GenCap Experience Document # 8:
Setting up Systems and Structures:
Protection from Sexual Exploitation
and Abuse
Overview of GenCap
Established in 2007, GenCap is a standby roster of gender experts managed by the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee (IASC) Sub-Working Group on Gender in Humanitarian Action and the
Norwegian Refugee Council. GenCap Advisors are deployed to humanitarian situations for six to
twelve months to provide support to information collection and analysis, programme planning,
capacity building, coordination and advocacy on gender equality programming, using the IASC
Gender Handbook: Women, Girls, Boys and Men – Different Needs, Equal Opportunities and the IASC
GBV Guidelines to guide and inform their work.
Content:
What is the purpose of this experience document?
Background information
The Kenyan Context
What was Accomplished
Lessons Learned
This document was written by
Angela Mackay
GenCap Advisor to
Kenya
July 2008 to July 2009
GenCap Experience #8 –Systems and Structure for PSEA
-1-
What is the Purpose of this GenCap Experience document?
Much of the content has already been incorporated into a complete Case Study on PSEA in Kenya.
However, this GenCap Experience document also focuses more explicitly on the implications for
GenCap.
In 2003 the Secretary General’s Bulletin “Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and
sexual abuse”1 lay the foundation for UN agencies and cooperating partners to put in the place the
necessary preventive, response and coordination measures to eliminate. Subsequent guidelines and
directives have continued to provide direction to those tasked with the subject. In spite of the time
lapse and ongoing encouragement and enquiry by the Emergency Humanitarian Coordinator, progress
has been slow at field level to implement the Bulletin. There are a multiplicity of reasons, not least the
lack of resources and the expectation in most cases that PSEA work is an ‘add-on’ that can be effectively
accomplished by focal points already wearing numerous hats, and by the tendency to leave the work to
inadequately supported junior women staff members.
To have real impact - that means ensuring vulnerable populations are protected, that SEA is recognized
as gender-based violence, that reporting systems are understood and work properly, for investigations
to be transparent and for victims to receive the assistance they require - takes full-time, personnel with
the knowledge, experience and senior-level support to get the job done. This is rare.
Liberia has shown leadership and skill in implementing PSEA, but in most other cases the experience and
commitment has been mixed. In 2008 Kenya and Somalia were selected by the PSEA Task Force as
‘target’ countries.
The purpose of this GenCap Experience document is to reflect on, and document the experiences and
the lessons learned from the GenCap deployment to Kenya, from July 2008- July 2009 in support of
efforts to establish an In-Country Network on Protection Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA).
Background and Specific Terms of Reference
In 2008, following the post-election violence (PEV) in Kenya, an inter-agency rapid assessment on
Gender Based Violence2 highlighted the potential for sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by
humanitarian aid workers and volunteers. This was supported by other anecdotal evidence that
incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) had been widespread among the displaced population.
A number of UN agencies, notably UNFPA, UNICEF and UNIFEM initiated training and awareness
sessions among both staff and vulnerable groups within the displaced population.
The GBV sub-cluster, led by UNFPA, developed training and IEC materials and conducted training and
advocacy in a number of locations both to prevent incidents from occurring and to provide victims with
reporting options. Limited capacity prevented follow-up to this training and inhibited further coherent
responses.
1
2
ST/SGB/2003/13
“A Rapid Assessment of Gender-based Violence during the Post-Election Violence, conducted January-February,
2008” UNFPA, UNICEF, UNIFEM, Christian Children’s Fund
At the time no network or SEA structures existed, and it became clear, through the efforts of the active,
but ad hoc SEA Working Group that a more sustained approach was necessary. Subsequently it was
recommended that SEA interventions be scaled up and in July 2008 a GenCap Advisor was seconded to
begin the task of establishing an In-Country Network on PSEA.
Both UN personnel and cooperating partners had limited knowledge and understanding of the topic –
with the exception of the UNHCR, WFP and partners working in Kenya’s refugee camps where the Kenya
Refugee Project had undertaken significant work on PSEA since 2003. However, this had not filtered
across agency or informed the work of other humanitarian or development organizations. July 2008 saw
the fortunate combination of both a GenCap secondment dedicated to the development of PSEA
awareness and the establishment of an In-Country Network, together with the arrival of a newlyappointed, supportive Resident Coordinator/Humanitarian Coordinator, and an engaged United Nations
Country Team (UNCT).
The original TORs for the GenCap indicated that the primary function was to establish a PSEA In-Country
Network of Focal Points to undertake the work of prevention and response under the auspices of the
RC/HC. Additional generic advisory functions were included in the TORs.
