- There was agreement that the systems that have been developed since 2003 to protect against SEAH are at risk, and a strong sense of urgency and resolve to protect and preserve these hard-won gains. ODA reductions are severely affecting SEAH prevention and response through the loss of specialist and dedicated staff, the reduction or suspension of community outreach and reporting mechanisms, Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and child protection services, and local organisations’ presence and activities. Community-level survivors’ organisations are hard hit, especially self-help groups; some report up to 90% cuts in their budgets. At the policy level PSEAH risks slipping off the agenda as protection is being de-prioritised on the back of extreme budget constraints and a global roll-back on gender rights, and diversity and inclusion initiatives.
- Pre-existing challenges are being exacerbated. Available evidence indicates over 90% of victims are female, 1 victim out of 3 is a child, less than one victim-survivor out of 3 receives assistance, and underreporting remains chronic. In recent years a stronger PSEAH culture and eco-system has been established with improved prevention and response policy and measures. But despite that, the scale of resourcing for PSEAH has not matched needs, so limiting effectiveness and impact. The shift from a culture of “blame and hide” to a culture of action, trust, dialogue and transparency is new, fragile and uneven, and must be sustained. Many noted the current context risks increased harm going unchecked, a slowdown in reporting, reverting to a compliance ‘tick-box’ approach, and moving to a situation with fewer or lower quality PSEAH actions.
- There are hopes and opportunities too. Some called for a change in paradigm, advocating that, in the wake of large-scale cuts, we should think strategically and avoid knee-jerk reactions that simply aim to do the same with less. Instead, we should seize the opportunity to transform how PSEAH is approached, break down siloes, and work collectively to speed up action and impact. Some noted the possibility to make quick gains by reducing duplication (e.g. in training, risk assessments or community reporting mechanisms), and the need to ensure sectors and initiatives that continue to be prioritised for overall ODA funding (e.g. climate and the environment) properly embed and contribute to PSEAH efforts.
- Different actors are at different points in their PSEAH journey and have different roles, entry points, mandates and needs which we should leverage to become more than the sum of our parts. Whilst local organisations, women rights and women-led organisations (WROs and WLOs) play a key role in prevention and response, especially support to survivors, at the other end of the scale actors such as International Financial Institutions (IFIs) whose cooperation instruments include loans, grants, and technical assistance can offer opportunities for mobilising private capital, and engaging states in PSEAH efforts, or philanthropic organisations who can fund critical gaps, such as research.
- Leadership, partnerships and evidence-building remain key to success. Where PSEAH is done well, it is often down to proactive and visible leadership and commitment. We should seek to systematise that. Trust and honesty in partnerships is uneven and conversations about SEAH can often still be held back by fear of repercussions. We should continue to encourage transparency and candour. There was agreement on the need to better demonstrate the damaging impact of failing to invest in PSEAH, build evidence on effective PSEAH approaches, and ensure evidence-based funding decisions.
