1. SEAH1 is widespread and harms people, organisations and communities
- Perpetrators abuse the power they derive from their position as humanitarian-development-peace actors. This undermines trust and the effective delivery of work.
- SEAH is widespread and also widely under-reported. Two sources reported over 1000 cases in 2024, but many cases go unreported even when reporting mechanisms exist 2.
- SEAH disproportionately impacts women and children. Over 90% of known victim-survivors are female. 1 in 3 victims are under 18. Approximately 1 in 4 cases involve sexual abuse including rape. Male victims may face additional challenges. Harm is long-lasting.
- Sudden funding cuts have led to restructurings, closures and cuts in PSEAH services. This increases SEAH risks and reduces capacity to prevent, detect, and respond.
2. Tackling SEAH is good for people, organisations and strategic impact
- Protection from SEAH is an essential, not optional activity. Just like tackling fraud & corruption PSEAH is part of the ‘cost of doing business.’ It can’t just be projectised or dropped when savings are needed. PSEAH underpins effective delivery and wider impact.
- Tackling SEAH is about integrity and accountability. What we say about SEAH, the conduct we expect of our staff and partners, and how we deal with cases defines us. How we deliver matters as much as what we deliver. It impacts who wants to work for and with us.
- SEAH can’t be looked at in isolation. Organisational cultures which overlook or minimise SEAH are more likely to experience other issues such as fraud. Employees who perpetrate SEAH contribute to health, safety and security risks and reduce organisational effectiveness.
- PSEAH improves effectiveness and reduces legal, financial and performance risks. Past high-profile cases have shown that not doing the basics to tackle SEAH damages organisations’ and leaders’ effectiveness, impact, balance sheets, reputations and prospects.
- Funding should not be withdrawn or paused simply because SEAH is reported given it is common. But failing to do what is reasonably expected to prevent and respond to SEAH risk may impact funding decisions. Zero or few cases reported may indicate a problem.
3. Tackling SEAH requires relatively little resource and is value for money
- The financial, time and trust-rebuilding costs of response to cases are much higher than investing early and regularly in effective measures to prevent SEAH.
- Consistently investing as little as 0.1% of operational budgets in long-term resources to tackle SEAH should have a significant positive impact. This may typically include: a PSEAH policy; regular leaders’ messaging; staff engagement; staff vetting; PSEAH training and outreach; risk assessment and monitoring; reporting and response mechanisms; and permanent technical capacity to lead work internally and engage externally.
- PSEAH is a collective endeavour. Most organisations and their funders are both doing PSEAH and requiring it of partners. Aligning efforts e.g. via CAPSEAH reduces costs and improves impact. Collectively, the total PSEAH global investment needed is a tiny fraction of global ODA and organisation’s budgets. Supporting locally-led and women’s organisations is important and can reduce costs and improve impact for those not based in those countries.
1. Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment. PSEAH = Protection from SEAH. SEAH happens not just in aid.
2. UNSG Special Measure Report A/79/789 and CHS Harmonised Data Collection and Reporting Scheme: possible duplication, but data only covers tiny % of aid work. 12% of FCDO staff affected report. 7% of GBV survivors report: Palermo, T., Bleck, J. & Peterman, A. Tip of the Iceberg: Reporting and GBV in Developing Countries. 2014