The Kenyan Context
The combination of IDP’s lack of awareness of entitlements, the absence of any established reporting
system, complicity of security services in abuses and the chaotic response arising from unpreparedness
for the PEV in Kenya, meant that reliable evidence of the involvement of humanitarian workers in SEA
incidents did not exist. In the months following the PEV rumours and allegations were plentiful but
rarely articulated in a coherent or consistent fashion, and with few exceptions were not pursued.
The reasons for non-reporting are familiar and remain largely un-addressed. Even without the added
uncertainty and fear of displacement, women who had many reasons for not coming forward. The
stigma associated with sexual assault is a deterrent in any society, but particularly so where women fear
being ostracized and shamed, or where, as IDPs, they fear the loss of material advantage if they ‘betray’
a perpetrator. The pressure to provide shelter, food, clothing, medical help for their families, and to be
secure and to receive the necessary documentation – can readily result in women succumbing to the
exploitation by those in power who give or withhold these entitlements. Add to this a lack of knowledge
regarding access to services and where and how to report incidents. The specific phenomenon of the
widespread SGBV by security forces and the impunity with which these acts were committed was a
significant feature of Kenya’s experience.
The choices for women in such circumstances were rarely palatable and they were forced to select from
unappealing survival strategies. By the same token, extreme poverty for those women who, for
whatever reason, found themselves as heads of households that often included young children, the
elderly and/or HIV positive family members, has led to transactional sex for both themselves and their
daughters.
SEA did not occur in Kenya as an organic outcome of the PEV. Sexual/gender-based violence is endemic
throughout Kenya. The violence and chaos of that conflict merely contributed to, and took advantage of
a permissive, opportunistic environment in which such acts could flourish undetected and underreported. Women and men report that SEA is culturally entrenched in Kenyan society, whether by
security forces, chiefs, teachers, pastors, local administration officials, medical staff or other duty-
3
bearers. It was clear from their shared stories that it is assumed women will pay for rights and services
to which they are entitled, by providing sexual favours.
Field Reality
In order to develop a comprehensive picture of existing PSEA activities as well referral processes for
victims and the level of understanding of SEA by IDP camp and community representatives, two
‘mapping’ trips were initially planned to four destinations (Naivasha, Nakuru, Eldoret and Kisumu).
The visits were conducted by the GenCap Advisor, together with a male colleague/trainer, from MEGEN,
Men For Gender Equality Now (a member of Femnet), and counselors/psycho-social workers from the
Ministry of Special Programmes.
A consistent theme was the need for more community awareness/sensitization regarding SEA. It was
emphasized repeatedly that the knowledge needs to be shared with community leaders, police, local
administration, KRCS and other CBOs that can then disseminate the information widely to their
respective constituencies. Given the key role played by, and the recognition of, the KRCS as the ‘lead’ in
such situations, it was stressed that the organization must be included. The KRCS was repeatedly
identified as an appropriate recipient of SEA incident reports.
The need for community understanding and awareness as well as the need to engage government
authorities in the discussion was frequently articulated.
The UNV Volunteer Project, involving community members as good neighbours, tasked primarily with
community peace-building activities, was identified as an effective entry point for informing the public
at large about SEA prevention, and the entitlements of IDPs and obligations/standards of conduct of
humanitarian workers.
Subsequently a proposal was developed and funding identified to provide SEA Prevention Workshops
throughout the areas visited. A total of nine workshops, supported by OCHA, UNICEF and UNDP, were
conducted in October-November 2008 for almost 300 participants in the key IDP locations, for two
different participant groups – mixed groups of local administration, NGO, CBO, UN and media, and
another explicitly for the large local groups of UNV ‘good neighbours’ and their associated trainers and
coordinators.
Both the mapping exercise and the subsequent workshops revealed:
• allegations of continuing widespread SEA incidents, primarily between IDPs, but also
occasionally including camp ‘volunteers’ and management, and most significantly, by security
personnel tasked to protect camp residents;
• lack of incident reporting systems;
• limited, ad hoc, often inaccessible and/or costly referral services;
• confusion about GBV/SEA and a lack of awareness of and knowledge about entitlements on the
part of IDPs ;
• profound mistrust of security services, particularly the administration police;
• IDPs ‘integrated’ into local communities who had not joined, were rejected from, or chose not
to live in camps, feared resorting to survival sex in the absence of other economic opportunities.
Children were not attending school and were therefore also vulnerable to exploitation.
