 Hi everybody and welcome to our webinar on gender inequalities and social protection, people, households and climate adaptation. We're really excited to have so many of you joining us today and hope it's going to be really fruitful conversation. So I'm Susanna Fisher, I'm going to be chairing us for today and helping the panelists manage this new online format. So we're really excited to have all of you and would love to have as much interaction as we can. Our format for today is we've got four really exciting speakers you can talk about their work. We've got Jana, Shake, Simon and Tracy and I'll talk a little bit more about them as we go on to hear from them. So the format is going to be we're going to hear first from Tracy and then Jana and their presentations will go back to back. Then we will have a short time to have direct questions and clarifications on their presentations. We will then go on to hear from Simon and shake and again we will have a specific time for questions and clarifications. And then in the last part of the session, we're going to try and have a little bit more interaction to hear from you where we can to generate ideas that will really help inform the work that I do ideas doing around social protection and gender quality. And allow as much as possible a fruitful discussion between panelists and between your ideas. Those of you who are attending today. So I think that we are ready to hear from our first two speakers. So let me introduce them. Firstly, we're going to hear from Tracy Kujumba who's a principal researcher at IID. She's worked previously as a gender and climate advisor with Care International, done gender research with the African Climate Change Resilience Alliance and worked on the integration of climate change to social protection policies and programs in sub Saharan Africa while working for the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So she's bringing a real great wealth of experience in practical understanding of how gender equality and social protection issues work together. She's going to give us an overview of gender equality and social protection and how social protection can be gender transformative. We're then going to hear from Janet Tenzing, who's a member of the Climate Change Group at IID. And she's also part of the London School of Economics Department of Geography, as well as the Grant the Research Institute on climate change and the environment, where most of her research is on social protection. So she's going to provide us with an overview of how social protection is adapting to climate change and how we can ensure this process takes into account gender equality. So without further ado, Tracy, could I ask you to start us off. So good afternoon, everyone. I'm sure my slides can be seen. So I've been asked to give an introduction on gender equality and social protection. Social protection is one of those platforms that can be very supportive of integration of gender equality. First of all, gender equality defines the social roles, rates and responsibilities of men, women, boys and girls. In relation to each other, so this significantly has implications on how individuals' capabilities can contend with risks. And then we also know that most of the categories targeted for social protection are those that are vulnerable due to multi-dimensional issues. And we know that the levels of risk and shocks are increasing as a result of climate change, natural disasters, economic issues like food crisis, and others conflict migration and many others. So based on the livelihoods agenda and other categorization, men, women, boys and girls get impacted differently and therefore the targeting can be very useful in addressing some of the issues that come up within the social protection programs. But I also want to emphasize that women naturally take major responsibilities for social protection, whether it's supported or not, taking care of the old people, the sick and everything. It's sort of naturally an assigned role, so all these vulnerabilities make it very difficult for them. And mapping social protection across the SDGs, the studies that have been done looking at the impact of social protection are linked to about 14 SDGs. If social protection is well done and well programmed, it has capacity to eradicate income poverty, reduction of income inequalities, ending hunger, improving lives, education, gender equality, access to social services, employment in some of the schemes that we've seen their targeting employment, addressing social inclusion, social cohesion, state building, and promoting sustainable consumption and production patterns, which can also be positive for climate change adaptation. In terms of social protection and gender equality, there's evidence from development context that suggests that if it's done systematically and a gender lens is applied, it can have very positive outcomes in addressing food security and if we relate these to the gender roles, we'll find that that would be productive for especially women and girls who have those rules of providing a household label. It can improve productive investment and livelihoods. We see women coming in and getting some capital to invest in other community groups and other economic activities, enhancing capacity to manage the life cycles of risks, smoothing consumption and ultimately contributing to getting people out of poverty. But it has also been found out that programs that tackle women's related issues that would otherwise keep them out of employment or others gainful employment. Things like age, work related vulnerabilities, childcare have proven to be effective in terms of addressing inequality. And then also the cash transfers have also been seen to be baited, providing assets for women than other schemes like maybe employment schemes and all, especially if they're supported with how investments can be done. But as we look at all the benefits of how social protection can promote gender equality, we also need to look at the side of not well done, how it can be counterproductive in addressing such issues. One of them is that we know social protection supports communities, household and individuals, but there may be some inequalities if especially targeting is focused on the formal sector where women may not be represented. It could be one sided or where they are underrepresented. So it could be a result of increasing inequality. Then when you look at the issues of intra household relations, sometimes when women get income that can result into a power balance at household level where the men may feel the women have money now they should take over everything and because they are controlling resources. That may not turn out well for them if the awareness is not created. Then the conditional transfers sometimes also the conditionalities may act as a burden of having multiple expectations placed on women. Since they have this then definitely should do everything. And also women being principle beneficiaries that not really mean that the decision making is happening within the households. We've had cases where women get funding from different social protection schemes, but then they're not able to control the outcomes of how those funds get invested. And most times we have a narrow focus on women where we translate gender to men women and we exclude the men. So we find that we assess impact as women benefiting within the bigger framework. But in actual sense, we are not really transforming their conditions because they experience other forms of lash back afterwards. So we need to look at both men women boys and girls and how they are benefiting and in terms of their roles and vulnerabilities. So in answering the question of how social protection can be transformative. One of the things that we need coherence in policy, knowing that social protection is just part of the solution. There have been arguments of the note of a burden social protection because it's also still growing. And if you add in so many things it will not work. But we find that gender equality lens is a way that is very suitable in terms of targeting and others. But then we look we need to look at other government programs other institutional programs to see how they address gender inequality and how do you bring everything together. And intentionally design them at policies implementation