The week of September 7th, I had the incredible opportunity to represent Victim Support Europe (VSE) at the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) Capacity-Building Programme on Inclusive and Sustainable Development on Gender Equality and Women’s Participation. This training was relevant to the work of VSE as we raise the voice and centre victims of crime, advocating and ensuring programming and policy consider victim’s needs. This training took place in the City of Eternal Spring, Kunming, China over 3 days.
This was a big personal milestone as I was selected as 1 of just 19 participants from more than 3,000 applications, with participants representing sixteen countries from across Asia and Europe. As participants, we brought together our knowledge, experience, and priorities on how to meaningfully integrate gender equality into governance, policymaking, programmes, and institutions.
Over the course of several days, I was able to highlight challenges victims face in the gender-equality sphere, how victims’ experiences, perspectives, and needs can be further integrated in inclusive and safe ways, as well as how centring victims in programming, policymaking, and institutions can transform systems to respond to people facing vulnerability, barriers, or heightened risks. Victims are not just passive actors in this field, for VSE, victim participation and input is essential to ensure that their needs are being met across all areas.
Ahead of the training, key documents were shared with participants, providing a baseline understanding for all attendees on:
- •Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals;
- •The Beijing Action Agenda;
- •Gender Equality in China.
The course covered several themes over the three days, including:
Day 1: Building the foundations for meaningful participation
The first day established a shared foundation for the discussions that followed. Beginning with perspectives on women’s development and gender equality in China, we explored what meaningful participation requires, moving beyond representation alone to consider the structural, institutional, social and economic barriers that shape who can participate and exercise influence. Discussions on women’s leadership and intersectionality also highlighted that women’s experiences are far from uniform: age, disability, ethnicity, migration status, location, class and other factors can combine to create very different opportunities and obstacles.
Intersectionality is also a priority for VSE. Across our policy and project work, we consider the full spectrum of victims and how different measures can respond to their diverse needs and experiences, or what barriers may be faced. One point I raised during the discussion was the importance of not treating “gender” as synonymous with “women”, as gender encompasses a broader range of identities and experiences that may also be affected by the issues under discussion. It’s important to also note that just because an individual may have the right to something, it does not always translate to access. A victim has a right to support in the EU, but that doesn’t mean they can access services that would otherwise be available to them. If a victim lives in very rural areas, services may not be available in their area making support difficult to receive.
Gaps between rights and access can arise for a number of reasons for victims, including their gender. Support systems can be available, but if victims are not informed or properly referred to the service, they may not be able to reach these necessary supports. There can be language barriers and fear of stigma or retaliation. Some services may also be inaccessible for certain service users, such as if they are not disability inclusive.
Day 2: Putting gender equality into practice
The second day shifted the focus from understanding the issues to applying a gender perspective in practice. Through gender mainstreaming and applied gender analysis, we considered how seemingly routine decisions in programme design, partnerships, communications, events and institutional practice can affect people of all genders and intersectional characteristics differently. Simple questions such as who participates, who benefits, who decides, who is excluded and who bears the costs provided a practical framework for examining our own work. When applying these questions to victims, it can expose who is being included, and potentially who is being excluded, as well as exposing where the gaps and barriers are for people with diverse and intersectional backgrounds and characteristics.
The aim of this session was to demonstrate how gender affected objectives, activities, participation, budgeting and monitoring, and to showcase how a project can be gender mainstreamed. One resource mentioned in how to measure this was the Most Significant Change Theory, which measures perceived significance change by participants.
Further tools such as the Harvard Gender Analysis Toolkit and the Moser Conceptual Framework for gender-sensitive analysis were noted as positive methodologies to assist in developing and implementing projects also. These tools could therefore be adapted by victim-support organisations when designing a new service, reviewing an existing programme or assessing whether a project is reaching different groups of victims equitably.
This was acted out in a group exercise where we, as a team, developed a programme to look at women with disabilities economic inclusion and access to services. Each team needed to work together to build a fully operational programme that mainstreamed and prioritised gender. Teams included the project proposal, partners of the project, gender advisors, finance, communications and more! This was an excellent, participatory learning exercise on prioritisation, cross-coordination and inclusion, whilst needing to meet targets and deadlines.
