- The impact of reduced ODA budgets is most strongly felt at country level with the loss of dedicated, specialist or coordination roles, an erosion of protective systems and vital local organisations, and reduction of access to services for victims and survivors. Urgent action is needed to protect local capacity and expertise, build strong strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships to jointly assess and mitigate SEAH risk in local contexts, place PSEAH efforts within wider strategic plans, and take streamlined and efficient action.
- Proactive leadership and effective, dedicated PSEA coordination capacity are indispensable to strong collective action at country level. This means we need to protect existing coordination capacity, especially in high-risk humanitarian contexts, and over time seek to expand it beyond humanitarian to development. International organisations working at country level should also explore making PSEAH posts national (rather than international) to embed sustainability, local expertise and resilience.
- Multi-stakeholder strategic partnerships to tackle SEAH must become the default approach, with tailored networks that meet specific objectives and needs. In-country actors need to work together to ensure there is a countrywide model that works for them and is inclusive of all relevant actors. The model should assess and jointly own SEAH risk and be used to develop and fund a country plan for action. The model and action plan should proactively seek efficiencies, reduce duplication (e.g. risk assessments, hotlines), pool resources (e.g. pools of investigators), produce, share and act on evidence (e.g. which reporting mechanisms work, which don’t) and reflect the benefits offered by different roles and actors.
- There are good practices we can learn from, notably well-funded country PSEAH action plans in humanitarian contexts. In contexts where an international humanitarian response is ongoing, country PSEA networks headed by an inter-agency PSEA coordinator, acting under the leadership of the Humanitarian or Resident Coordinator, develop country action plans which should be the basis of collective action. In other contexts, different models can exist, including communities of practice, RSH national hubs, UN-led efforts and more. Good practice includes: grounding country PSEA(H) plans in a collective risk analysis and available data & evidence;
- inclusive design and buy-in with a wide range of stakeholders;
- strong quality control, accurate costing, and having informed advocates at the leadership level;
- embedding plans into broader country strategic plans (e.g. humanitarian response plans and/or country development plans); and
- proactively seeking efficiencies, ensuring common activities as the default, and splitting responsibilities with other sectors when and as relevant (in humanitarian contexts this includes Accountability to Affected Populations, Protection, GBV and Child Protection, etc).
- Yet even when there are country action plans that meet those criteria, funding requirements are often not met. Country leadership and senior teams should be required to set out explicitly how the country plan will be resourced, and a financial tracking system developed to ensure transparency and monitoring. There could also be country champions who seek to garner momentum and progress funding – although some argue this would leave too much room for variability depending on individual, an issue the system grapples with already.
- Contributions to country action plans should be diverse and cannot rest on the traditional and now stretched grant-based model. Institutional donors can contribute. A portion of pooled funds’ financial allocations could/should be allocated to collective PSEAH action whenever possible. Philanthropies and foundations could support locally-led movements and organisations. Technical assistance could be mobilised from IFIs. The private sector should be brought in a lot more given the increasingly important role of suppliers, private contractors and consultants in delivering humanitarian, development or peace work. A collective coherent PSEAH partnership and action plan would pool those various resources in a coherent manner.
- National governments are key players which should be brought in more by leveraging entry points, including grassroots initiatives, international financial institutions, the UN and government-to-government interactions. Good practices were discussed including grounding engagement in a joint analysis to share a common understanding of risks, gaps and actions needed and identify where the national government has specific strengths and power. Different actors can be brought in based on who has the best existing relationships with relevant ministries. Efforts can also be linked to UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Frameworks, other processes such as national ratification of ILO 190, and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). Framing PSEAH to governments as an accountability framework to their people, focusing on conduct and incident management, is key. Using language such as “Do No Harm” rather than “No Excuse,” and aligning accountability mechanisms to national mechanisms, is important. Constant, regular engagement and confidence-building measures, starting from the bottom and being realistic about the process, is also a learning from several contexts. Over time, the role of national governments as duty bearers also implies working with them so that they invest in GBV and health systems to build resilience. A mapping of good practices could go a long way in informing a stronger and more agile approach.
- Effective and strategic partnerships for PSEAH at country level must empower, support and learn from locally-led organisations. Localisation should not be approached as the “cheaper option”, but as a way of working that embeds dignified and equitable partnerships, technical support, and finance.
- Local organisations should not be expected to bear the burden of PSEAH action. They should be protected, as they often are affected by power imbalances themselves, and exposed to intimidations, threats and violence as they uncover incidents and play an accountability role.
- Dignified and equitable partnerships involve listening and taking time to build relationships and trust, sharing and contextualising responsibilities rather than transferring risks or processes.
- Funding instruments and sources should be more proactively mobilised to support locally-led PSEAH organisations, movements and coalitions. This could include pooled funds, ringfencing parts of appeals, harnessing initiatives dedicated to localisation or support to WROs/WLOs/ feminist organisations.
- Localisation should go hand in hand with strengthening participatory approaches that empower and listen to local women and girls and communities on how to manage and mitigate SEAH risks. Empowered Aid is an example of good practice.
- At present, PSEAH efforts at country level do not systematically follow the good practice outlined above. 2-3 countries will be identified to: pilot and learn from successful PSEAH partnerships; seek to better systematise good practice; help ensure resources are prioritised where they are needed most; and test how global tools and cooperation can learn from and be adapted to national contexts. Learning and examples of effective multi-stakeholder partnerships will be shared through the CAPSEAH website.