monitoring evaluation so that we avoid the say load approaches because if we focus on social protection and isolation then it becomes difficult to achieve transformation in a meaningful way. The other area to look at would be targeting, which should be based on gender and vulnerability to ensure that usually the groups that are not normally targeted in a meaningful way are now supported. Most times, the people that should be in the social protection at a very poor, maybe may grants those affected by disasters, but most of the times are left out that should really be transformative so that we are responding to their needs. Doing the gender analysis would be very important to look at the specific vulnerabilities, the needs, the gendered differentiated impacts that they're experiencing, so that we're able to tackle the underlying causes of vulnerability, which could be maybe governance or policies, or understanding the causes of risks and shocks having climate information, for example, so that we're not just programming but we know that this area is risky and the people living there experiencing this and that and then we need to be able to target them meaningfully and informed by the needs that I think would lead them to a more effective and transformative way. Supporting and valuing care roles for women is important, especially in public works, modes of social protection, sometimes affirmative action may be required. I've seen programs whereby men and women are all working on public works, then a woman gets pregnant and then she's breastfeeding and then she has other children at home. So programs have really tried to address those with flexible hours, sex quotas and governance structures, and those can make sure that there's no exclusion and everybody's benefiting, but also valuing the unpaid roles that women are involved in so that they are not excluded from programs. Empowerment is important, economic empowerment, voice, participation, decision making are looking at it from the rates perspective, so the very poor and vulnerable are able to engage and this would be able to enhance their agency. Then, in terms of monitoring of the evaluation, we need to capture the impacts, the benefits that data should be in a disaggregated manner. Instead of saying social protection is beneficial, but for who are we able to analyze the benefits for women, for men and the challenges, so that they're able to inform programs and we're able to challenge some of the approaches that are not working. Yeah, thanks Susanna, I'll stop there. Thanks Tracy, so we're going to move straight on to Jana. Hi everyone, I'm just, I'm just going to jump right in and pick up from where Tracy left off. So social protection is absolutely essential for managing climate risks. In the short term, instruments such as cash transfers can support coping with climate change, helping households to meet their most acute and immediate needs, as well as access extra resources if there's a shock. And in the aftermath, this predictable support can help households build their asset base and thus support recovery. And in the longer term, though we should be careful not to overstate this potential, social protection can promote or facilitate livelihood changes that enable people to better anticipate or adapt to climate change. So in the past decade, there's been growing interest among policymakers and practitioners in bringing social protection and adaptation together around such concepts as adaptive or climate responsive social protection. And this agenda is still evolving but essentially it's about making social protection programs flexible so that they are better able to respond to climate impacts. And by doing so they can also build the resilience of their beneficiaries at the same time as providing social protection. So it's been influenced a great deal by advocates of shock responsive social protection, which extends beyond climate change considerations into all kinds of other covariate shocks, which are shocks that affect large groups of people at the same time. So in general, when people talk about making social protection adaptive, they're talking about introducing additional features to the design of existing programs. So ideas converge around the need for strengthening climate information systems to plan for and deliver social protection, being able to rapidly increase the level of support recipients as well as the number of people social protection can cover in order to deal with climate impacts. There are ideas around putting in place appropriate finance mechanisms to rapidly scale up programs such as setting up contingency funds, or forecast based financing mechanisms. And then enhancing institutional capacity and coordination among the wide range of stakeholders involved in the delivery of social protection. Here are some suggestions for how to ensure that in the process of making social protection programs adaptive, we can continue to take into account gender of gender equality considerations. So for planning and implementation, for instance, we need to make sure that we are informed by sex disaggregated data, statistics and evidence in order to understand the differentiated needs, vulnerabilities and experiences of women and men, and ensure that they are equally involved in decision making processes and have equal access to information, for instance. If we're thinking of expanding support horizontally, we need to think deliberately about access and targeting. And if women are being targeted for the provision of increased support as social protection programs often do, then complementary measures such as sensitization of communities and households could be necessary to avoid any backlash on women. In terms of finance purposely budgeting for gender equality actions is always important. And if mechanisms like forecast based financing are being used, then conducting gender sensitive climate risk assessments would also be key. And finally, it's important to think about training on gender equality for implementing staff across sectors, as well as partnering with women's organizations who have specialist knowledge and networks and gender sensitive M&E as Tracy has just explained. To give you an example, Ethiopia's flagship productive safety nets program the PSNP, even though it was not originally conceived as such could be considered an adaptive social protection program. So it supports around 8 million people and was set up to address food insecurity in rural Ethiopia, which is for the most part drought related food insecurity. And it has three components, and I'll focus only on the first two today so the main one is a work for a component where about 80% of PSNP households are engaged in public works in exchange for cash and food transfers. If a household is physically unable to participate in the public works, then it can receive direct unconditional support, for example, households with elderly or disabled people. There are ongoing efforts to make these public works climate smart wherever possible. So one of the main activities undertaken, for instance, is watershed development and rehabilitation and other conservation measures, which not only aim to increase PSNP participants resilience to droughts, but also that of the entire communities in that watershed. And in addition to this, the PSNP also has a built in risk financing mechanism that allows for support to be scaled up or scaled out to non PSNP households in the event of a major shock. So how is the PSNP doing on gender. Well, there is a gender equity principle that is enshrined within its implementation manual to ensure that women and men benefit equally from the program. And for instance, there are positions provisions for pregnant women and lactating women to temporarily shift out of the public works into the direct support program for up to your after giving birth to their child. There are also provisions for public works to be gender sensitive designed in ways that ensure women can participate without increasing their work burdens, like accommodating lighter workloads, different arrival and departure times locations closer to home and so on. So I think these provisions are commendable but of course it's what happens in practice that matters, which I can speak less to but I know that there are some studies that have found public works can have a negative impact on