Tackling threats and violence against women-led organisations

Women-led organisations (WLOs) working in humanitarian contexts face pervasive harassment and intimidation, hindering their vital work delivering humanitarian assistance, assessing the needs of affected women and girls, and addressing manifestations of gender inequality that increase risk and vulnerability during crises. Diverse groups and organisations, ranging from grassroots volunteer-led initiatives to registered organisations with funding from international donors, continue to be subjected to various forms of harassment – including targeted intimidation, physical threats, online abuse, surveillance and legal threats – with the purpose of silencing WLO voices and maintaining the status quo. The gender-transformative work of WLOs such as FemiLead Mali threatens existing structures and power relations, which are distorted by the anti-rights movement as an attack on society and culture.

Based on my own experience in Mali working on gender-based violence (GBV) prevention, reproductive health and advocacy as the head of FemiLead Mali, various harassment tactics are utilised by the domestic anti-rights movement in an attempt to disrupt the work of WLOs. In Mali, GBV service providers have worked for many years advocating for formal passage of a law criminalising GBV, and I have been a visible proponent of the GBV law. Opponents have been ferocious in targeting my organisation with threats and harassment, demanding that we stop speaking about GBV and reproductive health, and to shut down the work that we do to prevent and respond to GBV in Mali. The modalities of harassment from hostile actors have ranged from online acts of nuisance and disinformation to in-person threats of violence against family members and damage to property.

While advocates from WLOs like myself have been increasingly welcomed into international policy spaces to share our work and experiences via global platforms such as Génération Égalité, Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI) and the Call to Action on Protection from GBV in Emergencies, the backlash to this work at country level is fuelled by external communications from such events that spotlight the contributions of attendees from the Global South in order to affirm the importance of partnering with WLOs. Indeed, many WLO representatives, including myself, embrace the opportunity to increase the impact of our engagement in such forums in order to network with potential funders and influence decision-making. Unfortunately, these events are increasingly less likely to open opportunities to access project and organisational funding, even as the communication from such events increases fodder for anti-rights movements at country level. Social media platforms have become a theatre for the relentless online harassment of women activists and women-led organisations by those aiming to silence the voices of WLOs and monopolise the energies and resources of our staff, partners and funders. Threats of violence and derogatory comments are directed to staff of women-led organisations as well as to individual activists, contributing to a climate of fear intended to discourage staff, volunteers and clients from working with and for WLOs.

System of threats and harassment

The harassment faced by WLOs in emergency and crisis contexts is reflective of the upheaval in power dynamics and political insecurity, along with the broader systemic impediments to women’s political participation pre-crisis. Deep-rooted patriarchal attitudes, legal and institutional barriers, conflict-related insecurity, and socioeconomic disparities make up the system of exclusion that WLOs navigate day to day. Threats to the rights and safety of women associated with gender work, such as those working with WLOs, are an acute manifestation of the structural challenges experienced by women and girls at large. While instances of harassment are too often dismissed as spontaneous manifestations of prevailing negative attitudes towards women speaking out in public forums, in fact gendered harassment against women leaders is strategic and intended to silence WLOs.

This harassment takes place within the context of narrowing political space for women’s activism in Mali and an energy crisis that limits our ability to work, particularly our connection to regional and global discourses conducted online. Yet, even mentioning these restrictive conditions is grounds for further threats. The volatile environment created by ongoing instability restricts the ability of women activists to mobilise, organise and advocate for their rights. Women face discrimination and barriers to accessing leadership positions, participating in decision-making forums, and exercising their rights, despite legal frameworks and international commitments to promote gender equality and protect women’s rights. Women continue to face legal barriers, discriminatory practices, and impunity for perpetrators of violence and discrimination. Without direct access to political power, the only space available to gender actors such as WLOs to call for change is civil society.

