ID S EVIDENCE REPORT No 154 Sexuality, Poverty and Law ‘Leave No One Behind’: Gender, Sexuality and the Sustainable Development Goals Elizabeth Mills October 2015 The IDS programme on Strengthening Evidence-based Policy works across seven key themes. Each theme works with partner institutions to co-construct policy-relevant knowledge and engage in policy-influencing processes. This material has been developed under the Sexuality, Poverty and Law theme. Thank you to Stonewall for supporting this publication, and to Jasmine O’Connor for her valuable input on this report. Thank you too, Kit Dorey and Stephen Wood, for reviewing this report. The material has been funded by UK aid from the UK Government, however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies. AG Level 2 Output ID: 242 ‘LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND’: GENDER, SEXUALITY AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Elizabeth Mills October 2015 This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are clearly credited. First published by the Institute of Development Studies in October 2015 © Institute of Development Studies 2015 IDS is a charitable company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No. 877338). Contents Foreword Abbreviations Executive summary 2 3 4 1 Introduction 8 2 Background 9 3 Development actors and mechanisms of exclusion 10 4 Methodology 11 5 The case for inclusive development 5.1 Poverty 5.2 Health 5.3 Education 5.4 Gender equality and women’s empowerment 5.5 Economic growth and employment 5.6 Safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements 5.7 Justice and accountability 12 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 6 Conclusion: inclusive development for all 22 7 Recommendations 23 Annex 1 The Millennium Development Goals 24 Annex 2 The Sustainable Development Goals 25 References Boxes Box 5.1 Box 5.2 Box 5.3 Box 5.4 Box 5.5 Box 5.6 Box 5.7 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goals 1 and 10 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 3 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 4 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 5 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 8 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 11 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 16 26 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 1 Foreword This paper makes an important contribution to equality in international development. It shows some of the many ways that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people around the world can be discriminated against and excluded from development initiatives. It makes it crystal clear that this is not acceptable – the Sustainable Development Goals are for everyone, no matter where they’re from, who they love, or what their gender identity is. It is a call to action for governments, development agencies, the private sector and civil society – this time we must work together to make sure no one is left behind. (Jasmine O’Connor, Head of International Campaigns, Policy and Research, Stonewall) 2 Abbreviations DFID ECtHR GBT LGB LGBT LGBTI LGBTQ MDG MSM SDG SOGIE SPLP Department for International Development European Court of Human Rights gay, bisexual, transgender lesbian, gay, bisexual lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer Millennium Development Goal men who have sex with men Sustainable Development Goal sexual orientation or gender identity and expression Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme 3 Executive summary In an unprecedented move to eradicate disease, poverty and hunger, world leaders joined together in 2000 to sign into life the hotly contested but broadly agreed upon Millennium Development Goal (MDG) framework (see Annex 1). In 2015, as the MDGs come to an end, a new generation of world leaders – government officials, donors and civil society organisations – have joined forces to articulate their vision for a future where all people can contribute to, and benefit from, an inclusive development framework. Across the documents and consultations, these leaders have emphasised a central message: ‘leave no one behind’. If the global commitment to eradicate inequality for all people is truly unequivocal, as leaders claim it to be, the implementation of these Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) needs to take into account the voices of those people who, because of their sexual orientation1 or gender identity and expression2 (SOGIE)3, have historically been excluded from the benefits of development policies and programmes. The findings in this report are based on a comprehensive review of empirical literature on sexuality, gender and development, including primary research conducted on the Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme (SPLP). In mapping these findings against the brand new SDG framework, the report highlights the importance of SOGIE-inclusive development in the post-2015 era. It argues that unless deliberate steps are taken by development actors at an international and national level, billions of people will be excluded from the benefits of international development because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Background The highly contested adoption of the SDGs in August 2015 does not explicitly acknowledge the relationship between sexuality, gender identity and development. However, following an enormous collective push by global civil society actors, there is some limited space for development actors to implement policies that do not discriminate against populations on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. This report forms part of this collective ‘push’ to provide empirical evidence for development actors to use the language of the SDGs as a tool to address social exclusion of SOGIE groups in development programming. At a foundational level, the August 2015 outcome document offers some limited scope for addressing exclusion in the language of paragraph 19, under ‘The New Agenda’. In this paragraph, the language of non-discrimination is applied to persons of ‘other status’. ‘Other status’ reflects two resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council in 2009. The first resolution states that ‘other status’ includes sexual orientation and the second resolution extends this to include gender identity. We reaffirm the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other international instruments relating to human rights and international law. We emphasise the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the In this report, sexual orientation refers to ‘each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affection for and sexual attraction to, and intimate sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender’ (Yogyakarta Principles, Preamble). 2 In this report, gender identity and expression refers to ‘each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms’ (Yogyakarta Principles, Preamble). 3 Many different terms are used to refer to gender variant and same-sex desiring individuals. This report recognises the fraught socio-political terrain around the use, in particular, of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex) as an allencompassing category. Multiple terms, with different local resonance, were used in the academic sources that inform this report. For this reason, and as the report has been written to speak to international policy processes, the author will use the phrase ‘sexual orientation or gender identity and expression’ (SOGIE) as defined in the Yogyakarta Principles. 1 4 United Nations, to respect, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status. (Paragraph 19, SDG Outcome Document 2015) While the language in the SDGs has come under significant criticism, the inclusion of ‘other status’ is hailed as a partial success emerging from enormous work by civil society organisations that have consistently and strategically advocated for the inclusion of SOGIE in the SDGs. This report provides evidence on the impact of excluding populations on the basis of SOGIE to reinforce the importance, and to reveal the opportunity, to ensure that gains in peace and prosperity are experienced by everyone, irrespective of their sexuality and gender identity. In doing so, this report calls on international and national development actors to heed the New Agenda to ‘leave no one behind’ when moving into this new era of development. Methodology The findings are based on a policy and literature review. For the policy review, a range of documents on the MDG and SDG frameworks were reviewed, including the MDG annual reports and Secretary General reports, the Rio+20 outcome documents, the SDG consultations, and the Open Working Group reports. In addition to this grey literature, the review includes an analysis of 65 academic articles.4 Literature searches were limited to the previous ten years (2005–15). Individual searches on sexuality using specific key terms were matched against terms representing the 17 proposed SDGs.5 These articles were selected due to their relevance to socioeconomic and/or policy-legal concerns regarding sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. All studies reflected on multiple forms of inequality as they relate