women in certain cases and maybe we can discuss this later. So just some final thoughts before I hand back over to Susanna. I think that using a gender lens allows us to think critically about the adaptive social protection agenda. So if we want to ensure that social protection considers gender equality, then we're very much thinking of women and men as having equal rights to social protection. And we're underlining that social protection needs to have a kind of transformative function that addresses inequality and marginalization. So I think that no one denies that adaptive social protection makes conceptual sense in terms of aiming to maximize development and co-benefits. But in context where resources and capacity are limited, is there a risk that we are diverting attention away from work towards achieving social protections, core poverty and vulnerability reduction objectives, which is in any case contributing to adaptation and building resilience. So basically this is to underline that what many others have also said which is that we must be careful not to focus prematurely on how to make programs adaptive and that it's so important to get the basics of social protection rights and that includes paying attention to gender equality. So that's it for me and I can hand back over to you. Great. Thanks, Jenna. So we're going to use the Q&A function now just to get any clarifications or to learn a little bit more about what Tracy and Jenna have presented. So if you have specific questions for either of them, could you please put it into the Q&A function at the bottom of your screen. There's one question there that I'm going to start off with. So this is from Theresa who says, could someone provide a definition of social protection, and if there are different ways to define it or classify it in the literature or within our sector. I'd like to pick that one up first. Yes, so I think there are many ways to define social protection and I think it's a really good question to ask. So social protection, usually when people are talking about it in an international development context. We can talk about safety nets like cash transfers or food transfers that can support households, usually the poorest households determined by some kind of poverty line to cope with with shops on their livelihoods. So social protection can of course extends beyond these kinds of cash and food transfers so it can include insurance mechanisms or labor market programs, which are more common and more higher income country contacts. And of course it can also include informal types of social protection. You know, just the type of social protection that you get from your community or your family or your friends and your neighbors. Something that occurred to me on hearing both of your presentations and I wonder if you could reflect on this Tracy was how what kind of institutional capacities are needed for social protection program to be able to move to the next stage to think about adaptive measures or gender equality because Janet talks about the importance of getting the basics right. I think that for me pose the question of well when what capacities we need to look in place to have the basics right but then to be able to take those next steps that you're both talking about. Thank you, Suzanne. Just like I said, the basics are important, but then that has to fit in the whole institutional framework, especially the policy and implementation. And sometimes we are talking about adaptive social protection, we are talking about gender equality. This is a set of different skills that you don't find in one place. Somebody may be very good at social protection or climate change but are not don't have the right skills to integrate gender equality. So the coherence across institutions that are supporting social protection is important. So that the gender experts, the climate experts and the social protection basic expertise, all joins together to make sure that is a good program that can really be adaptive, which sometimes is really a challenge. And then also as Janet said, you find the support through humanitarian response through social protection instruments and different institutions are supporting government is supporting different donors, but how do you bring everything together so that you build on the skills and the support so that communities are able to get a comprehensive package, other than just the say load approach and support. Thanks, Tracy. So this has given people a little more time for reflection. A couple of questions have come up that I think speaks something Janet was talking about. So Andrea Rosa has asked, how do you balance the importance of getting the basics right with the potential of maladaptive trajectories that could be created by social protection. And I think that Roger Swarie has brought up a similar point in terms of social protection measures often don't need the needs of the poor. So, how can they also contribute to adaptation and resilience. So some challenging issues there, do you have any thoughts. I think the point made that social protection measures often do not meet the needs of the poor is a really good one and I think that's what we mean by needing to get the basic right, ensuring that people be intended beneficiaries of programs are the ones being targeted by the program there's there are no exclusion errors and inclusion errors. I think also related to the earlier question by Andrea Ross the importance of getting the basics rights and the potential for reversible maladaptive tragic trajectories. I think that. So, I think the problem with the, the way that the adaptive social protection agenda is evolving is, it's really trying to maximize the, the adaptation outcomes of social protection programs. I think that's different from trying to make sure that that social protection programs are considering future climate change. So in that sense I think considering future climate change is really important and social protection programs need to make sure that people are not locking in vulnerable people in a, in a, in a vulnerable location for instance, that that would just have a negative effect on them in the long term. So, yeah, I think, but really in points that people need to grapple with. Thanks. Really interesting. So, a couple of other questions have come up. Something from Rizwana Agar who's saying that their research has shown that sometimes community participation might not accomplish the expected level of social protection because policy guidelines for participatory forums don't address complex issues of hierarchy and local decision making and power for example local elites might challenge women's access to decision making. And a similar point also commenting around how difficult it is to use these types of participatory methods during violent conflicts and how can social protection work within fragile contexts. I wondered Tracy, did you have any reflections on those? I would say that the same challenges with gender equality have worked on gender equality for years and you find the same problems in whatever theme you're looking at with the social protection of agriculture or whatever. So the issue of local decision making and the cultural norms that, that's what I talked about at the beginning, that sometimes empowering women through social protection because culturally women are not supposed to control productive resources, maybe counterproductive. So that's why we need to look at layering it with other ongoing programs and policies and approaches. But if you're not able to do the awareness that includes both men and women and looking at what are the benefits of both men and women participating or local people participating in decision making, then there's another program that is supporting that. Going back to the problem of overburdening social protection by approaching all these things. That's why we need an integrated approach. If there's a partner who is very good with gender equality, how do you work with them in a social protection program to do that? We used to take that approach in a reshade whereby if there's a social protection event going on, then bringing in other partners to speak to the beneficiaries and the local governance leaders about issues of inclusion and integrating other elements into the social protection program. I want to say that it's not easy, but