Threatened WLOs in the humanitarian sector

Gendered threats and harassment used to silence women associated with WLOs have become increasingly normalised, which has a chilling effect on the external advocacy and public profile of the broader humanitarian sector, especially gender and protection actors. Staff of humanitarian organisations working on GBV prevention and reproductive rights are less likely to coordinate with WLO partners in the sector, due to concerns regarding the risk to the organisation’s reputation and public profile. At the same time, WLO staff have to be preoccupied with potential risks to their personal and organisational security. Despite the strategic benefits of coordinating and sharing information with humanitarian actors, WLOs are obliged to censor their contributions or participation in humanitarian spaces because of security risks from accidental or purposeful transmission of information from supposedly secure meetings, such as lists of participants and agendas from humanitarian planning discussions. This further entrenches the vicious cycle of the low profile of WLOs as humanitarian actors, and creates further obstacles to WLOs contributing important information to needs analysis in conflict settings, as well as further diminishing their access to humanitarian funding opportunities.

Funding challenges

While WLOs and feminist activists have become accustomed to harassment, threats and violence in the course of our work, we continue to face a lack of understanding from funders about our indirect cost needs related to physical security, staff wellbeing and training, and online safety. Only 0.3% of bilateral aid in conflict-affected and fragile states goes to women’s rights organisations and WLOs, yet WLOs carry the bulk of the burden of opposition from proponents of traditional values and anti-feminist sentiment. The time and resources required by WLOs who face constant opposition to gender-transformative work, especially in fragile and conflict settings, exceeds donor expectations, especially regarding strategies to prevent staff burnout and resignation. The impact of sexual harassment in public spaces, slander in media and at community level, and threats against family members is a significant impediment to the work of WLOs, compounded by the direct impact of threats and harassment on property, offices and assets.

Though WLOs are at the forefront of gender-transformative humanitarian action to influence and change gender inequality in crisis and emergency contexts, WLO access to humanitarian funding streams is limited by perceptions within the international humanitarian community that WLOs are not humanitarian actors. International delineations and definitions of what characterises a humanitarian actor have traditionally included a disengagement of a humanitarian organisation from politics and social movements in the context of humanitarian response. Often the experience of threats and harassment by WLOs is interpreted as political liability by humanitarian agencies too often discouraged by the array of activities conducted by WLOs in their work. Despite the humanitarian–development–peace nexus mandate, international humanitarian agencies seek an easy separation between (largely) international humanitarian actors and local development actors, despite the essential work of civil society organisations, human rights defenders and activists in agitating for response to humanitarian needs and in addressing the root causes of violence.

In the absence of access to humanitarian funding streams to resource their work on protection of women and girls in humanitarian emergencies, WLOs receiving grant funding internationally are more commonly associated with human rights funders. The customary reliance by WLOs on funding pathways focused on human rights contributes to the misrepresentation, and resulting repudiation, of WLOs as agents of foreign objectives, working against their own culture and society. In particular, sensitivity to terminology related to human rights instruments and even the name of funding organisations highlights attention on the work of grantees, and further entrenches the characterisation of an organisation’s work by opponents. Access to humanitarian funding allocated at national level, such as pooled funds, would enable WLOs to diversify their funding streams and help combat mis- and disinformation regarding the objectives of protection and health programming. It would also contribute to improved tracking of humanitarian funding to WLOs, as funding streams from the human rights sector utilised by WLOs in their humanitarian work are not being reflected.

Conclusion: moving ahead

Facing the threats against WLOs in the humanitarian sector requires increased coordination and trust-building between international and local humanitarian actors, as well as improved understanding and funding of the humanitarian work of WLOs. Support for women’s leadership, political representation and civic engagement is vital alongside holding space for WLO participation in humanitarian planning and decision-making processes. Equally, donors must address the increased security and protection needs of WLOs working in the humanitarian sector instead of distancing themselves from these risks. The humanitarian sector does not stand as an island separated from the society and reality it works in – humanitarian agencies are also responsible for holding perpetrators of violence and intimidation accountable and creating safe spaces for women to exercise their rights. WLOs are at the forefront of this work, promoting positive representations of women’s leadership and empowering women to challenge gender-based discrimination and inequality. Working together, the humanitarian community can mobilise international support and solidarity to address the challenges faced by WLOs.

Oumou Salif Touré is the Director of FemiLead Mali.