4
It was evident that the PEV had provided opportunity for incidents of SEA, that the rights of displaced
were poorly understood, victims had little recourse to reporting systems and even less faith in such
action being likely to get results. At the same time a familiarity with SEA outside the context of the PEV
and displacement was common. The implications for humanitarian actors, both UN and cooperating
partners, NGOs, international organizations, the Red Cross Movement etc. were profound. Limited
awareness, lack of oversight and accountability, the absence of response and assistance to victims
contributed to an environment where there was very limited protection from SEA and where such
incidents could freely occur.
Additional Challenges
• Lack of SEA initiative by government institutions
• Development rather than humanitarian focus of the majority of UN programmes
• Continued displacement of large numbers of IDPs. In mid- 2008, KRCS estimates were: 28, 983 in
IDP camps and 98,223 in transit camps. (Unknown numbers of IDPs had integrated into host
communities)3
• Continued unofficial reports of SEA incidents in camps – but lack of local reporting and referral
structures, political resistance to acknowledge the issue, and limited protection remit of UN and
NGOs
• Re-emerging chronic humanitarian crises that distracted focus and resources
Anomalous GenCap secondment
The initial secondment was to UNFPA, which at the time chaired the GBV sub-cluster (of Protection
cluster). The extended secondment was with OCHA. Neither was fully satisfactory. Work on PSEA is a
system-wide activity, not specific in content or function to any lead agency or cluster, and the
responsibility for ensuring PSEA is undertaken, clearly rests with the RC/HC and it is a responsibility that
does not only need attention during emergencies. These secondments resulted in neither agency
providing adequate support, resources or a place where the GenCap ‘belonged.’ This presented
significant operational challenges.
Thanks to the commitment of support from the RCO and the unflagging energies of SEA colleagues in
Unicef, the GenCap was able to develop a modus operandi.
What was accomplished?
The PSEA initiative to establish a Network in Kenya started with a UN SEA Focal Points Network. The
rationale for this approach was based on the belief that by taking steps to implement the SG’s Bulletin
internally the UNCT would be in a stronger position to exercise influence on other entities to join an
expanded In-Country Network. Also it meant that a ‘new’ topic could be introduced and understood
internally before expecting UN staff to engage in discussion and activities with other partners. This
approach, while not speedy, allowed for the opportunity to learn, to make errors and correct them. By
ensuring the topic was a regular agenda item at UNCT monthly meetings, the UNCT became engaged in
the topic and developed a sense of ownership.
3
OCHA Humanitarian Update, Vol 29, 17-23 July 2008,
5
Establishment of UNCT SEA Focal Points Network:
• Memo/letter to UNCT from RC in August referring to shared responsibilities regarding
prevention of SEA, that Kenya was invited to be a ‘target country’ for PSEA activities and that a
focal point network would be formed
• In September heads of agencies are requested by RC to select focal points (based on generic
TORs)
• Late September UNCT SEA Focal Points hold first – introductory – meeting. Welcomed and
commended by RC
• During October three separate days of training provided jointly to Kenya and Somalia SEA
Network focal points
• At #2meeting of Focal Points in November, TORs customized for Kenya context
• TORs approved by RC; sent to SEA Task Force
• At #3 meeting work begins on Work Plan for 2009, based on six selected items from categories
of Prevention, Response Systems and Coordination and Management
• Working group formed to develop draft half-day training module for FPs and GenCap to deliver
to all agency personnel
• Although Chair and Secretary volunteered, GenCap retains coordination function as well as
temporary repository of any confidential records if necessary
• Monthly update to UNCT by Gencap as agenda item
• Kenya UNCT ‘Working as One’ PSEA brochure launched in January 2009
Enlargement of PSEA In-Country SEA Network:
• In January 2009, through the auspices of the RC, a direct approach was made to the SecretaryGeneral of the Kenya Red Cross Society, inviting participation on an expanded PSEA In-Country
Network. Two senior KRCS staff were appointed as focal points, with the agreement to act as cochair of the expanded ICN once established
• Through the Kenya Humanitarian Forum an invitation was extended to other humanitarian
organizations, national and international to participate in the ICN.
• In February those who responded met with the GenCap advisor and KRCS focal points to further
clarify the mandate of the ICN, the roles and responsibilities and expectations.