different approaches and building on different skills from other partnerships. And then that coherence across would be useful. But yeah, it's not really easy to do that. That's true. Thanks, Tracy. Questions coming in thick and fast now. I think I'll just take one more because we'll then need to move on to our other presenters. And some of these questions are broader questions which we'll be able to open out a little bit in the conversation. So, Anna is asking, to what extent do you either of you feel that the big programs you've discussed are doing enough. Consider enough promotive social protection measures, for example, enabling women to promote in the labor market and reducing employment status and income gaps compared to their peers. Jana, would you like to say anything briefly on that? Or Tracy, and then we'll move on. So the only thing that I would be able to say is probably it depends on which measures specifically you're looking at. So the PSMP, for instance, is much more of a safety net program, which focuses much more on the protective aspect of social protection rather than the promotive. That being said, it's got a livelihood component, which I didn't speak too much about, which aims to help women and men involved in the program to develop their asset portfolios in order to have more productive livelihoods. So I think it really depends on which program or measures you're talking about. Just add on a little bit on what Jana has shared. The social protection program in Tanzania, for example, was designed to support women and youth who from statistics were excluded from gainful employment, and it was focusing on value chains around social value chains and specifically targeting them to make sure that they're involved in the value chains, not just at the production nodes, but they're engaged in marketing and improving their income through that. So most times it will depend on the instruments that are being used and who is being targeted and for what purpose, to be able to address some of the issues around employment and gainful income. Great. Okay, I feel like the conversation is just getting started, but we still want to hear from Simon and Shake. So thank you very much, Tracy and Jana. We'll be coming back to you soon for the discussion. But now I'd like to move on to hear their presentations from Simon Anderson and Shake Eskander. So Simon Anderson is a senior fellow IID working on gender equality, learning and social protection. He's the co-chair of IID's Gender Equality Champions Network, and he's been involved in adaptive social protection research since 2011, working more recently in Mozambique and Ethiopia. And he's going to talk us through some of the work he's been doing with the priorities, hope I pronounced it right, initiative funded by the Irish Embassy in Mozambique. And we'll then go on directly to hear from Shake Eskander, who's a visiting research fellow at LSE's Grantham Research Institute and a senior lecturer at Kingston University in London. His research is on development issues related to sustainability, environment and climate change economics. And his ongoing research topics include triple vulnerability of female entrepreneurs to climate risks, climate finance and work on climate laws. And he's going to be talking about work around remittances in Bangladesh, so a more informal mechanism for social protection. Okay, so Simon, could I hand over to you? And just to remind everyone, thank you Simon, that we'll take the Q&As in a similar way. So as things to occur to you from Simon and Shake's presentation, just put them into the Q&A function. Thank you, Suzanna. I hope that everybody can see my screen. And yes, this is a short presentation on some of the things that we have done and found out in Mozambique through the PREORES initiative. And before I go any further, I want to acknowledge three of the people mentioned on this screen who are part of the team, the wider team in Mozambique. And it's really what these people have done and found out that I'm going to describe. So, Mel Gomez, Rogelio Citoli and Luis Sator, colleagues from whom I've learnt an awful lot. So if we pick up a little bit where we've left off with the other two presentations, we're looking at adaptive social protection from the perspective essentially of poverty eradication. Of course, local development has a key role in that. And so social protection and local and local development should be seen as reciprocal parts of the process. However, as we know, climate change risks mean that people both drop into poverty and also find it difficult to escape from it. Climate change risks also impede the effectiveness of social development strategies. And climate change risks also impede the effectiveness of the provision of social protection. Against those three sources of climate risks and stress, we have process of adaptation that can be by climate-proofing local development. Much of community-based adaptation and local adaptation tries to do this. We also have means of climate-proofing, the delivery and support of social protection and that social protection, as Jana has already described, can support adaptation in some ways. But perhaps most importantly, we have adaptation by local people who are benefiting from or in communities where social protection is being provided. But the adaptation by the poor enabled by the local adaptation, the local development planning process is probably the most important. In terms of the background to this initiative that I want to talk about, the Irish government has, so the Irish Embassy in Mozambique has been working with the government, both the Ministry for Social Action, Gender and Children and the Ministry for Environment and Land. And they've been looking at ways where they might combine social protection and climate adaptation and seeking the synergies between two instruments that the same government is utilising, often to recently utilising in parallel, and the government was interested to see whether these two instruments adaptation, local adaptation and social protection can be brought together. So we did a prospective assessment some years ago now. This found that yes, there was a policy framework that was conducive, there were initiatives that the government had up and running that could be brought together. But the main conclusion was that the social protection programmes, their capacity to take on climate resilience and climate adaptive objectives, wasn't sufficient at that stage to allow either the integration of adaptation or disaster risk management. And in fact we've, you know, on top of that we found that the current level of social protection programmes were contributing relatively little to those objectives. So the PREA's initiative was initiated, supported by the Irish Embassy, in a very modest way, starting a bottom-up process based in one district, we wanted to experiment in ways that institutional linkages could be built across agencies that were supporting local development and social protection in a way that introduced climate adaptive management. Mabot in the province of Inambani was chosen. The reason why we chose Mabot is because it is one of the poorest districts of Mozambique. We found that there's a very large proportion of female-headed households, over 50%, and most of those were in the poor to very poor category. We also, from the climate information and climate projections information available, we saw that there were both current and projected risks and that these climate risks had a high gender differentiated characteristic. You'll see on the graph that shows the anomalies of future rainfall that this already dry area is expected to have even more erratic and less rain. So we did a gender analysis in the district, sampling 33 households. The population of the district is about 45,000 people. We found that female-headed single-adult households predominate. These households have certain characteristics, which were both similar to those headed by men and also different. There was 97% of the female-headed households were agriculture dependent. These female-headed households tended to be smaller than the male-headed households. The literacy of the household head was less than the case of male-headed. They had less land and they had less livestock, considerably less livestock on average. We also noticed through the