge practitioners already hold rather than assuming they need to be “taught” their own context.

Focusing on introspection and standpoint

The course material addresses the risk of “culturalizing violence” by asking participants to turn the lens inward first. It uses the concept of “standpoint” to help practitioners recognize how their own identities and positions of power shape what they see. The primer encourages humanitarians to examine their own biases – such as hierarchy and double standards – before diagnosing the communities they serve. This supports the move away from blaming culture and toward understanding systemic power dynamics.

Moving from compliance to context-appropriate action

Rather than promoting a “universalizing” checklist, the programme focuses on helping participants develop “context-appropriate solutions”. It acknowledges that tools like the BIAS FREE framework or Rapid Gender Analysis are not endpoints but are means to build analytical muscle. By connecting colleagues across borders to share challenges and strategies, the programme seeks to nurture a form of solidarity that supports practitioners in defining what works best for their specific communities.

The programme acknowledges that this work is difficult and requires courage. It offers a starting point for practitioners who wish to move beyond talking about these problems to finding practical ways to address them alongside their peers.

You can learn more about the approach and the primer here: https://www.learning.foundation/gender-in-emergencies

About the featured image: This sculptural assembly presents bodies that are held together by tension rather than mass, their forms composed of fragments, seams, and visible joins. Neither singular nor uniform, the figures stand in relation to one another, suggesting histories shaped by external forces and internal resilience. The work echoes the call to move away from imposed structures and universal answers, and instead attend to lived experience, local knowledge, and collective strength. What appears fragile is, in fact, sustained by connection, reminding us that equality cannot be built by fitting people into existing frames, but by reshaping the frames themselves. The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2026.

Reference

Udenigwe O, Aubel J, Abimbola S. A decolonial feminist perspective on gender equality programming in the Global South. Meudec M, editor. PLOS Glob Public Health. 7 January 2026;6(1):e0005556. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005556

#AbimbolaSeye #AubelJudi #CertificatePeerLearningProgrammeForGenderInEmergencies #decolonialFeminist #GenderInEmergencies #globalHealth #RapidGenderAnalysis #UdenigweOgochukwu

Gender in emergencies: a new peer learning programme from The Geneva Learning Foundation

This is a critical moment for work on gender in emergencies.

Across the humanitarian sector, we are witnessing a coordinated backlash.

Decades of progress are threatened by targeted funding cuts, the erasure of essential research and tools, and a political climate that seeks to silence our work.

Many dedicated practitioners feel isolated and that their work is being devalued.

This is not a time for silence.

It is a time for solidarity and for finding resilient ways to sustain our practice.

In this spirit, The Geneva Learning Foundation is pleased to announce the new Certificate peer learning programme for gender in emergencies.

We offer this programme to build upon the decades of vital work by countless practitioners and activists, seeing our role as one of contribution to the collective effort of all who continue to champion gender equality in emergencies.

Learn more and request your invitation to the programme and its first course here.

Our approach: A programme built from the ground up

This programme was built from scratch with a distinct philosophy.

We did not start with a pre-packaged curriculum.

Instead, we turned to two foundational sources of knowledge.

• First, we listened to the most valuable resource we have: the firsthand experiences of thousands of practitioners in our global network. Their stories of what truly happens on the front lines—what works, what fails, and why—form the living heart of this programme.
• Second, we grounded our approach in the deep insights of intersectional, decolonial, and feminist scholarship. These perspectives challenge us to move beyond technical fixes and to analyze the systems of power that create gender inequality in the first place.

This unique origin means our programme is a dynamic space co-created with and for practitioners who are serious about transformative change.

Gender in emergencies: Gender through an intersectional lens

Our focus is squarely on gender in emergencies.

We start with gender analysis because it is a fundamental tool for effective humanitarian action.

However, we use an intersectional lens.

We recognize that a person’s experience is shaped not by gender alone, but by how their gender compounds with their age, disability, ethnicity, and other aspects of their identity.

This lens does not replace gender analysis.

It makes it stronger.

It allows us to see how power works differently for different women, men, girls, and boys, and helps us to design solutions that do not inadvertently leave behind the people marginalized by something other than their gender.

Gender in emergencies requires learning at the speed of crisis

Humanitarian response must be rapid, and so must our learning.

A slow, top-down training model cannot keep pace with the reality of a crisis.

The Geneva Learning Foundation’s Impact Accelerator is a peer learning-to-action model built for the speed and complexity of humanitarian settings.

It is a ‘learn-by-doing’ experience where your frontline experience is the textbook.

The model is designed to quickly turn your individual insights into collective knowledge and practical action.

You analyze a real challenge from your work, share it with a small group of global peers, and use their feedback to build a concrete plan.

This process accelerates the development of context-specific solutions that are grounded in reality, not just theory.

Your first step: The foundational primer for gender in emergencies

We are starting this new programme with a free, open-access foundational course.

Enrollment is now open.

The course is a quick primer that introduces core concepts of gender, intersectionality, and bias through the real-world stories of practitioners.

It provides the shared language and practical tools to begin your journey of reflection, peer collaboration, and action.

Building a resilient community

This is more than a training programme.

It is an invitation to join a global community of practice.

In a time of backlash and division, creating spaces where we can learn from each other, share our struggles, and find solidarity is a critical act of resistance.

If you are ready to deepen your practice and connect with colleagues who share your commitment, we invite you to join us.

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation © 2025

#CertificatePeerLearningProgrammeForGenderInEmergencies #climateAndHealth #GenderInEmergencies #genderLens #globalHealth #humanitarianResponse #peerLearning #RapidGenderAnalysis #RGA #TheGenevaLearningFoundation