Day 2 also offered an interesting cultural exchange, offering another opportunity to reflect on these questions in a local context, connecting the classroom discussions with community life and economic activity in Yunnan. We visited a local village that was headed by women leaders who informed us of the local programming and inclusion projects they have. This was a n excellent opportunity to ask about women’s participation in local governance and accessibility to services. Participants visited the second largest fresh-cut flower market in the world, Dounan Flower Market.
These visits were an opportunity to learn about Yunnan life, discuss with women community leaders the work they are involved in, such as providing social services and guidance to the village, as well as how they use their voice to make positive change. This cultural exchange left me feeling encouraged to see how gender equality is taking shape around the globe, as participants also shared their personal experiences of equality from their home countries.
Day 3: From evidence to action
The final day focused on the tools needed to translate commitments to gender equality into measurable change. Discussions on gender-sensitive data showed why counting participation is only a starting point to meaningful and accessible participation. The session on meaningful participation brought these strands together by asking not simply whether women are present, but whether they have voice, influence and decision-making power. This relates closely to VSE’s victim-centred approaches, it is not enough to state victims participated or were consulted, but to record and promote whether their experiences changed the policy, programme, service or decision. UN Women provide a trainer of trainer on integrating gender into data collection that can be helpful to refer to.
Applying meaningful participation to victims rights, therefore requires us to go one step further. Instead of just consulting victims, appoint victim and survivor experts to key processes, involve victim voices, needs and wants across each phase of a project and campaign. This inclusion is the bridge between participation being genuine versus symbolic. Participation for victims must be trauma-informed, victim-centred and voluntary: victims expertise need to be recognised, and participation should include appropriate preparation, accessibility measures, support and feedback without retraumatisation or secondary victimisation. This is why VSE has developed the Victims Advocate Platform, so that victims of crimes can meaningfully participate and guide the work we, as VSE, are doing.
The programme concluded by turning these lessons into concrete 30- and 90-day actions, reinforcing that gender mainstreaming ultimately depends on what institutions and individuals do differently after the training ends.
As a participant, it was inspiring to be in a room with a diverse range of professionals, from Government Officials, representatives from the United Nations agencies, and small-to-medium sized civil society organisations, we each brought together a wide range of expertise, both professionally and personally. For me, this was a wonderful opportunity to learn from others, how are they integrating intersectionality into their advocacy and programming? Who are they working with and what are their key focus? How are they raising and centring the voices of those they are working for? One participant described their experience as an asylum seeker moving to the EU, how they have founded their own organisation and support people like them, raising the voices and needs of asylum seekers at the EU level. Another described their consultation work with government officials and how they bring equality to the forefront of key messaging they develop for these officials. Each a unique experience that allowed other participants to learn and grow from/
For my part, I was able to connect with other participants, learn from their cultural and political contexts, as well as provide key information on the work of VSE. Our work on trafficking, terrorism, gender-based violence, cybercrime, and more, cuts across many of the focus areas of participants. VSE brought a victim-centred perspective into discussions about gender equality and participation. VSE’s experience of designing national support systems around victims’ needs, improving access to rights and services, consulting victims safely, incorporating vulnerability and intersectionality, and ensuring policies work for people who face multiple barriers were all highlighted across each of the sessions.
On behalf of VSE, I highlighted that gender could shape exposure to certain forms of victimisation. It can reinforce the harms people experience, willingness or ability to report, access to services, credibility, stigma and participation in justice processes. Victims’ rights frameworks offer practical ways to turn equality principles into concrete protections and services. This can be seen in the work of the EU on the Revised Victims’ Rights Directive and the Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence Directive – where rights on paper need to be translated into practical, accessible supports and services.
From this training, there is so much I can take back to my work – meaningful participation is not about having people in the room; gender mainstreaming is not a standalone exercise; intersectionality changes how we understand barriers; and data, budgets and monitoring determine whether commitments become reality. I am looking forward to sharing the practical guidance with the VSE Team.
Aknowledgments
I would like to say a huge thank you to the ASEF team, the lead trainer Mireia Cano Vinas, all those working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China and the Foreign Affairs Office of the People’s Government of Yunnan.
Further, I would like to thank Victim Support Europe for supporting me in this endeavour, especially my manager Efthymios Antonopoulos, whose encouragement and support throughout has meant a great deal to me.