to development, such as poverty, health care, housing, social protection and justice. The literature search was limited to English language publications on SOGIE issues from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Findings The literature review revealed social exclusion of populations on the basis of SOGIE in seven development priority areas: (1) poverty; (2) health; (3) education; (4) gender equality and women’s empowerment; (5) economic growth and opportunity; (6) safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements; and (7) justice and accountability. This report outlines these findings and shows their relevance to the post-2015 era by linking them to the SDGs and targets. It does so with a view to promoting the implementation of SOGIEinclusive development. The findings do not seek to represent a comprehensive or crosscutting analysis of the relationship between SOGIE and development. Instead, the findings from this review constitute an empirical foundation to demonstrate the relationship between sexuality, gender and the SDGs. The findings are outlined in this report to support international and national development actors in addressing social exclusion through development programmes and policies, and to give meaning to the term ‘leave no one behind’.6 This report recognises that the SDGs are aspirational and not legally binding. However, it includes a series of text boxes to suggest how the final language SDG 4 50 were sourced through the Web of Knowledge search engine; 15 articles were sourced through the Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme (SPLP). 5 The following terms were entered into database searches:
Sexuality* “Poverty” OR “Hunger” OR “Nutrition” OR “Health” OR “Wellbeing” OR “Education” OR “Equality” OR “Empowerment” OR “Water” OR “Sanitation” OR “Energy” OR “Economic Growth” OR “Employment” OR “Industrialization” OR “Inequality” OR “Settlement” OR “Housing” OR “Consumption” OR “Production” OR “Climate Change” OR “Marine Conservation” OR “Ecosystem” OR “Inclusive Society” OR “Justice” OR “Partnership” AND “Sexuality” OR “Sexual Orientation” OR “Gender Identity” OR “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” OR “LGBT”. 6 The findings reflect terms used by the authors (variously queer, LGBT, LGBTI, SOGIE) in order to maintain the integrity of the study. 5 framework can be used by development actors to promote SOGIE-inclusive development in the post-2015 era. Conclusion and recommendations To work towards inclusive development that addresses social exclusion, development actors need to shape and implement development policies that ensure: (i) that all people irrespective of their sexuality and gender identity are actively protected against social, economic and political forms of discrimination; and (ii) that health, education, and social protection resources that contribute towards individual wellbeing and overall socioeconomic development are made available to all those in need, leaving no one behind. While the implementation of inclusive national and international development policies is complex, the post-2015 era presents an opportunity for learning how past frameworks have excluded marginalised groups, deepening rather than alleviating poverty. As such, the SDGs can and should be used to build a world that prioritises inclusive development; a world where the commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ translates into practical actions to ‘do development’ better. This includes visionary and collaborative work across international, national and local development actors that (i) translates the principle of ‘leave no one behind’ into the practice of inclusive development at a national level, and (ii) ensures that those creating and implementing development programmes are held accountable at a local level, to increase transparency and accountability and to address the deepening of poverty among those already marginalised on the basis of their gender and sexuality. Generating inclusive strategies to address inequality for all population groups, including people who identify as queer, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, is not only about taking human rights seriously, but very much about recognising that this has positive social and economic outcomes for countries that take poverty alleviation seriously for everyone. To promote inclusive development, international development actors can:        Consult with local LGBTI groups in countries of operation. Listen to and work according to their needs and strategies. Generate two-way processes of capacity building so local knowledge can bolster international action, and so that international knowledge can support local action using the SDG framework to lobby for change. Lobby for greater SOGIE inclusion in international development frameworks, using SDG commitments as a primary justification. In doing so, emphasise that SOGIE rights are not ‘special rights’: all human beings are entitled to be treated equally without discrimination. Establish programmes and projects that explicitly integrate SOGIE issues across all spheres of development. The ‘leave no one behind’ discourse and SDG framework can offer primary justification. Highlight success stories where SOGIE individuals and groups have been integrated into programmes with an SDG justification. Sensitise delivery partners and staff to ‘leave no one behind’ principles and how they should apply to LGBTI and other marginalised groups. Consider SOGIE policy when choosing delivery partners. Integrate this awareness into procurement processes. 6 To promote inclusive development, national development actors can:    Lobby national governments to include disaggregated data where appropriate and safe to do so. Integrate SOGIE-specific indicators where appropriate and safe to do so in national development programmes, using a ‘leave no one behind’ justification. Create and utilise cross-cutting indicators to track the integration of various marginalised groups, including SOGIE, across all/multiple thematic areas. 7 1 Introduction In an unprecedented move to eradicate disease, poverty and hunger, world leaders joined together in 2000 to sign into life the hotly contested but broadly agreed upon Millennium Development Goal (MDG) framework (see Annex 1). In 2015, as the MDGs come to an end, a new generation of world leaders – government officials, donors and civil society organisations – have joined forces to articulate their vision for a future where all people can contribute to, and benefit from, an inclusive development framework. Across the documents and consultations, these leaders have emphasised a central message: ‘leave no one behind’. If the global commitment to eradicate inequality for all people is truly unequivocal, as leaders claim it to be, the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) needs to take into account the voices of those people who, because of their sexual orientation7 or gender identity and expression8 (SOGIE)9, have historically been excluded from the benefits of development policies and programmes. The findings in this report are based on a comprehensive review of empirical literature on sexuality, gender and development, including primary research conducted on the Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme (SPLP). In mapping these findings against the brand new SDG framework, the report highlights the importance of SOGIE-inclusive development in the post-2015 era. It argues that unless deliberate steps are taken by development actors at an international and national level, billions of people will be excluded from the benefits of international development because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. In this report, sexual orientation refers to ‘each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affection for and sexual attraction to, and intimate sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender’ (Yogyakarta Principles, Preamble). 8 In this report, gender identity and expression refers to ‘each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms’ (Yogyakarta Principles, Preamble). 9 Many different terms are used to refer to gender variant and same-sex desiring individuals. This report recognises the fraught socio-political terrain around the use, in particular, of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex) as an allencompassing category. Multiple terms, with different local resonance, were used in the academic sources that inform this report. For this reason, and as the report has been written to speak to international policy processes, the author will use the phrase ‘sexual orientation or gender identity and expression’ (SOGIE) as defined in the Yogyakarta Principles. 