Webinar #PSEA survivor-centered approach

Editor's Notes

• #3: Persons of all gender identities, ages, disabilities and backgrounds within affected communities have different needs in relation to their physical and psychological safety.
• #4: Keeping in mind that a survivor who wishes to keep their name confidential risks not seeing a full investigation as it is impossible or difficult to investigate when key information must be withheld
• #5: Survivor-centred approach A survivor-centred approach creates a supportive environment in which the survivor’s rights and wishes are respected, their safety is ensured and they are treated with dignity and respect. This approach is defined by four guiding principles: 1) Safety, 2) Confidentiality, 3) Respect and 4) Non-discrimination. It is important to recognise that survivors have the right to a range of services as part of a survivor-centred response, but that not all services should be provided (or can realistically be provided) by the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Whilst in some contexts services can be provided, the Red Cross Red and Red Crescent should ensure a focus on coordination and ensuring access to services provided by other agencies. These principles are in the policy. Ask the survivor if he/she feels safe Do no harm: Reporting may pose a risk to the survivor The survivor’s experience and wishes decide any action, do not take over the case or promise to do more than you’re capable of, and listen carefully to the survivor
• #6: Confidentiality: Reduce the number of people to be involved in the case, which helps confidentiality, prevents rumours and also to prevent retraumatisation of the survivor. Always obtain informed consent of the survivor before reporting info that could identify them. Anonymous reporting is possible but might make the case harder to investigate.
• #7: When a child receives any kind of assistance or service (e.g. medical or legal), a parent or guardian has to give consent on behalf of the child. Be aware that a parent or guardian may be involved in abuse and exploitation of a child, for instance by urging them to engage in survival sex for money. In a situation where there are concerns regarding the child’s parent or caregiver, it is advised to consult child protection specialists for the best course of action. • If an unaccompanied or separated child is in need of critical healthcare but is without a recognised legal guardian, the healthcare provider must make a decision concerning treatment in consultation with the child and with relevant local protection authorities. • If a patient is an adolescent, medical staff including administrative staff should consider keeping personal health information of that patient from their parents or caregivers in most circumstances. This is particularly relevant in the provision of sexual and reproductive health services and responding to SGBV. If there is a risk of harm to the patient or others, confidentiality may need to be lifted. What type of specialist? -> should be psychologists / counselors (including lay counselors) trained in supporting children who have experienced such abuse
• #8: Belief Note: We believe what survivors tell us about their experiences. Say something brief about how this works in tension with administrative investigations/ legal processes. Consent: is giving permission or mutually agreeing to do something. Informed consent: is when you agree voluntary and freely. It requires you to understand the implications of that to which you agree. Informed consent requires your ability to exercise the right to say “no”. Seeking informed consent is a way to give back power. Think about when you go to the doctor and you need to have an operation. The doctor doesn’t just say you need surgery. He/she explains why and what will happen if you don’t have surgery. They also explain the possible side effects. This is informed consent.
• #10: Remember that consent can be withdrawn at any time. But most likely there would be no follow-up. There may be an obligation to refer to authorities, and of course any risk related to that must be thoroughly assessed beforehand, through situation analysis and vetting of referral services. Justice before the law is not a given in many situations and practices, especially with regard to gender-based violence. Recording a complaint: complainant needs to understand that you have a duty to report and what will happen with their complaint before they can consent. Sharing the name and contact details of the complainant/survivor: complainant can decide if they want to share their details or not and with whom (some complainants will not want anyone but you to know who they are. That is ok and you can keep their anonymity safe. BUT, they should know that this may make the investigation more difficult. Being referred to survivor support services: survivors should be informed of their options, but not referred without permission. Ex. If you get a complaint from a witness, DO NOT contact the survivor with GBV support. Participating in an investigation: A complainant/survivor does not have to participate in an investigation. However, they should be informed that this will make the investigation more difficult. We do not need the survivor’s permission to conduct the investigation, but we do need their permission to interview them. Contacting for follow-up information: To close the feedback loop, we should contact the survivor/complainant with an update IF they have consented. Be sure to ask how they prefer to be contacted (some may choose to contact you).