baseline survey, and this is something related to the targeting of social protection, which is finding is common. The social protection targeting process wasn't as effective as it should have been in terms of differentiating between households who were poor and households who were better off. The average for various parameters of social protection and recipient households in Marbot was either the same or actually higher than the non-social protection recipients in many cases. Now, what did we do in this process? Essentially what we've done is together with the government agencies and the local government authority, we have designed a prototype which is, we would like to think, gender responsive adaptive social protection. As I've mentioned, we started off with a baseline survey and we did a qualitative appraisal with households. The district developed a climate adaptation plan. This plan was incorporated into the district development plan. And through that process, for the first time in Mozambique, there was a special consultation of social protection beneficiaries in the development of the local adaptation plan. As a third step, we agreed participant eligibility in the initiative. And we also were able to identify those households eligible to become participants in this adaptive social protection process. We are now some way into the implementation of the adaptation measures, water access, livelihood activities, capacity development, etc. Importantly, there was a local CBO who's involved in the monitoring evaluation and learning. This evaluation and learning uses sex disaggregated data and there are ongoing and will be further revisions of the district development plan looking at the success of the adaptation measures. So what have we been learning through this process? Well, firstly, the evidence of gender differences across households was important and it enabled us to validate and to justify our focus on female headed single adult households. Secondly, women's and men's groups were consulted as integrated groups, but also as separate groups during the climate adaptation planning process. And there was a gender analysis of climate risks and adaptation actions. During the process of identifying the households to be participant in the adaptive social protection, we followed the recommendation of the social protection agency, which was a very interesting one. It was to invite social protection eligible households, but not ones who were in receipt of social protection at that time. So this was, and this was a strategic suggestion by the social protection provision providing agency actually to expand the numbers of households who were able to benefit from the formalized social protection and the local adaptive social protection. Simon, could I just ask you to hurry up towards an end? Yes, thanks. And so this is the the just to say that the government targeting process was used to identify these households and actually it had a better result than some of the some of the previous targeting processes. This is just a list of activities, the livelihood activities and the income generating activities that the households benefited from as you can see from this that there was a strong focus on female headed households. The conclusions I want to bring one the demographic patterns demanded gender responsive approach. We had nearly 55% of households female headed demanded that we took a gender responsive approach working within government guidelines for social protection and adaptation was possible and it actually facilitated the process of institutionalization. The fact that we've layered adaptation around social protection provision means that the dangers of overburdening the social protection system have been avoided. The management of the adaptation or the adaptive social protection process needs to be evidence based monitoring evaluation learning but iterative and prototype testing bottom up facilitated introduction of the gender responsive approach. We haven't proved that this is adaptive we need to do a performance assessment of the prototype normalize for climate risk over time. And that's something that is happening currently. I just want to pay some pay respects to Mr. I believe you had a late who was the administrator in the mobile district during the process that I've been describing unfortunately he passed away recently. Thank you very much. Thanks Simon fascinating case study so shake could we just move directly on to you please. Okay so I'm going to talk about gender inequality in climate finance. Using large household survey data set, we drew you some findings from Bangladesh about households burden when exposed to climate risks like natural disasters and other things. So, a bit of background if you can see multiple stakeholders are actually contributing to climate finance in Bangladesh including the government of Bangladesh international donor agencies but the large or major share of climate finance actually comes from the individual private households. Then we cannot really blame the government all the time because you can see from this graph from this time series that contributions from public sector is increasing the problem. So, also there are contributions coming in from donors and specific focus has been given to food security and social protection, as you can see from 40 to 60% of total public allocations are going to the specific thing. And again, households are the major contributor, as we found, and we made some calculations when in 2015, the government of Bangladesh contributed something slightly less than one billion US dollar households actually made their private contribution around $2 billion. And the conclusion from these research findings can be, although there are contributions coming in, still huge financial burden, the households are still bearing because of their exposure to climate and disaster risk. That's not the end of the story if you look at the income composition by households, gender composition of household headship, like a male-headed households who are apparently three times higher income earner are making almost equal contribution to the when compared to female-headed households, but when compared to in percentage terms, we can see that female-headed households actually make roughly three times higher contribution, and it's not always a good thing because apparently females care more, and that's if we go back to have another look at the figures, 18 or 19% of 35,000 Bangladeshi Tarka, which is roughly 400 or 450 US dollar, is going into climate change adaptation expenditure or related things. And that's a lot of expenditure those female-headed households are incurring because of exposure to this type of risk. And that's affecting their basic or necessary food intakes and also affecting schooling, healthcare and other necessary services they need to provide to their household members like their dependent children and in some cases also unemployed and dependent spouses. Another problem that we directly or indirectly are talking about I mean I am referring to other families who presented before me about the source of finance or the sustainability of social protection services and those things. And in case of Bangladesh, we identified briefly three different sources those households male or female-headed were accessing during hardships and especially during their exposure to natural disasters or climate risks. The first one you can say microcredit, the advantage it's primarily accessed by women, the disbursement of money is really fast but the problems amounts are small and they come with higher interest rates and then informal sources can be some kind of informal social protection provided by the local community and extended or close family members. The problem here is it's primarily accessed by men. The disbursement is fast but it also comes with higher interest rates than sometimes with other conditions. And then formal financial institutions in most of the cases don't really provide loans to women without support or collateral from men and that's a problem. And the disbursement is really slow, although amounts can be large and interest rates can be low. Now you can see the gender aspect here. We apparently found from our research that women care more they contribute in absolute amount almost the equal amount but where it comes to financing whatever