7 8 2 Background The highly contested adoption of the SDGs in August 2015 does not explicitly acknowledge the relationship between sexuality, gender identity and multi-dimensional poverty. However, following an enormous collective push by global civil society actors, there is some limited space for development actors to implement policies that do not discriminate against populations on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. This report forms part of this collective ‘push’ to provide empirical evidence for development actors to use the language of the SDGs as a tool to address the social exclusion of SOGIE groups in development programming. At a foundational level, the August 2015 outcome document offers some limited scope for addressing exclusion in the language of paragraph 19, under ‘The New Agenda’. In this paragraph, the language of non-discrimination is applied to persons of ‘other status’. ‘Other status’ reflects two resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council in 2009. The first resolution states that ‘other status’ includes sexual orientation and the second resolution extends this to include gender identity. We reaffirm the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other international instruments relating to human rights and international law. We emphasise the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to respect, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status. (Paragraph 19, SDG Outcome Document 2015) While the language in the SDGs has come under significant criticism, the inclusion of ‘other status’ is hailed as a partial success emerging from a huge amount of work by civil society organisations that have consistently and strategically advocated for the inclusion of SOGIE in the SDGs. This report provides evidence on the impact of excluding populations on the basis of SOGIE to reinforce the importance, and to reveal the opportunity, to ensure that gains in peace and prosperity are experienced by everyone, irrespective of their sexuality and gender identity. In doing so, this report calls on international and national development actors to heed the New Agenda to ‘leave no one behind’ when moving into this new era of development. 9 3 Development actors and mechanisms of exclusion As argued by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) in their policy approach to social exclusion (DFID 2005), people who are socially excluded on the basis of their gender and sexual orientation are more likely to be restricted in contributing to or benefiting from development (cf. Beall and Piron 2005; Sen 2000). The notion of social exclusion relates to (1) discrimination on the basis of social identity, and particularly discrimination as a result of multiple identities (intersectionality); (2) the recognition that some groups are included, but in disadvantageous or discriminatory ways; (3) the exclusion of people from economic opportunities, political participation and social engagement (DFID 2005; Beall and Piron 2005). While multiple dynamics intersect to create conditions of social, political and economic exclusion for SOGIE populations, these dynamics are reinforced by mechanisms of exclusion at an international and national level. These mechanisms are linked and reinforced by a range of different actors and they are exerted through formal and informal institutions (Beall and Piron 2005). Together, they draw into focus a set of interlinked development policies, programmes and actors. At an international level, this report is primarily concerned with formal institutions and international policies such as the MDGs and SDGs. The actors that shape and extend the reach of the global development agenda include multilateral and bilateral donors that direct finances and policy agendas through their in-country engagement (see Rivkin-Fish, Adams and Pigg 2005; Duffield 2002). It also calls attention to other international development actors, like international non-governmental organisations, that work with national governments and civil societies to fund and/or implement development programmes. While all play different roles, these actors should be held accountable – against the principle of equitable development – for ensuring that development programmes reach all marginalised groups, and play an active role in reconfiguring historical exclusionary approaches to development (Sellers 2014; Shields et al. 2012; Oduro 2012; Dunne 2007). At a national level, this report is concerned with both formal (e.g. state) and non-formal (e.g. social norms) institutions and corresponding actors that reinforce social exclusion either by overtly discriminating against marginalised groups or by failing to protect those groups from discrimination (Armas 2006; Overs 2015; Oosterhoff, Hoang and Quach 2014; Coyle and Boyce 2015). This mechanism of discrimination, often reinforced by a dynamic interplay between state and social institutions, means that the benefits of essential development resources – such as education, housing, sanitation and health care – frequently do not reach same-sex attracted and gender non-conforming people. When measured in macroeconomic terms, the impact of discriminatory or insensitive laws and policies has been found to have a significant economic impact on the overall performance of the country’s national outcomes (Bailey 2013; Badgett 2009; Badgett et al. 2014). Inclusive development practices have been achieved in part by civil society actions that challenge discriminatory laws and policies and that enable access to resources that flow from development policies and programmes (see Browne and Bakshi 2013; Lewis 2010). This has been accomplished by various means, including: harnessing opportunities wrought through political transition and attendant legal transformations (Louw 2005; Seidman 1999); strategic litigation (Andersen 2009; Keck 2009); macroeconomic modelling to show the impact of homophobia and transphobia (Badgett 2014); developing best practice models with the military (Eliason and Schope 2001), health practitioners (Muller 2013) and employers (Lester 2004; Badgett 2009). 10 4 Methodology The findings are based on a policy and literature review. For the policy review, a range of documents on the MDG and SDG frameworks were reviewed, including the MDG annual reports and Secretary General reports, the Rio+20 outcome documents, the SDG consultations, and the Open Working Group reports. In addition to this grey literature, the review includes an analysis of 65 academic articles.10 Literature searches were limited to the previous ten years (2005–15). Individual searches on sexuality using specific key terms were matched against terms representing the 17 proposed SDGs.11 These articles were selected due to their relevance to socioeconomic and/or policy-legal concerns regarding sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. All studies reflected on multiple forms of inequality as they relate to development, such as poverty, health care, housing, social protection and justice. The literature search was limited to English language publications on SOGIE issues from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. 10 50 were sourced through the Web of Knowledge search engine; 15 articles were sourced through the Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme (SPLP). 11 The following terms were entered into database searches:
Sexuality* “Poverty” OR “Hunger” OR “Nutrition” OR “Health” OR “Wellbeing” OR “Education” OR “Equality” OR “Empowerment” OR “Water” OR “Sanitation” OR “Energy” OR “Economic Growth” OR “Employment” OR “Industrialization” OR “Inequality” OR “Settlement” OR “Housing” OR “Consumption” OR “Production” OR “Climate Change” OR “Marine Conservation” OR “Ecosystem” OR “Inclusive Society” OR “Justice” OR “Partnership” AND “Sexuality” OR “Sexual Orientation” OR “Gender Identity” OR “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” OR “LGBT”. 11 5 The case for inclusive development The literature review revealed social exclusion of populations on the basis of SOGIE in seven development priority areas: (1) poverty; (2) health; (3) education; (4) gender equality and women’s empowerment; (5) economic growth and opportunity; (6) safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements; and (7) justice and accountability. This report outlines these findings and shows their relevance to the post-2015 era by linking them to the SDGs and targets. It does so with a view to promoting the implementation of SOGIEinclusive development. The findings do not seek to represent a comprehensive or crosscutting analysis of the relationship between SOGIE and development. Instead, the findings from this review constitute an empirical foundation to demonstrate the relationship between sexuality, gender and the SDGs. They are outlined in this report to support international and national development actors in addressing social exclusion through development programmes and policies, and to give meaning to the term ‘leave no one behind’.12 This report recognises that the SDGs are aspirational and not legally binding. However, it includes a series of text boxes to suggest how the final language SDG framework can be used by development actors to promote SOGIE-inclusive development in the post-2015 era. 5.1 Poverty We are committed to ending poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including by eradicating extreme poverty by 2030. All people must enjoy a basic standard of living, including through social protection systems. (Paragraph 24, SDG Outcome Document 2015) Significant factors that contribute to SOGIE-related poverty include inequalities linked to race, ethnicity, gender and location among other factors (Badgett, Durso and Schneebaum 2013; Thoreson 2011; Prokos and Keene 2010; Billies et al. 2009). A meta-analysis, drawing