Inter-Agency Rapid Assessment on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) in Sudan

Context of Heightened Risk

A 2024 SEA Risk Overview (SEARO) Index indicates that aid recipients in Sudan face a heightened risk of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) perpetrated by aid workers. The ongoing conflict has exacerbated humanitarian needs, creating an environment where vulnerabilities are exploited. This situation directly undermines progress towards several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), as the conflict erodes safety and institutional integrity. In response, the Sudan PSEA Network initiated the country’s first Inter-Agency Rapid Assessment (IARA) on SEA during the conflict, covering 12 states impacted by violence or displacement.

Assessment Methodology

The assessment employed a comprehensive methodology to analyze the SEA risk landscape, reflecting a commitment to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) through multi-stakeholder engagement. The methods included:

• Secondary data synthesis, including inter-agency assessments and response plans.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with government actors, NGO representatives, and PSEA Focal Points.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with frontline humanitarian staff and displaced communities.

Findings were analyzed using the standard IARA SEA framework, which categorizes risks across four dimensions: enabling environment, context, operational context, and protective environment.

Key Findings: Systemic Gaps and SDG Implications

The assessment confirmed a consistently high likelihood of SEA across the operational context. The drivers of this risk, including emergency conditions, mass displacement, and severe socio-economic distress, create significant barriers to achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), increasing the population’s susceptibility to exploitation in exchange for essential aid.

Operational and Institutional Deficiencies

Despite policy-level commitments to PSEA, significant gaps impede effective prevention and response. These challenges represent a collective failure among humanitarian actors (UN agencies, NGOs, and government counterparts) to uphold the principles of SDG 16. Key deficiencies include:

1. Weak Inter-Agency Coordination: Ineffective collaboration hinders a unified and robust response, undermining the spirit of SDG 17.
2. Inadequate Reporting Mechanisms: A lack of safe, accessible, and trusted reporting channels prevents survivors from seeking justice and support, which is a core tenet of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 16.
3. Inconsistent Risk Mitigation: The inconsistent application of SEA risk assessments and safeguarding measures across programs fails to provide uniform protection for vulnerable populations.
4. Insufficient Personnel Training: A lack of comprehensive and consistent PSEA training for aid workers contributes to poor conduct and a failure to identify and respond to SEA risks.

Aid Worker Conduct and Community Barriers

Issues related to aid worker conduct, including underreporting of incidents and a poor understanding of PSEA principles, compound the risks. While communities widely condemn SEA, significant barriers prevent them from taking a leading role in protection efforts. A pervasive lack of trust in existing reporting channels hinders survivor support, directly impacting their access to care as outlined in SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and undermining the goal of achieving SDG 5 by failing to protect women and girls, who are disproportionately affected.

Opportunities for Strengthening PSEA Frameworks

Leveraging Existing Synergies for SDG Alignment

The assessment identified crucial existing structures and initiatives that provide a foundation for building a more resilient PSEA framework. Leveraging these opportunities is essential for aligning the humanitarian response with the SDGs.

• Established Referral Pathways: Existing Gender-Based Violence (GBV) and Child Protection referral systems can be strengthened and integrated with PSEA response, advancing protections under SDG 3 and SDG 5.
• Inter-Agency PSEA Networks: The presence of these networks offers a platform for enhancing coordination and partnership, directly supporting the objectives of SDG 17.
• Inter-Agency SOPs: The ongoing development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) is a critical step toward building the strong, accountable institutions required by SDG 16.
• Community-Based Initiatives: The emergence of community-led PSEA activities presents a key opportunity to build trust and ensure that protection efforts are sustainable and locally owned.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) in Sudan’s humanitarian crisis directly addresses and connects to the following Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The core subject of the article, SEA, is a form of gender-based violence (GBV). The text explicitly mentions leveraging “established GBV… referral pathways,” directly linking the issue to the goal of eliminating violence against women and girls.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article highlights systemic institutional failures, such as “weaknesses in inter-agency coordination,” “inadequate reporting mechanisms,” and a “lack of trust in existing channels.” These issues are central to SDG 16’s aim of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions and ensuring access to justice for all. The focus on protecting vulnerable populations, including children, from abuse and exploitation also aligns with this goal.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: While not the primary focus, the consequences of SEA have severe impacts on the physical and mental health of survivors. The article’s mention of “survivor assistance” and the need to strengthen “referral pathways” implies a connection to providing essential health services for recovery, which is a component of ensuring healthy lives and well-being.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation. The article’s entire focus is on preventing and responding to SEA, which is a direct form of sexual exploitation and violence against vulnerable populations, predominantly women and girls, perpetrated by “aid workers.”
2. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The efforts of the “Sudan PSEA Network” to prevent and respond to SEA are a direct attempt to reduce a specific and harmful form of violence within the humanitarian context.
   • Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. The article explicitly notes the importance of leveraging “established GBV and Child Protection referral pathways,” showing a clear link to the target of ending exploitation and abuse of children, who are among the “displaced communities” at risk.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The report identifies “inadequate reporting mechanisms” and a “lack of trust in existing channels” as key problems. These are barriers to justice for survivors, and the recommendation to build a “more robust safeguarding framework” directly supports the goal of ensuring access to justice.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not provide specific quantitative data but strongly implies the need for systems to collect data that align with official SDG indicators. The measurement of progress is embedded in the article’s methodology and recommendations:

• Implied Indicators for Target 5.2 & 16.2: The article mentions that the study “synthesizes secondary data, including inter-agency assessments, response plans, and surveys.” This points to the need for data collection that could be used for indicators such as Indicator 5.2.2 (Proportion of women and girls subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner) and Indicator 16.2.3 (Proportion of young women and men who experienced sexual violence by age 18). The call for improved “reporting mechanisms” is a call to establish systems that can track and quantify incidents of SEA, which is the basis for these indicators.
• Implied Indicators for Target 16.3: Progress towards ensuring access to justice can be measured by tracking the functionality and accessibility of protective systems. The article’s focus on “inadequate reporting mechanisms” and the need for “inter-agency SOPs” implies that indicators could include the number of accessible and functional reporting channels, the rate of reporting by community members, and the proportion of reported cases that are investigated and resolved, thereby measuring the effectiveness of the “safeguarding framework.”
• Implied Indicators for Institutional Capacity: The article mentions “insufficient and inconsistent PSEA training for personnel.” An indicator for institutional strengthening could be the proportion of humanitarian personnel and “frontline staff” who have received comprehensive PSEA training, as this is a key “mitigation measure.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: reliefweb.int