they are contributing or they are bound to contribute towards climate finance. The sources are not really favorable to the women and that's a problem when it comes to financing climate actions by female-headed households. The policy recommendations actually came up with a couple of qualitative recommendations. Say during disasters there can be installment breaks and I guess this is something we all or many of us can relate to the ongoing coronavirus situation at this moment. We are asking for installment breaks or something like that but it's not really happening and it doesn't really happen all the time when it comes to repaying the money female-headed households are borrowing from microcredit organizations during disasters. And then the bottom-up approach hearing the views of the people in the field, especially the females, that's not really happening when making the policies and I guess probably it came from Tracy or Jana, I forgot to say local elites instead of local women actually can influence the policy making and that doesn't necessarily go in favor of female-headed households and most of the times actually go against the benefit of female-headed households and that's a problem, universal problem and also a problem in Bangladesh. Now from the policymakers or from the government the issue or action can be to make formal sources of finance first and accessible to women, especially during the disaster and especially because it's kind of a long-term planning female-headed households can make with the help of formal sources of finance and maybe if those sources can be faster and more accessible to them, they also can use those sources of finance as a way to make them accessible to women especially during the disaster and especially because it's kind of a long-term planning female-headed households can make with the help of formal sources of finance and maybe if those sources can be faster and more accessible to them, they also can use those money for immediate coping strategies. The final one, I guess I already mentioned it first tracking the loans from formal sources during this type of emergencies and yeah, that's all I wanted to talk about today. Thank you. Thanks, Sheikh. Thanks very much. So we've already got some questions coming in for Simon and Sheikh before we move on to the discussion. Simon, if we could start with you. Emma Jones-Philipson is asking, you mentioned that social protection was not well means tested and there were implementation issues in eligibility. Did you have an indication of why those issues had arisen that could be additional barriers to adaptation, for example literacy or access to information? And I'm just going to give you another question at the same time, which I think is also around similar issues of targeting. So Shaila is asking, what are the changes in targeting process that you have proposed to make sure that it is gender responsive? Thanks for these questions. Targeting is a hugely sensitive topic, particularly when you're from a research perspective where you're looking at the results of formal agencies doing targeting. And you come up with evidence as we did in the district survey of Mahbot that it would appear from the data that the households targeted, which were some 2,000 people out of a population of 45,000. Their average well-being levels measured by different parameters was equal to or if not greater than the population average, which would indicate that the targeting mechanism hasn't reached the most poorest. However, what we also found out in the same process was that when we used exactly the same mechanism that government used and working alongside government agencies to identify the households that will be part of the adaptive social protection program, the subsequent survey showed that using the same process, we were successful in targeting a population of female-headed households that were on average poorer than the population. In fact, we're within the income and asset levels categories that we wanted to. So I'm not able to answer the question as to why the initial targeting in that district wasn't as successful as when we used the same method subsequently. But what I'm saying is that that is what we found, that is the case. I think we need to be very careful when we assess targeting methods used by governments and particularly where governments are as in the Mozambican case and there's others in Southern Africa where they use local knowledge and local people, local leaders to support the system of targeting. When we then apply very rigid outside assessments of poverty to assess the effectiveness of targeting, we fail to understand the logic of the local targeting mechanisms. And there is anecdotal evidence from Malawi, for example, that local leaders target households who they believe to have a higher likelihood to contribute to community well-being and those are not necessarily the poorest households. So there are ways and means to understand targeting effectiveness that need to be looked into. In terms of answering the question, the second question, I think that we're already starting through the process of local adaptation planning in Mozambique to show how by consulting groups by including gender analysis in both climate risk assessment and adaptation prioritization, you can start to improve at least the way that households are then targeted or invited to participate in the initiative in a way that reflects properly levels of climate vulnerability. So I think there are already ways of appearing before us that we can see that will help us get over these issues. Great, thanks Simon. In the interest of time, I'm going to now move us on to the interactive session but we'll have a chance to hear more from Sheik as we go into the discussion as well. So what we want to do before we go on to a broader cross-cutting discussion is just to hear a little bit from you and that's difficult when there have been 150 of you on the webinar but we're going to try our best. So what I'm going to ask you to do is to take this first question on the left and this would really help us and or IID thinking about their work on gender and social protection to tell us a little bit about any examples you have experienced or heard about that successfully incorporate gender dimensions and what we can learn from them and what I'm going to ask you to do is if you have any ideas or thoughts just to write one or two sentences in the chat but don't press send yet. So just gather your thoughts, let us know of any examples that you've thought of, any lessons that you've read about or experience that we haven't brought up so far and write it in the chat and then just hold off and we'll just have 30 seconds while everybody writes them and then we'll release it together and we'll just be able to see what other experience we have. Okay, so hopefully you've all had a little time to think about that, so could I ask you all to press send. Either my Zoom chat is a little slow or people are feeling a little shy to come forward with their examples but we've got some good insights there, thank you to those of you who have made any suggestions and do just have a look at that on the chat everybody. So the second thing, do press send if you're writing something and then the second thing we just like to ask you before we go on to the cross cutting conversation is from hearing our presenters so far both the detailed examples and also the broader presentations. What barriers and opportunities. Have you seen through this work in terms of how we might use social protection to support gender equality. So again if we could take the similar, similar approach that you write something in the chat and you just hold it. And we'll all press send at the same time and just be able to read through what other people are thinking and that will hopefully just give us a level of reflection across all of these ideas as we move into the discussion. So I'll ask you just to think that yourself what have you heard or what's resonated with you around barriers and opportunities. Okay, and if you're ready then I ask you to press send. So we're seeing some thoughts around barriers around local elites and politics, and opportunities and scalability, institutional and structural barriers, how do we build buy in for these conversations. Government buy in also a key issue. What are the stigma or