on data from national and state surveys found that an individual’s race, ethnicity, gender and geographic location are linked to poverty as well as low levels of education – so heightening the vulnerability of gender variant and same-sex desiring people (Badgett et al. 2013). Similarly, using a national survey to investigate explanations for differing poverty levels, another study found that, compared to heterosexual families, same-sex families were more likely to be poor (Prokos and Keene 2010). Research in the Philippines has also examined the extent to which being queer affects the ways that low-income Filipinos experience multidimensional poverty that spans economic and sociocultural exclusion. GALANG, an LBT (lesbian, bisexual, transgender) organisation in the Philippines, has documented the effects of discriminatory laws and policies on people’s experiences of socioeconomic inequality. They write that, For years, the respondents in this case study have done what they could to cope with the economic disadvantage that faces sexual minorities in the Philippines. At least two of the respondents used to work as teachers in the Philippines but opted to work as domestic workers in Hong Kong. One left the country because of school-based discrimination and the other because her family refused to support her decision to pursue what could have been a prestigious military career, a profession traditionally considered masculine in the Philippines, and instead encouraged her to seek greener pastures in Hong Kong. (GALANG 2015: 16) 12 The findings reflect terms used by the authors (variously queer, LGBT, LGBTI, SOGIE) in order to maintain the integrity of the study. 12 The absence of social protection policies, in particular, has been shown to play a significant role in increasing lesbian, bisexual and trans people’s likelihood of struggling with poverty compared to heterosexual people; this is a result of creating social protection policies for heterosexual citizens, to the exclusion of all those people who hold different sexual orientations or gender identities and expressions. As a result, social policy provisions are reinforced by sexist and homophobic social norms; in turn, only those in heterosexual relationships are able to benefit from access to housing and welfare support like pensions. All LGBTI people are excluded from these benefits as a result of the discriminatory provisions promoted by the country’s social policies (GALANG 2013). In another study from the Philippines, interviewees said that their gender expression was a barrier to higher education and that stereotypically ‘queer’ professions tended to be irregular as well as poorly remunerated. The study also found that the queer participants’ ability to contribute financially to the household increased the likelihood that they would be accepted socially, and within their families (Thoreson 2011). This is also reflected in a recent study with trans people in Nepal. The authors found that economic wellbeing mitigates against stigma, to some extent, within families (Boyce and Coyle 2013). Pointing to the multiple and interlocking dimensions of inequality, a study in Colombia with GBT (gay, bisexual, transgender) people and heterosexually identified men who have sex with men (MSM) explored the relationship between internal displacement, poverty and possible links with HIV. It found that displacement was often the result of widespread violence due to political and economic instability, and that displacement had greater detrimental effects on GBT people. Because they were more likely to be socially stigmatised, the participants were less likely to complete their education and were therefore more likely to hold a lower socioeconomic status. The combination of poverty with displacement and social stigma resulted in higher levels of sexual violence committed against GBT people in Columbia (Zea et al. 2013). Together, these studies point to a cyclical dynamic where LGBTI people with lower socioeconomic status and educational levels are more vulnerable to social stigma and discrimination, and in turn less able to access economic opportunities (Boyce and Coyle 2013). Conversely, as seen in the Philippines (Thoreson 2011; GALANG 2013, 2015), researchers have also shown that interlocking social and legal discrimination against LGBTI people leads to diminished education and employment opportunities, and therefore lower socioeconomic status. These studies in the Philippines reflect a global evidence base that shows the extent to which people are excluded from accessing education and employment on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity (Hull 2008; Mountian 2014; Teixeira-Filho, Rondini and Bessa 2011; da Silva, Guerra and Sperling 2013). 13 Box 5.1 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goals 1 and 10 The countries that sign up to the SDGs commit to pursuing the SDGs’ 17 goals and 169 targets, as measured by a set of indicators. The following information is based on the SDG outcome document, and illustrates ‘room for manoeuvre’ in advocating for the implementation of SOGIE-inclusive development policies and programmes. Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable. Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services. These two targets call for equitable access to resources and the implementation of social protection measures for all; this terminology can be used by international and national actors to advocate for the inclusion of all populations, irrespective of sexuality or gender identity, in social protection programmes and private sector development programmes. Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard. While broad, Target 10.2 includes the term ‘other status’, which can be an entry point for SOGIE issues. The reference to non-discriminatory laws in Target 10.3 reflects terminology in paragraph 19 and the inclusion of ‘other status’ offers scope for development actors to address discriminatory legislation, policies and action. 5.2 Health To promote physical and mental health and well-being, and to extend life expectancy for all, we must achieve universal health coverage and access to quality health care. No one must be left behind. (Paragraph 26, SDG Outcome Document 2015) While positive shifts have taken place in extending the reach of HIV prevention and treatment under the MDGs, national legal and policy contexts that discriminate against SOGIEpopulations undermine the effective administration of these programmes by discouraging people from accessing critical health resources in places like Vietnam (Colby 2003), Lesotho (Baral et al. 2011) and Uganda (Ahmed et al. 2011). Research from the Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme highlighted that even when Uganda’s hugely contested Anti-Homosexuality Act was not officially in place, it still contributed to a profoundly hostile socio-legal and political environment where people were able to perpetrate homophobic and transphobic violence with impunity (Jjuuko and Tumwesige 2013). Research from India, using a community-based participatory approach with self-identified MSM, has similarly found that stigma attached to same-sex desire deterred men from attending state or private clinics. As a result, these men were less likely to access critical health resources, such as AIDS treatment and condoms to prevent HIV transmission (Lorway et al. 2014). A rare study in Lesotho with self-identified women who 14 have sex with women found that this group – because it is so invisible in development programmes, particularly those addressing HIV – was not able to access health-care resources, including dental dams, finger cots and basic information on HIV prevention among women (Poteat et al. 2014). There is value, then, in not only encouraging global momentum for HIV prevention and treatment, but also working with those people involved in implementing these programmes – like health-care workers – to sensitise them to health rights and concerns related to same-sex desiring and gender variant people (Muller 2013). SOGIE-inclusive health-care policies and programmes also need to extend beyond a historic focus on HIV to include mental and physical wellbeing, and access to essential health services more broadly. In Uganda, for example, studies have found that mental and physical health have been undermined by the proliferation of hate crimes against LGBTI people; and, further, that these crimes often go unreported because of fear that their victims’ sexual orientation or gender identity would be disclosed to law enforcement officials, prompting further violence at the hands of state authorities (Nyanzi 2013; Lundberg et al. 2011). A study in Lebanon found that the psychological wellbeing of MSM was directly shaped by their experience of stigma in their family, and in their schools, universities and work places (Wagner et al. 2013). Similarly, a study in Vietnam found that homophobic and transphobic bullying in school was underpinned by a broader social and legal context that normalised prejudice against LGBTI people in Vietnam (Oosterhoff et al. 2014; Colby 2003). Box 5.2 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 3 The countries that sign up to the SDGs commit to pursuing the SDGs’ 17 goals and 169 targets, as measured by a set of indicators. The following information is based on the SDG outcome document, and illustrates ‘room for manoeuvre’ in advocating for the implementation of SOGIE-inclusive development policies and programmes. Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages Target 3.3: By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health care services and access to safe, effective, high quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all. In order to end the HIV epidemic, all people – including women who have sex with women, and men who have sex with men – will require access to essential health services. This in turn reflects the call to extend the reach of health care to all, through universal health coverage, and will entail ensuring that marginalised SOGIE populations are also reached. Actors implementing health policies and programmes can therefore be called to ensure that populations marginalised on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity are also able to access these resources. 5.3 Education We commit to providing inclusive and equitable quality education at all levels – early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, technical and vocational training. All people, irrespective of sex, age, race, ethnicity, and persons with disabilities, migrants, indigenous peoples, children and youth, especially those in vulnerable situations, should have access to life-long learning opportunities that help them acquire the knowledge and skills needed to exploit opportunities and to participate fully in society. (Paragraph 24, SDG Outcome Document 2015) 15 If governments do not incorporate sexuality as an important element in their national curricula, people (and especially teenagers and young people) have less opportunity to take informed decisions regarding parenthood, sexual initiation, HIV prevention, etc. (Armas 2007: 24) Two key trends emerge across studies on SOGIE and education. First, discrimination against people on the basis of SOGIE in educational settings contributes to premature exits from schools and universities. In Brazil, for example, even though Brazil has a progressive antihomophobia and anti-transphobia education policy in place, the powerful right-wing religious lobby has effectively removed all measures to implement this policy in schools. The impact of homophobia has been documented by the Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme (SPLP) to negatively affect travesti13 in Brazil, for example (Mountian 2014). In another SPLP study, in Rwanda, homophobia and transphobia within families and communities were found to negatively affect access to education among LBT people (Haste and Gatete 2015). In a study based on anonymous surveys in Brazil, researchers found that participants recognise that they promote hegemonic discourses of heterosexuality in their schools by threatening, or using, violence. It follows, then, that gay, lesbian and trans people who were ‘out’ in their schools suffered the most severe forms of physical violence and social discrimination; this group also represented the highest number of students who reported considering suicide (Teixeira-Filho et al. 2011). The second trend relates to the content of sex education and awareness within educational settings. An SPLP study in South Africa, for example, found a disconnect between the country’s progressive legislation on sexual orientation and gender identity and its policies governing social protection for families (Charles 2013). A further study on the content of sex education curricula found that, without a uniform approach or policy directive to integrate education on sexual and gender diversity, teachers opted to exclude SOGIE from their lessons (DePalma and Francis 2014). Another study looked at the failure of sexual education curricula to adequately address the needs of LGBTQ youth in the United States. Respondents in this study reflected on two possible kinds of exclusion in their school: passive silencing – when LGBTQ discourse was completely absent; and active silencing – instances where LGBTQ issues were directly ignored or avoided. In some instances, LGBTQ people were pathologised with harmful consequences. Conversely, the study found that discussing LGBTQ issues can potentially improve school safety and address and deal with homophobic and transphobic bullying, which as discussed above, is linked to high drop-out rates among gender variant and same-sex desiring people (Gowen and Winges-Yanez 2014). The authors of this study explain the identity politics of the term: ‘travesti [is used], instead of transsexual, to be faithful to the sexual political meaning of this word in Brazil to denote differential modalities of gender perfomativity. Travestis are biologically born male who design themselves as women, who usually do not undergo sex re-assignment surgery but resort to other techniques of body modification, such as hormones or silicone application’ (Mountian 2014: 4). 13 16 Box 5.3 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 4 The countries that sign up to the SDGs commit to pursuing the SDGs’ 17 goals and 169 targets, as measured by a set of indicators. The following information is based on the SDG outcome document, and illustrates ‘room for manoeuvre’ in advocating for the implementation of SOGIE-inclusive development policies and programmes. Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes. Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations. Target 4.7: Ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity. In order to ensure that all children receive an education, national and international development actors will also need to address social and policy barriers affecting young people. This can include discrimination, on the basis of SOGIE, that has been found to deter young people from completing primary, secondary and tertiary education. 5.4 Gender equality and women’s empowerment Very little research exists to show the relationship between gender identity, gender expression and gender equality. This absence is particularly visible in research with trans people; the absence perhaps points to broader issues around the invisibility of trans people in research on poverty and inequality, and certainly raises a concern around the narrow framing of gender, identity and inequality in the historic approach to the MDGs and now in the current approach to the SDGs. One study with female-to-male trans people explored the relationship between community support, empowerment and gender identity. The participants reported going through a brief period of identifying as lesbian in an attempt to find a sense of community, eventually leaving them to access the support of transgender communities. This support was vital to coping with stigma attached to their gender identity and expression, and it also gave the trans people in this study a sense of belonging (Bockting, Benner and Coleman 2009). This study, and the overall absence of many studies on trans people and empowerment, suggests that calibrations of disempowerment and empowerment do not only function beyond binaries of men (those who hold power) and women (those who are ‘disempowered’), but even more subtly among different groups of people who are more or less visible in public discourse and policy. 17 Box 5.4 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 5 The countries that sign up to the SDGs commit to pursuing the SDGs’ 17 goals and 169 targets, as measured by a set of indicators. The following information is based on the SDG outcome document, and illustrates ‘room for manoeuvre’ in advocating for the implementation of SOGIE-inclusive development policies and programmes. Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation. The term ‘all forms’ in Targets 5.1 and 5.2 can be read to include violence on the basis of gender identity and sexuality, in addition to historically heteronormative interpretations of gender-based violence as solely affecting heterosexual cis-gendered women. 5.5 Economic growth and employment Violations of sexual rights create a negative cycle of limited opportunities in education which compound limited opportunities in employment caused by discrimination. Together these result in weaker capacities and poverty. (Armas 2006: 24) The eighth goal aims to ‘Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all’. The studies reviewed under this theme linked closely with SDG 1, and offer background to the structural relationship between poverty, inequality and SOGIE. Workplace discrimination emerged as a key factor undermining equal access to employment for all. For instance, one study in Italy found that same-sex couples are vulnerable to discrimination, compared to heterosexual counterparts, at all stages of employment, including during hiring, dismissal, career advancement and access to training (Botti and D’Ippoliti 2014). Research in Vietnam through the SPLP emphasised the primary importance of employment as a means to address poverty. A member of a transgender group explained: We are not interested in legalising same-sex marriage. As transgender people, we do not expect that we can have a long-term marriage. However, our primary concerns are jobs and sex changes. We cannot get good jobs because we dress and appear differently from the information on our identity card. Every day, some of us are dying because of sex change procedures. However, no one cares about these needs. (Oosterhoff et al. 2014: 32) Research conducted in Turkey on workplace discrimination found that most participants were not ‘out’ at their workplace because they feared verbal abuse or violence. Those who were ‘out’ often faced severe discrimination (sustained harassment through to repeated unwanted jokes and innuendos) as well as actual job termination and threats of violence (Ozturk 2011). Another study found that 80 per cent of participants could not live their sexual orientation openly within Turkey and more than half (67 per cent) of the participants hid their real identities out of fear of receiving negative reactions from their colleagues. The 27 per cent who had revealed their sexual orientation in the workplace experienced homophobic jokes and reported being described as ‘perverts’ (Biçmen and Bekiroğulları 2014). 