• In March and April Following confirmation of participation and nomination of ICN focal points,
two days of intensive training were organized and delivered by Unicef’s Gender in Emergencies
Advisor and the GenCap advisor
• In May, at the Inaugural meeting of the expanded In-Country Network, a Statement of
Commitment to eliminate Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Kenya was signed on behalf of the
UNCT by the RC and on behalf of the cooperating partners by the Secretary-General of KRCS
• Regular meetings of the In-Country Network, chaired jointly by the UN and KRCS began in July
2009.
Training
Inevitably, training and capacity-building were, and remain, significant components of the establishment
of the ICN. Specialised training in some cases existed, in others was developed and/or adapted to the
local context. In addition training was also contracted from specialist agencies.
• Three days of mandatory training for UN focal points delivered by SEA expert in October 2008
• Two days of mandatory training for ICN cooperating partners delivered by UN personnel in
March 2009
6
•
•
•
One day of specialised, elective training for ICN members on Complaints Response Mechanisms
delivered by Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP International), in April 2009
½ day training-sensitization developed for all agency staff negotiated by FPs within agencies.
During the first six months of 2009 most of the UNCT agencies carried out the training for both
country office and field staff. In most cases it was delivered by the focal point and/or with
support from the GenCap advisor.
Some agencies eg. Unicef and UNOCHA made training sessions mandatory: Some agencies eg.
Unicef, UNFPA, UNOCHA began process of delivering and sharing training content with partner
agencies: Numerous ICN members also began internal staff training, eg. KRCS
Diversification
• Recognizing the importance of using diverse means to provide information and education on
SEA, the UN Focal Points Network decided to organize occasional events beyond the
requirements of standard training and publicity to reach the large UN Nairobi-based audience.
Early in 2009 Lady Justice Joyce Aluoch was appointed to the International Criminal Court.
Capitalizing on the attendant publicity, the network invited the Justice to speak at the UN Media
Centre on the topic of “The Significance of the Sexual Offences Act.”
• Following the success of the event with Justice Aluoch and in response to security fears
expressed by many women UN staff, the network organized a series of women’s self-defence
training classes. In addition to providing a valuable service, the classes maintained the visibility
of the SEA network and supported fund-raising for the local NGO that delivered the class.
Sustainability
• One of the predictable challenges for the ICN is ensuring that prevention and response
activities extend beyond the capital-city, that there is effective engagement with the local
community and that both the vulnerabilities and capacities of that population, especially
beneficiaries, inform the work of the network. In the early formation and organization of the
network it is perhaps inevitable that the primary focus and activity is capital-based. It is crucial
once established, to focus outward, giving attention to the population most at risk.
• One of the keys to ‘mainstreaming’ PSEA will be to integrate into local institutions, not only in
the local administration, but into bodies established since the PEV for purposes of peacebuilding and reconciliation as PSEA well as for disaster-preparedness.
• For long-term sustainability, the ICN requires a National Coordinator, able to perform all the
necessary functions associated with its maintenance, continued prevention activities, response
mechanisms and engagement with the community.
Government participation
• The initiative for development of the ICN has remained with the UNCT, KRCS and other
cooperating partners. This is neither surprising given the circumstances of the original impetus,
nor detrimental to the establishment of structures and systems. However, the ICN has
recognized the importance of participation by appropriate government institutions in order to
ensure the network does not operate in isolation. Elimination of SEA by humanitarian workers,
while an ICN responsibility, needs understanding, support, and collaboration by administrative
bodies.
7
Lessons Learned
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establishing a comprehensive, sustainable In-Country PSEA Network requires full-time dedicated
personnel and a long-term perspective. This cannot be done adequately as an ‘add-on’ to other
responsibilities. This is especially true where no awareness, structures or systems related to SEA
exist
Staff working on PSEA must be located in the RCO, for purposes of credibility, resources,
administrative support and, most importantly, because PSEA falls under the auspices of the
RC/HC who will be held accountable for implementation
Take a ‘step by step’ approach especially if there is limited agency awareness. Take the time to
educate/inform at every opportunity and build incrementally
Build alliances with supportive UNCT Heads of Agency and give them public recognition/credit
Get PSEA established as a regular update item on the UNCT agenda
Modify generic SEA Task Force documents to suit the local context. Stick to the same principles,
but make the document is appropriate – and get buy-in through seeking agreement of Network
members
Develop capacity of focal points in UN and partner agencies to deliver simple, half-day
sensitization/awareness training on PSEA
The participation of NGOs, national and international, the Red Cross Movement and communitybased organizations is crucial to the success of such a Network. This is for the skills and expertise
they bring, their knowledge and interpretation of local conditions and expectations, their
diversity – and their reach into the communities at risk
8