obstacles associated with accessing accessing social protection. Again, this issue of barriers for women's decision making. What impact can we make with small program designs. Great. Okay, thank you everybody and if those of you still writing and please do press send so we can have a wider set of ideas. So, what we're going to move on to now is to have the panel discussion so maybe recommend that make sure that all panelists please have your videos on. Indeed, if you use the grid video function you should be able to see all of the talking heads together to get as much of a sense of possible of us sitting on a comfy sofa around the room ID, having this conversation. So, some really interesting questions have already come up that I think speak to across the presentation so I think we might kickstart with some of those. So, so Emma Jones Phillips and has asked, do the panelists think we that we should be advocating funds like the Green Climate Fund or the global environment facility should consider funding social protection as adaptation. So, I wondered, who would like to, to wager in on how we should be financing this Jenna would you like to start us off. Yes, I think this is a question that I've been thinking about as well. I think it's, I think it's more. It goes back to the question of development versus adaptation. And whether the climate funds would consider program social protection programs as adaptation without having that additional deliberate way to respond to climate hazard so I think that just social protection in its in itself does contribute to strengthening resilience. And if that's, if that's good enough for the Green Climate Fund, then I think to have the social protection budget with climate finance is a good thing but if it's, yeah, if it's these climate funds are asking social protection programs to have deliberate measures to respond to climate hazards then it could be a bit more problematic because I think it would be a risk diverting attention away from from the core objectives of social protection. Tracy, did you want to add any thoughts to that. To add to the financing the adaptive social protection. The discussion has been that the funds are usually not enough for social protection. And then we're talking about climate change and one of the solutions where the climate funds could be useful is to align the two. And if you're doing climate risk management, then you have a program that is addressing adaptation, then that is combined with the social protection support to have one coherent program then that would really be useful. Because usually when you look at the transfers that are distributed it's really not enough it's always like $12 or 15. It's very little money to invest in adaptation. So it takes a lot of innovative finance to be able to combine it and have a strong adaptive program. So that's why I see the value of margin climate finance and social protection finance. Shake, I just wanted from your perspective where your work is more on informal mechanisms of social support. How you see those can be enabled or supported by outside actors or can they be. It depends. This, if you just look at the informal ways of you know helping out people in need. That can be facilitated and that can be financed by people not directly affected or from outside the affected community. And those things are always I mean I don't know directly from other countries but in Bangladesh. Students who are organized through student organizations during large natural disasters actually help out people by collecting funds from informal sources having public donations and other things. There are many types of community initiatives from outside the affected community are always in action. And that's how actually people are surviving or coping. And just want to add one thing, I mean, we know these things are under financed, but at the same time, we also need to keep in mind say mitigation and adaptation both are important. We cannot really say by compromising mitigation financing to adopt increase adaptation finance. We probably should not discuss in that way. We need more finance for both mitigation and adaptation that's the ultimate conclusion. So, I think there are a cluster of interesting questions coming up around how this affects the role of women within the household so Meghna is asking has there been any evidence anecdotal or otherwise of an increase in gender based violence through these types of programming. What you several of you been talking about also brings me to mind around Sylvia chance work on the kind of increased responsibility of that women face through sometimes becoming targeted through these programs and what burdens that brings for them. So I wonder if panelists could reflect on what it means what or what evidence we have around what it means for women's roles and some of the potential negative impacts for women. Would you like to start negative impacts. I would rather be talking about the positive impacts, of course, but we are doing some work in in Northwest Tanzania, which is which is looking at how it's it's related to to social provision and to some extent social safety net provision. So health services for women and girls and how how those are how the effectiveness of that provision is affected both by climate risks and by gender based violence. We're we haven't haven't seen a link between increasing social provision and gender based violence incidents. The, in fact, we've seen the reverse because the that they have in the district where we were looking, there have been effective gender based violence interventions going on simultaneously. And I think that's the key. We need to be aware that providing resources be it for adaptation or for social protection or other things into into communities where gender based violence and violence against women and children is happening due to resource policy and resource power of resources. We need to be aware that putting further resources into a situation like that can have negative consequences and so we need to be doing things in in power loss of provision of resources and and supporting women and men to come to terms with what it takes to get over gender based violence. Janet, do you have something to add. Yeah, so just along the same lines I think this highlights the importance of complimentary measures to sensitize communities and also households to make sure that there are no negative consequences for women and some of the work that Simon today and Sam Barrett at ID have been involved in in Ethiopia looks a bit at that so just recently I was in southern Ethiopia where there was an intervention around helping women form self-help groups and savings groups basically but that was complemented with very deliberate interventions to to to change power relations within within households and communities through what they call family dialogues and also engaging community leaders and so on so just to highlight that. Thanks, Jenner and I know Tracy it also raised a hand, would you like to add. Most of the issues have been mentioned but the question was about anecdotal evidence and they wanted to share the Uganda experience where cases of violence were reported by the women that were accessing cash transfers. And the question was also asking how that can be addressed which Jen and Simon have mentioned their awareness raising. But for the case of the embassy in Uganda what they did they had another program on gender based violence using the Uganda women's network so they use that as a partner support the social protection program as well to extend the awareness and the interventions to target the same social protection beneficiaries. So the issue of targeting and for the different interventions usually helps, even if the program itself doesn't have the skills and you can build on others who are doing that kind of awareness to target the same people that have social protection beneficiaries. Thanks now. What I'd like to do with the time we've got left as I see there's a cluster of questions that really pose some of the big issues. So I'm just going to mention those for us here and then I'm just going to ask each of the panelists to make a kind of concluding reflection on whichever of those questions is bringing most of them from the content of today so I've seen people raising questions about the the role of different