18 A similar study conducted in the United States (US) focused on different types of enacted stigma in the workplace, depending on whether participants lived in rural and small towns or urban areas. People living in rural areas reported having experienced higher levels of homophobic statements, discrimination in the work place and damage to property. In the study different social classifiers were also analysed as variables of levels of stigma (race, class, gender). The act of not disclosing one’s sexual orientation reduced the amount of the violence experienced; however, it had serious negative consequences on respondents’ mental health (Swank, Fahs and Frost 2013). Commenting on data drawn from the US, Badgett et al. (2013) find that federal law, and the law in most states, does not protect LGBT people from employment discrimination. They argue that passing and enforcing nondiscrimination laws can help to prevent poverty by reducing the risk of unemployment or loss of wages. In light of goal eight being about ‘sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth’ no studies were found to detail people of differing sexual orientation and gender identity experiencing ‘full and productive employment’. Research conducted in Rwanda through the SPLP foregrounds the importance of accessing economic opportunities in order to reduce the impact of social marginalisation and exclusion from communities and families: ‘A common feature of many of the organisations was their desire to provide economic opportunities for their members and the communities they served. In most cases this was for men who were isolated from their families and communities because of their sexual or gender non-conformity’ (Haste and Gatete 2015: 23). Box 5.5 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 8 The countries that sign up to the SDGs commit to pursuing the SDGs’ 17 goals and 169 targets, as measured by a set of indicators. The following information is based on the SDG outcome document, and illustrates ‘room for manoeuvre’ in advocating for the implementation of SOGIE-inclusive development policies and programmes. Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalisation and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value. Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training. Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment. Work place discrimination remains a principle barrier to full and productive employment, and the term ‘for all’ in this goal and in the targets above, offers scope for measures to address this discrimination in development programming aimed at promoting employment and equal pay for all, including for those people in ‘precarious employment’; a term that can be interpreted to include those who are legally and socially discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality and gender identity. 5.6 Safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements Studies show important links between young LGBTI people’s experience of discrimination and their higher risk (compared to heterosexual youth) of poverty and homeless. For example, one study found that homelessness among young people was linked to their experience of violent bullying in school due to their sexual orientation and gender expression 19 (Kosciw et al. 2009). Another study found that homeless youth who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) found it harder to access sexual health resources and were more likely to take sexual health risks compared to those self-identified as heterosexual. Homeless GLB youth in the US reported higher rates of sexual and physical abuse than heterosexual youth, and indicated that they had been forced to leave home as a result of their parent’s disapproval of their sexual orientation (Rew et al. 2005). Five further articles address housing for people of sexual minorities or gender variant identities as a relevant factor in their findings of SOGIE-related poverty (Billies et al. 2009; Botti and D’Ippoliti 2014; Biçmen and Bekiroğulları 2014; Nyanzi 2013; Rew et al. 2005). In all of the articles the researchers found that LGBTI people have difficulty accessing housing compared to heterosexual individuals. A study on sexual health risks of self-identified LGB youth found that young people whose parents had disapproved of their sexuality were at a greater risk of being homeless, and of contracting sexually transmitted illnesses (Rew et al. 2005). Other studies have found that assumptions of heterosexuality by service providers play a significant role in deterring young people from accessing housing services (Botti and D’Ippoliti 2014; Biçmen and Bekiroğulları 2014; Nyanzi 2013). Box 5.6 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 11 The countries that sign up to the SDGs commit to pursuing the SDGs’ 17 goals and 169 targets, as measured by a set of indicators. The following information is based on the SDG outcome document, and illustrates ‘room for manoeuvre’ in advocating for the implementation of SOGIE-inclusive development policies and programmes. Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums. Target 11.2: By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons. Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. The non-discrimination principle, in paragraph 19 of the SDG outcome document, can be utilised by development actors to promote the principle of access to safe, equitable housing ‘for all’, as noted in particular in Targets 11.1 and 11.2. 5.7 Justice and accountability The enforcement of non-discriminatory policies and law at national and international levels calls attention to the role of rights-based frameworks for ensuring that development policies reach all population groups. If national laws and the rule of law are both in place to protect the rights of marginalised groups, civil society and non-governmental organisations can leverage these laws to ensure equal access to resources that flow from global and national development programmes and policies. The integration of SOGIE-sensitive approaches to law and policy has also been shown to affect other countries in different regions. For example, an analysis of rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on LGBTI issues found that the court’s judgements against one nation increase the probability that other European countries will adopt the same pro-LGBTI policy. The most significant impact of the ECtHR judgements was noticeable in countries with lower public support for LGBT rights (Helfer and Voeten 2014). Civil society plays an important role in shifting negative legal 20 and policy frameworks, as highlighted by research within the Sexuality, Poverty and Law programme (SPLP) in Vietnam that explored the role of collective action and the use of public events like gay pride to push for legal reform in the national government (Oosterhoff et al. 2014). The presence of discriminatory laws and policies has been shown to have negative repercussions on the emotional, physical and economic wellbeing of gender variant and same-sex desiring people. Almost a quarter of the studies reviewed found multiple forms of discrimination against SOGIE populations in the form of physical violence, infringement of rights and social stigma. Looking across these extremes of inclusive or discriminatory approaches to LGBTI rights, a study in Bangladesh highlights some of the complexity entailed when normative ‘global’ discourses of rights and individuated sexual identity confront the messiness of ‘local’ realities. The article highlights the distinction between those who call themselves gay (well-educated with higher incomes) and those who are defined under the umbrella term MSM (generally poor and socially marginalised). The study indicates that we cannot assume that sexual conduct and sexual identity are the same; and highlights the danger of homogenising categories that invariably alter pre-existing social meanings of same-sex sexual activities (Siddiqi 2011). Similar findings emerged from empirical research on the SPLP in Nepal (Coyle and Boyce 2015; Boyce and Coyle 2013) and in India (Dhall and Boyce 2015). Box 5.7 Key SDG information: relevant goals and potential room to manoeuvre – Goal 16 The countries that sign up to the SDGs commit to pursuing the SDGs’ 17 goals and 169 targets, as measured by a set of indicators. The following information is based on the SDG outcome document, and illustrates ‘room for manoeuvre’ in advocating for the implementation of SOGIE-inclusive development policies and programmes. Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. Target 16.9: By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. This goal uses the phrase ‘all forms’ of violence, which some United Nations bodies have interpreted to include forms of discrimination against populations on the basis of sexuality and gender identity; this applies to Targets 16.1 and 16.2. Target 16.1 also provides a framework for including the needs of lesbian, bisexual and trans women explicitly in any programmes to end violence against women and girls. The importance of legal personhood, and access to resources through such documentation, can significantly address social and economic marginalisation among those discriminated against on the basis of sexuality and gender identity. 21 6 Conclusion: inclusive development for all To work towards inclusive development that addresses social exclusion, development actors need to shape and implement development policies that ensure: (i) that all people irrespective of their sexuality and gender identity are actively protected against social, economic and political forms of discrimination; and (ii) that health, education, and social protection resources that contribute towards individual wellbeing and overall socioeconomic development are made available to all those in need, leaving no one behind. While the implementation of inclusive national and international development policies is complex, the post-2015 era presents an opportunity for learning how past frameworks have excluded marginalised groups, deepening rather than alleviating poverty. As such, the SDGs can and should be used to build a world that prioritises inclusive development; a world where the commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ translates into practical actions to ‘do development’ better. This includes visionary and collaborative work across international, national and local development actors that (i) translates the principle of ‘leave no one behind’ into the practice of inclusive development at a national level, and (ii) ensures that those creating and implementing development programmes are held accountable at a local level, to increase transparency and accountability and to address the deepening of poverty among those already marginalised on the basis of their gender and sexuality. Generating inclusive strategies to address inequality for all population groups, including people who identify as queer, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, is not only about taking human rights seriously, but very much about recognising that this has positive social and economic outcomes for countries that take poverty alleviation seriously for everyone. 22 7 Recommendations To promote inclusive development, international development actors can:        Consult with local LGBTI groups in countries of operation. Listen to and work according to their needs and strategies. Generate two-way processes of capacity building so local knowledge can bolster international action, and so that international knowledge can support local action using the SDG framework to lobby for change. Lobby for greater SOGIE inclusion in international development frameworks, using SDG commitments as a primary justification. In doing so, emphasise that SOGIE rights are not ‘special rights’: all human beings are entitled to be treated equally without discrimination. Establish programmes and projects that explicitly integrate SOGIE issues across all spheres of development. The ‘leave no one behind’ discourse and SDG framework can offer primary justification. Highlight success stories where SOGIE individuals and groups have been integrated into programmes with an SDG justification. Sensitise delivery partners and staff to ‘leave no one behind’ principles and how they should apply to LGBTI and other marginalised groups. Consider SOGIE policy when choosing delivery partners. Integrate this awareness into procurement processes. To promote inclusive development, national development actors can:    Lobby national governments to include disaggregated data where appropriate and safe to do so. Integrate SOGIE-specific indicators where appropriate and safe to do so in national development programmes, using a ‘leave no one behind’ justification. Create and utilise cross-cutting indicators to track the integration of various marginalised groups, including SOGIE, across all/multiple thematic areas. 23 Annex 1 The Millennium Development Goals Goals Targets Deliverables 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger a. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day Met in 2010 b. Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people Not met c. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger Almost met by 2015 2. Achieve universal primary education a. Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling Met in 2012 3. Promote gender equality and empower women a. Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all levels of education no later than 2015 Not met 4. Reduce child mortality a. Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the underfive mortality rate Not met 5. Improve maternal health a. Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio Not met b. Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health Not met a. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS Not met b. Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it Almost met by 2015 c. Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases Almost met by 2015 a. Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources Not met b. Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss Not met c. Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Not met (partially) d. By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers Met a. Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, nondiscriminatory trading and financial system Not met b. Address the special needs of the least developed countries Not met c. Address the special needs of landlocked developing countries and small island developing states Not met d. Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term Not met e. In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries Not met f. In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications Not met 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases 7. Ensure environmental sustainability 8. Develop a global partnership for development 24 Annex 2 The Sustainable Development Goals Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts* Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development * Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change 25 References Ahmed, A.; Kaplan, M.; Symington, A. and Kismodi, E. (2011) ‘Criminalising Consensual Sexual Behaviour in the Context of HIV: Consequences, Evidence, and Leadership’, Global Public Health 6: S357–S369 Andersen, E.A. (2009) Out of the Closets and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation, Michigan: University of Michigan Press Armas, H. (2007) Whose Sexuality Counts? Poverty, Participation and Sexual Rights, IDS Working Paper 294, Brighton: IDS Armas, H. (2006) ‘Exploring Linkages between Sexuality and Rights to Tackle Poverty’, IDS Bulletin 37.5: 21–26 Badgett, M. (2009) ‘Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination 1998–2008’, Chicago-Kent Law Review 84.2: 559–95 Badgett, M.; Durso, L.E. and Schneebaum, A. (2013) New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community, Los Angeles CA: The Williams Institute, University of California Badgett, M. (2014) The Economic Cost of Homophobia and the Exclusion of LGBT People: A Case Study of India, World Bank Badgett, M.; Nezhad, S.; Waaldijk, K. and Van Der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2014) The Relationship between LGBT Inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies, Los Angeles CA: The Williams Institute, University of California Bailey, S. (2013) Sexuality, and Development in the Maghreb: Origins of Institutionalized Homophobia, and the Disruption of Development, Massachusetts: Brandeis University Baral, S.; Adams, D.; Lebona, J.; Kaibe, B.; Letsie, P.; Tshehlo, R.; Wirtz, A. and Beyrer, C. (2011) ‘A Cross-sectional Assessment of Population Demographics, HIV Risks and Human Rights Contexts among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Lesotho’, Journal of the International AIDS Society 14: 36 Beall, J. and Piron, L.