• #11: Affected communities receive written, audio, visual and easy-to-read information, including in formats adapted for persons with disabilities, about PSEA and about the complaints mechanism they can use to denounce those abuses. Groups and individuals that rely on others for assistance in accessing health services and facilities (e.g. female-headed households, women, children, older people and persons with disabilities) are monitored closely to ensure that they receive their entitlements and are not exploited or abused.
• #12: PSEA efforts are to use the Community Engagement and Accountability (CEA) approach, which helps put communities at the center of what we do. the location of the complaints desk/office has been considered from a safety and confidentiality point of view – complaints materials are provided in a variety of formats, such as audio, visual and easy-to-read formats it is ensured that lodging complaints does not further endanger migrants who are in an irregular situation. The ICRC–IFRC Community Engagement and Accountability Guide and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s Best Practice Guide are used to set up a community-based complaints mechanism.
• #13: Specific actions are taken to reduce the risk of SGBV and violence against children. These include, but are not limited to: – partnering with women and/or women’s organisations, groups or organisations of women with disabilities, civil society organisations of sexual and gender minorities and other at-risk groups and child protection networks – consulting at-risk groups to define safe locations for health facilities and related activities establishing separate and safe areas, such as woman-, adolescentand child-friendly spaces6 that are accessible for persons with disabilities – establishing separate and safe areas for context-related at-risk groups, such as sexual and gender minorities and other minority groups
• #14: Staff should have the basic knowledge and skills to handle disclosures, provide information to survivors on where they can obtain support and apply the survivor-centred approach.
• #15: The responsibility to protect (from PGI Minimum Standards) When implementing the minimum standards, it is important to note our role in times of disaster and conflict. In accordance with international law, it is the primary role and responsibility of State authorities and relevant non-State actors to protect, ensure the security and fulfil the rights of persons on their territory or under their jurisdiction (including those beyond its borders). …. In the case of duty bearers that are willing to protect but have limited capacity, humanitarian actors will likely take on a supportive role to strengthen existing protection architecture and identify roles and responsibilities between protection actors. This will ensure complementarity of expertise and mandates and minimise the potential of duplicating efforts of the State or other protection actors as well as avoid undermining the capacity and will of duty bearers to fulfil their obligations. Protection in humanitarian action is fundamentally about keeping people safe from harm. It aims to ensure the rights of individuals are respected and to preserve the safety, physical integrity and dignity of those affected by natural disasters or other emergencies and armed conflict or other situations of violence. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s definition of protection is the most commonly accepted by humanitarian actors (including the Movement): “all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the relevant bodies of law (i.e. human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law)”. Protection in humanitarian action in the Movement has both internal and external aspects. Internally, it refers to ensuring that the actions of the Movement respect, and do not endanger, the dignity, safety and rights of persons. Externally, it refers to action intended to ensure that authorities and other actors respect their obligations and the rights of individuals. A survivor may lose their job and livelihoods due to SEA or to reporting it, so a risk mitigation would need to identify an alternative way to make a living.
• #16: Legal assistance/counselling. I would not contact a survivor without prior consent. Look for PGI or psychosocial support delegates to ask about services offered and how to refer cases. Deployment of PSEA delegates is being discussed. If you have consent, share the complaint with the case worker so the survivor does not have to repeat their story. Many GBV Service providers will not openly share their staff’s contact details (for security reasons). In some countries, however, this may be different and the survivor could contact the organization directly. In a camp setting, for example, you could tell the survivor that she can get support at the women’s centre located in zone b, run by X NGO. Informed consent is indeed necessary before referring. This poses a dilemma regarding the obligation to report serious violations/crimes. However, health/PSS case workers are exempted from obligation to report under health confidentiality, as they can and will provide assistance without being obliged to report cases. When addressing SGBV perpetrated against a child, it is preferable to have staff of diverse gender identities available who are trained in child protection and child-specific interviewing techniques. Who conducts the interviews will depend on the gender and preference of the child.