actors some people are asking around how can we make this sustainable with a public and the private role that might be needed to support. And others have talked about what is the role of government or the role of international climate finance I think there's live questions there around who needs to come together and what are the barriers or opportunities in how they can see these adaptive social protection for climate resilience with a gender lens. And then I'm seeing a cluster of questions around is there a trade off around the urgency that we need to help people, the poorest households and and get social protection to them as soon as possible. And is there a trade off there with making systems increasingly complex to deal with gender equality with climate and how do we manage that perceived or not tension between moving ahead as fast as we can, and building more and more complexity into the system. And I'm also seeing a cluster of questions about implementation so how do we make sure that adding gender is not just a tick box exercise given that many of the people implementing the schemes are really under huge time pressures. And the schemes themselves are sometimes hard to manage so how can we make this a meaningful inclusion of gender and climate change, rather than something that just becomes, you know, as we know a formality. So I think some really meaty issues there and we're not going to be able to have time to get into them but I'd like to ask each of the panelists just to reflect on what speaks most of them from from their work and to give us their concluding thoughts. So perhaps, Shay, should we start with you. So I guess. Instead of calling it. They make it equality maybe equity is more relevant here. I mean, that's necessarily the heart of our discussion today. Making resources or helps or protection available to people who need it, and to make it sustainable. We specially Bangladesh that we found say, making formal financial institutions more accessible, or equally accessible to women who actually bear huge financial burden because of exposure to climate change. And when this is the case, targeting the women or targeting female headed households is not really further complicating the thing it's we better call it say ensuring equity in the distribution of necessary resources. And yeah, that's all I just want to tell you. Thanks. Jenna would you like to go next. So I quite like the questions around the trade off between urgency and adding all kinds of new things to existing social protection programs. So I think I'm in agreement about climate and addressing climate hazards I think, again, want to emphasize the importance of ensuring that social protection programs is able are able to do what they, they, they are meant to do so their core reduction vulnerability reduction objectives. And in that sense I think it's really important to to address concerns issues around gender inequality because that's, that's when you're talking about structural inequalities. And these types of structural inequalities just are exacerbated by climate change by by crises by disasters. And I think it's not a trade off. If you're thinking about gender equality issues I think thinking of gender equality from the outside is will be beneficial during at all times really. Thanks Jenna Simon should we come to you. That's why I decided a few years ago to switch from moving almost totally on climate adaptation to to learn about gender equality was because I do believe that there's a certain sequence. And I think that there's a certain sequence of things that need to happen. If we're going to achieve the sort of the developmental outcomes that we're that we're seeking both in the short and in and in the medium to long term. Certainly from a personal perspective, until we get gender equality up front and center into all of the policy, all the array of policy instruments that we're trying to use to eradicate policy, then we will. We will be walking on one leg. And, and we really need to be walking on as many legs as we as we have, and to get those going in the same direction so whilst there are trade offs between what might might be considered to be community level resilience and other other developmental outcomes. I think that for personal perspective I think that gender equality is something that is is is is so central and is such a driver of all other outcomes, the less we achieve SDG five and all the other related policy outcomes that we're that we're that are being put forward then we're really not going to be moving very moving very far forward. There's that there's some really interesting work, which looks at the time it would take a current growth. The distribution of growth benefits to achieve a $1.25 poverty line and eradication and that's with and without gender equality measures incorporated in that and one is obviously impotence and the other is it brings it into something that's bringing in gender equality measures brings it makes it makes things feasible so for me that's the, you know, if it is a trade off then things trading things off against gender equality in my view even if it's climate resilience isn't isn't a trade off I would choose choose to make and I don't think it's, I don't I think it's a trade off against the trade off against. Thanks, Simon. Okay, Tracy over to you for our concluding words. I would also really agree with the previous speakers and say that when we talk about gender equality or equity, we are talking about people actually men women boys girls and all the programs that we work for, we say we are working for the people the poor people. We are all into that word when we're looking at gender we're looking at everybody in there. So if we say we want trade offs because one quickly do programs and finish them and technically do them right. Then we're not really addressing the people's issues. And the social movements now have a very famous saying that nothing for us without us. I think they are very right because we claim that we are doing everything to address their needs. So the trade off may be important for us as development workers but it's not important for those that we are working for. For me a value process that may take a little bit longer, but is then rushing it quickly and then we finish it. And then the question was talking about the time that is needed to support the programs. When we're talking about how social protection can be transformative I agree with Melko as the question that transformation cannot happen in one year or two years. That's why the donors and the implementers and policymakers. We need to focus on longer term trajectories of funding and programming so that we're able to really have a comprehensive process that addresses these issues. But also lastly to say that in social protection, we have programs focusing on livelihoods where we can really take time to have a well designed program. But if it's emergency then definitely it's difficult to do that. So we also need to contextualize but definitely those agenda equality and cannot be compromised. It's important that we need proper programming that takes into account policy practice to be able to see that transformation. Great thanks Tracy. So we are coming up to the end of the webinar. So it just leaves for me to say thank you very much for all of our panelists for your insights, your presentations and thank you very much for everybody who's joined us remotely. You've provoked lots of interesting questions and reflections and I've seen lots of discussion going on in the chat that I think will be really interesting for IID to look at and to think about in the context of all this work. So thank you very much for all of that thinking and thank you also for your questions which I think have just opened up some of the issues that we can start to think about. So I think IID would definitely be interested in hearing if there'd be an appetite to go explore some of these issues in more detail in other forums or other types of online sharing. And just to let you all know that we'll be sharing the webinar by email to all of you who've registered and you'll also be able to find the emails of the panelists here. So if there are any specific questions that we haven't managed to get up to then please do follow up with them. So thank you very much everyone for joining and hope you enjoyed the session.