-H. (2005) DFID Social Exclusion Review, London: Overseas Development Institute Biçmen, Z. and Bekiroğulları, Z. (2014) ‘Social Problems of LGBT People in Turkey’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 113: 224–33 Billies, M.; Johnson, J.; Murungi, K. and Pugh, R. (2009) ‘Naming our Reality: Low-income LGBT People Documenting Violence, Discrimination and Assertions of Justice’, Feminism & Psychology 19: 375–80 Bockting, W.; Benner, A. and Coleman, E. (2009) ‘Gay and Bisexual Identity Development Among Female-to-Male Transsexuals in North America: Emergence of a Transgender Sexuality’, Archives of Sexual Behavior 38: 688–701 Botti, F. and D’Ippoliti, C. (2014) ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (That You’re Poor). Sexual Orientation and Social Exclusion in Italy’, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 49: 8–25 Boyce, P. and Coyle, D. (2013) Development, Discourse and Law: Transgender and SameSex Sexualities in Nepal, IDS Evidence Report 13, Brighton: IDS 26 Browne, K. and Bakshi, L. (2013) ‘Insider Activists: The Fraught Possibilities of LGBT Activisms from Within’, Geoforum 49: 253–62 Charles, T. (2013) ‘Marriage Above All Else’: The Push for Heterosexual, Nuclear Families in the Making of South Africa’s White Paper on Families, IDS Evidence Report 41, Brighton: IDS Colby, D.J. (2003) ‘HIV Knowledge and Risk Factors among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 32: 80–85 Coyle, D. and Boyce, P. (2015) Same-Sex Sexualities, Gender Variance, Economy and Livelihood in Nepal: Exclusions, Subjectivity and Development, IDS Evidence Report 109, Brighton: IDS Da Silva, D.Q.; Guerra, O.U. and Sperling, C. (2013) ‘Sex Education in the Eyes of Primary School Teachers in Novo Hamburgo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil’, Reproductive Health Matters 21: 114–23 DePalma, R. and Francis, D. (2014) ‘South African Life Orientation Teachers: (Not) Teaching about Sexuality Diversity’, Journal of Homosexuality 61: 1687–1711 DFID (2005) Reducing Poverty by Tackling Social Exclusion: A DFID Policy Paper, London: Department for International Development Dhall, P. and Boyce, P. (2015) Livelihood, Exclusion and Opportunity: Socioeconomic Welfare among Gender and Sexuality Non-normative People in India, IDS Evidence Report 106, Brighton: IDS Duffield, M. (2002) ‘Social Reconstruction and the Radicalization of Development: Aid as a Relation of Global Liberal Governance’, Development and Change 33: 1049–71 Dunne, M. (2007) ‘Gender, Sexuality and Schooling: Everyday Life in Junior Secondary Schools in Botswana and Ghana’, International Journal of Educational Development 27: 499–511 Eliason, M. and Schope, R. (2001) ‘Does “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Apply to Health Care? Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People’s Disclosure to Health Care Providers’, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 5: 125–34 GALANG (2015) How Filipino LBTs Cope with Economic Disadvantage, IDS Evidence Report 120, Brighton: IDS GALANG (2013) Policy Audit: Social Protection Policies and Urban Poor LBTs in the Philippines, IDS Evidence Report 21, Brighton: IDS Gowen, L.K. and Winges-Yanez, N. (2014) ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Youths’ Perspectives of Inclusive School-Based Sexuality Education’, Journal of Sex Research 51: 788–800 Haste, P. and Gatete, T.K. (2015) Sexuality, Poverty and Politics in Rwanda, IDS Evidence Report 131, Brighton: IDS Helfer, L.R. and Voeten, E. (2014) ‘International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe’, International Organization 68.1: 77–110 Hull, K.E. (2008) Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: Dimensions of Difference, New York: Springer 27 Jjuuko, A. and Tumwesige, F. (2013) The Implications of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 on Uganda’s Legal System, IDS Evidence Report 44, Brighton: IDS Keck, T.M. (2009) ‘Beyond Backlash: Assessing the Impact of Judicial Decisions on LGBT Rights’, Law and Society Review 43: 151–86 Kosciw, J.G.; Greytak, E.A. and Diaz, E.M. (2009) ‘Who, What, Where, When, and Why: Demographic and Ecological Factors Contributing to Hostile School Climate for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38: 976–88 Lester, T. (2004) ‘Queering the Office: Can Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination Laws Transform Work Place Norms for LGBT Employees’, UMKC Law Review 73: 643 Lewis, G.B. (2010) ‘Modeling Nonprofit Employment: Why Do So Many Lesbians and Gay Men Work for Nonprofit Organizations?’, Administration and Society 42: 720–48 Lorway, R.; Thompson, L.H.; Lazarus, L.; Du Plessis, E.; Pasha, A.; Mary, P.F.; Khan, S. and Reza-Paul, S. (2014) ‘Going Beyond the Clinic: Confronting Stigma and Discrimination among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Mysore through Community-based Participatory Research’, Critical Public Health 24: 73–87 Louw, R. (2005) ‘Advancing Human Rights through Constitutional Protection for Gays and Lesbians in South Africa’, Journal of Homosexuality 48: 141–62 Lundberg, P.; Rukundo, G.; Ashaba, S.; Thorson, A.; Allebeck, P.; Ostergren, P.-O. and Cantor-Graae, E. (2011) ‘Poor Mental Health and Sexual Risk Behaviours in Uganda: A Cross-sectional Population-based Study’, BMC Public Health 11: 125 Millett, G.A.; Peterson, J.L.; Malebranche, D.J.; Lane, T.; Flores, S.A.; Fenton, K.A.; Wilson, P.A.; Steiner, R. and Heilig, C.M. (2012) ‘Common Roots: A Contextual Review of HIV Epidemics in Black Men Who Have Sex with Men Across the African Diaspora’, The Lancet 380: 411–23 Mountian, I. (2014) A Critical Analysis of Public Policies on Education and LGBT Rights in Brazil, IDS Evidence Report 61, Brighton: IDS Muller, A. (2013) ‘Teaching Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health in a South African Health Sciences Faculty: Addressing the Gap’, BMC Medical Education 13: 174 Nyanzi, S. (2013) ‘Homosexuality, Sex Work, and HIV/AIDS in Displacement and Postconflict Settings: the Case of Refugees in Uganda’, International Peacekeeping 20: 450–68 Oduro, G.Y. (2012) ‘“Children of the Street”: Sexual Citizenship and the Unprotected Lives of Ghanaian Street Youth’, Comparative Education 48: 41–56 Oosterhoff, P.; Hoang, T-A. and Quach, T.T. (2014) Negotiating Public and Legal Spaces: the Emergence of an LGBT Movement in Vietnam, IDS Evidence Report 74, Brighton: IDS Overs, C. (2015) BOOSHTEE! Survival and Resilience in Ethiopia, IDS Evidence Report 129, Brighton: IDS Ozturk, M.B. (2011) ‘Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Exploring the Experiences of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Employees in Turkey’, Human Relations 64: 1099–1118 Poteat, T.; Logie, C.; Adams, D.; Lebona, J.; Letsie, P.; Beyrer, C. and Baral, S. (2014) ‘Sexual Practices, Identities and Health among Women Who Have Sex with Women in Lesotho – a Mixed-methods Study’, Culture Health & Sexuality 16: 120–35 28 Prokos, A.H. and Keene, J.R. (2010) ‘Poverty among Cohabiting Gay and Lesbian, and Married and Cohabiting Heterosexual Families’, Journal of Family Issue 31: 934–59 Rew, L.; Whittaker, T.A.; Taylor-Seehafer, M.A. and Smith, L.R. (2005) ‘Sexual Health Risks and Protective Resources in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Homeless Youth’, Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 10: 11–9 Rivkin-Fish, M.; Adams, V. and Pigg, S.L. (2005) Sex in Development: Science, Sexuality, and Morality in Global Perspective, Durham NC: Duke University Press Seidman, G.W. (1999) ‘Gendered Citizenship – South Africa’s Democratic Transition and the Construction of a Gendered State’, Gender & Society 13: 287–307 Sellers, M.D. (2014) ‘Discrimination and the Transgender Population: Analysis of the Functionality of Local Government Policies that Protect Gender Identity’, Administration & Society 46: 70–86 Sen, A. (2000) Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny, Manila, Philippines: Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank Shields, L.; Zappia, T.; Blackwood, D.; Watkins, R.; Wardrop, J. and Chapman, R. (2012) ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Parents Seeking Health Care for their Children: A Systematic Review of the Literature’, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 9: 200–9 Siddiqi, D.M. (2011) ‘Sexuality, Rights and Personhood: Tensions in a Transnational World’, BMC International Health and Human Rights 11.3: S5 Swank, E.; Fahs, B. and Frost, D.M. (2013) ‘Region, Social Identities, and Disclosure Practices as Predictors of Heterosexist Discrimination against Sexual Minorities in the United States’, Sociological Inquiry 83: 238–58 Teixeira-Filho, F.S.; Rondini, C.A. and Bessa, J.C. (2011) ‘Reflexões sobre homofobia e educação em escolas do interior paulista’, Educação e Pesquisa 37: 725–41 Thoreson, R. (2011) ‘Capably Queer: Exploring the Intersections of Queerness and Poverty in the Urban Philippines’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 12: 493–510 United Nations General Assembly (2015) Draft Outcome Document of the United Nations Summit for the Adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, August, www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/L.85&Lang=E (accessed 8 September 2015) Wagner, G.J.; Aunon, F.M.; Kaplan, R.L.; Karam, R.; Khouri, D.; Tohme, J. and Mokhbat, J. (2013) ‘Sexual Stigma, Psychological Well-being and Social Engagement among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Beirut, Lebanon’, Culture Health & Sexuality 15: 570–82 Zea, M.C.; Reisen, C.A.; Bianchi, F.T.; Gonzales, F.A.; Betancourt, F.; Aguilar, M. and Poppen, P.J. (2013) ‘Armed Conflict, Homonegativity and Forced Internal Displacement: Implications for HIV among Colombian Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Individuals’, Culture Health & Sexuality 15: 788–803 29 Brighton BN1 9RE T +44 (0)1273 606261 F +44 (0)1273 621202 E ids@ids.ac.uk www.ids.ac.uk