• #17: Case workers should not represent IFRC or a NS in a PSEA inter-agency networks due to reporting obligations, which do not apply to case workers who need to ensure confidentiality about the case. IFRC, together with UNFPA, provided a one-hour webinar in early 2018 on clinical rape management, for the Cox’s Basaar field hospital. It’s available in recording. If local hospitals don’t have this capacity, IFRC and NS should set up this service
• #18: Children born of SEA. Many GBV Service providers will not openly share their staff’s contact details (for security reasons). In some countries, however, this may be different and the survivor could contact the organization directly. In a camp setting, for example, you could tell the survivor that she can get support at a DAPS House, or a women’s centre located in zone b, run by X NGO.
• #19: According to the IFRC Whistleblower Protection Policy, the IFRC has a zero-tolerance approach to any form of retaliation against a person who either reports reasonably held suspicions of a breach of the IFRC Internal Rules or cooperates in an audit or investigation process. The IFRC’s Anti-Harassment Guidelines give guidance on how to analyse, report and resolve a harassment incident.
• #20: What are the main constraints for the RC RC Movement to investigate SEA allegations and how to address them? How to harmonise investigative practices in SEA and sexual harassment in the humanitarian community? How can we collectively enhance the protection of survivors/victims and witnesses throughout investigative processes, for instance by improving interagency coordination and modalities, better clarifying the roles and responsibilities of actors involved, pooling investigative and protection capacities, and better coordinating protection provided to survivors/victims and witnesses? What factors must be taken into account to ensure that investigations are context and culturally appropriate and sensitive? Investigations are not always advisable – perhaps an investigation puts a survivor or alleged perpetrator at risk. In-depth knowledge about the country’s SGBV laws are necessary before starting an investigation, also a survivor must have access to health etc. referrals and a sound follow-up system. If there is poor capacity to secure forensic evidence that is acceptable in court, it may not be wise to investigate, but all depends on the local situation and the survivor’s wishes and advice from e.g. women’s legal assistance organisations locally.
• #21: What measures are needed to protect survivors/victims and witnesses against physical and psychological harm, such as reprisals, harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of survivors/victims and witnesses, throughout investigative processes? What resources are needed for dedicated programmes or measures that would enhance the protection of survivors/victims and witnesses throughout investigative processes? What are the good practices and resources available to conduct SEA and SH investigations in the humanitarian community?
• #23: How to manage risks in the conduct of SEA/SH investigations? How to strengthen and systematize the cooperation between RC RC Movement, NGO and agencies/entities with dedicated investigation services?
• #24: You are working as an international delegate for your National Society in response to a typhoon that devastated an impoverished region of a small island nation in the region. In a displacement camp set up to accommodate about ten thousand people, there is a team of volunteers from the local National Society.
• #26: Keep survivor’s case worker informed about status of investigation (if consent given to contact) so they are not surprised and do not face any insecurity when the investigation starts.
• #27: Keep survivor’s case worker informed about status of investigation (if consent given to contact) so they are not surprised and do not face any insecurity when the investigation starts. Evidence may not have been properly secured, stored and verified by authorities, which is necessary for a SEA crime to be prosecuted
• #28: IFRC will inform parties of outcomes, but not in every detail, on a case-by-case basis
• #29: One of the 6 points in the UN SG’s Bulletin from 2003 has a lower requirement than most RC RC CoC. In the UN SG Bulletin, sexual relationships between sid workers/peacekeppers is only «strongly discouraged» whils this is prohibited in the IFRC, ICRC and Kenyan RCS CoD and PSEA policies. Points to note in relation to National Societies who as we all know are very often UN implementing partners: Definition of Implementing partner: an entity to which a UN office or entity has entrusted the implementation of a programme and/or project specified in a signed document, along with the assumption of responsibility and accountability for the effective use of resources and the delivery of outputs. Implementing partners may include – but are not limited to - government institutions, inter-governmental organizations, and civil society organizations, including NGOs. Implementing partners’ subcontractors are subsumed within this definition. UN entities must carry out screening to assess the capacity of potential implementing partners to prevent or to mitigate risks of SEA There are a number of steps outlined that the UN entity needs to undertake in the event of a credible SEA allegation made against an employee of an implementing partner, including considerations for termination of staff contracts, referral to authorities, referral of the victim to assistance (and possibly legal assistance). If these procedures aren’t followed it could result in the contract being terminated. NGOs were not consulted when the UN (UNICEF as lead) wrote this, so ICVA is gathering input from members and others regarding the implementation and operationalisation of the Protocol. 