- At the organisational level the risk of scaling down PSEAH staff and resources is high. Even before recent large-scale ODA cuts there was inherent fragility in the system, as many organisations have functioned either on a budget-neutral basis or without clear planning and knowledge of their needs and how much they spent on PSEAH activities.
- Organisations need to take immediate action to protect PSEAH work as an essential cost of doing business (e.g. by using the core messages in Annex A), integrate SEAH into existing risk management mechanisms, and assess PSEAH budget needs. Organisations should also consider where PSEAH work can be streamlined or done jointly e.g. by adopting existing multistakeholder tools and networks(see Annex C and CAPSEAH for options) to reduce costs.
- Standardising budgeting practices could help organisations budget for PSEAH. Example budget models should be developed and shared to helpidentify functions or activities that can be pooled with others, set standards and include activities that can be dialled up or down according to needs and risks. Ring-fencing is an option to ensure a good balance between prevention and response activities (many participants noted that the majority of budgets go towards investigative functions which, although critical, are only one part of a comprehensive PSEAH approach). Sharing budget models will help build understanding on the proportion of organisational budget required for effective PSEAH activities in different contexts (for some organisations consistently investing as little as 0.1% of operational budgets in long-term resources to tackle SEAH has had a significant positive impact).
- Organisations should work with partners to ensure resourcing for safe programming and PSEAH risk mitigation in operational and project budgets all along the delivery chain. PSEAH funding is not being cascaded sufficiently. Whilst lead partners can and do fund PSEAH posts for example, downstream partners are often not provided with enough budget to fund comprehensive PSEAH positions or actions. Much more intentional and systematic conversations need to happen, and monitoring systems need to be revised and strengthened, at the onset and throughout the project system, to ensure frontline responders are being resourced sufficiently. It should be standard practice to prioritise and systematically and intentionally discuss safe programming and PSEAH risk management and budgets with funders and downstream delivery partners. Organisations should include and encourage PSEAH-specific budget lines in project proposals and update any templates to reflect this.
- As part of these conversations, funders should advocate for and prioritise safe and responsive reporting of SEAH. All organisations should be clear internally and externally that the reporting of SEAH is encouraged and that failing to act to prevent, report and respond to SEAH is more likely to weaken assurance and affect future funding. Clear and systematic tracking of PSEAH activities, incidents, and spend will help enhance transparency and accountability.
- Delivery and budgeting models should pay particular attention to SEAH risk and pressures on the front line i.e. target and prioritise SEAH risk analysis and mitigations where there is most contact with those most vulnerable to SEAH. The risks of SEAH may increase as organisations and their programmes contract, so organisations need to do all they can to ensure national front-line responders and grassroots actors including WROs and WLOs are sufficiently resourced, especially in high-risk operations, for example by:
- where possible, protecting/extending fixed award agreements with local organisations that are providing support services, leading community engagement or otherwise have a track record of being proactive and effective in tackling SEAH;
- prioritising and/or integrating CSO capacity strengthening activities into projects (aim for “risk sharing” not “risk transferring”);
- recognising that exiting projects early can increase SEAH risks. Larger international organisations in particular should do that in a way which minimises SEAH risk and doesn’t shift the burden of responsibility unduly onto local organizations (BOND have issued guidance on this);
- recognising where commercial procurement processes and low risk appetites constrain locally-led models and direct-resourcing and reviewing procurement architecture and eligibility criteria for funding to balance better donor risk appetites with local and national actors’ needs and capacity;
- harmonise and simplify due diligence requirements – for example, the FCDO has recently agreed to passport HQAI CHS certification audits in their due diligence requirements.;
- joining up with wider ongoing initiatives and plans to increase localisation (e.g. recent UN plan to allocate $300m for WROs, WLOs, locally-led action, Call to Action). But to identify entry points and leverage existing initiatives an initial mapping is needed; and
- better exploiting pooled funds as a key funding channel for frontline responders by ensuring PSEAH is embedded in all the projects those pooled funds support and encouraging better funding of collective locally-led PSEAH action.
- Better solutions for financing support to victim-survivors should be explored as a matter of urgency. Funds should be available that can be tapped into rapidly to provide protection (e.g. relocation, accommodation and food) and cover immediate needs (e.g. medical care). Those costs must be part of standard PSEAH action budgeting practices, and support provided independently of whether the incident proceeds to an investigation. This may require simplifying bureaucratic hurdles at the last mile of delivery chains, to speed up disbursement. Accessibility of services will remain a key variable and appropriate funding for support services should be included across all programmes including health, GBV, livelihood and economic empowerment, and legal support. Insurance options to cover support for victim-survivors should be explored (mechanisms already exist to cover losses incurred by fraud, aid diversion or looting). New, pooled, models at country level should also be explored.
- Harnessing new or less explored sources of funding is important. ‘Making perpetrators pay’ is now part of some organisations’ policies. It can fund some PSEAH activities (e.g. support to survivors) and also act as a deterrent if clearly built into contracts. ‘Crowding in’ funding from newer actors is also an option: philanthropies are interested in funding things such as research or support to survivors’ organisations; and some international financial institutions build in financing for PSEAH in high-risk projects. To crowd in new funding sources, especially from the private sector, we need to make a value proposition i.e. turning GBV and PSEAH into a material risk for investors or an opportunity to help them see value in investing, including in prevention.