1) Implementing partners protocol (attached): All the NGOs and INGOs were raising their concern that the protocol had been developed and endorsed with very little consultation outside the UN even though it has important implications on the partner implementing agencies (often NGOs). Questions were raised particularly on paragraph 20 (investigations) and 22 (steps to be taken by UN in case of an allegation relating to a partner agency) and on the possibility to still influence these. From the answers it seems that the protocol itself cannot be easily modified at this stage (even if it is described as a ‘living document’). However, there seems to be some openness to consult on the actual implementation and operationalisation of the protocol. As next steps it was suggested that concerned NGOs could develop a shared document which outlines the ‘red lines’ and concerns they have regarding the protocol. The Task Team agreed to look at options and facilitate this. For IFRC and especially from the point of view National Societies (who are often implementing partners of UN) it would be useful to analyse the implications of the protocol and if indeed there are also ‘red lines’ for us/NS. If there are, then would need to consider working with the NGOs on a shared document. This could also influence the implementation guidelines UN agencies are now developing on this protocol. 2) Uniform protocol for victim/survivor assistance (for UN agencies): While this protocol is not directly applicable to implementing partners, it could be used to inform the development of our procedure for assistance to survivors. 3) Resources: It seems that many of the agencies are developing trainings on PSEA (available to all) and as in the protocol for implementing partners there are also requirements for implementing partners to undertake training. Therefore, it would be useful to see if these training materials are helpful for our training needs and also if the interest in supporting UN implementing partners in trainings could be an opportunity for NS. Point 20 in the protocol: The UN entity shall have the right to investigate SEA allegations involving implementing partners and its associated personnel, notwithstanding related investigations undertaken by the implementing partner or national authorities. Where the investigation is not conducted by a UN entity directly, the UN partner entity will seek all relevant information to determine whether the implementing partner has taken appropriate investigative and corrective action.
• #30: Scenario 1 A staff member was sexually assaulted by another staff member. The survivor does not want the donor to know because he works closely with the donor in-country. You report to the donor that a staff member was dismissed for sexual assault but the donor insists to see the entire investigation report including the name of the survivor. What should/can you do? Scenario 2 One of your staff members was found to have sexually exploited a community member. You have an obligation to report to the police but, in this country, you know the staff member may face the death penalty and the survivor may be charged with adultery. What should/can you do?
• #31: Think about if the survivor is a staff member.
• #32: A REDRESS report from 2017 frefers to studies in Haiti and Somalia that found that 90% of Sea survivors don’t report
• #33: IFRC is a member of IASC and of the PSEA AAP Task Team. We meet every month and some 60 people call in to the meetings to exchange best practices etc.
• #34: 90% of donor money represented, some 22 aid organisations/governments. The focus was on disclosure schemes for job candidates, also discussed was a proposal for an ombudsperson (a scoping study has been done, initiated by the Dutch Foreign Ministry). An activitst (Alexia Pepper de Caires) entered the stage in the morning and demanded more focus on survivors’ rights, engaging with local comunities and listening more to the women who’ve worked on PSEA for many years.
• #35: Links to the PSEA policy and why we are doing this ahead of the writeshop. These actions link up directly to NS and how we need to work together in the Movement to prevent and respond to SEA. A template with headlines and space for NS to fill in national/NS information will be distributed at the writeshop, and participants will work in groups with a facilitator to enter their content. IFRC has committed to supporting 15 NS in 2018, 15 in 2019 and 15 in 2020 to develop and adopt PSEA policies. At the same time we implement the policy internally and will write procedures on complaint mechanisms and assistance to survivors. NS are contributing to this effort, and there is also the IOM/IASC good practice guide on setting up PSEA complaint mechanisms, which should be in conjunction with community engagement and accountability mechanisms.