Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 1
1
Accepted
Paragraph: 20
Aid organisations must be alert to the barriers that might prevent aid beneficiaries from reporting...
Recommendation
Aid organisations must be alert to the barriers that might prevent aid beneficiaries from reporting abuses. They should design sensitive reporting mechanisms with the local population, in order to give victims and survivors, and their families and friends a safe means to report their concerns and complaints. This might include face-to-face reporting if they prefer and will often involve community- based organisations and safe spaces for women to report, without necessarily going through the formal mechanisms set up by the aid providers. These community-based organisations should also be encouraged to hold open and frank conversations with aid beneficiaries about any concerns they have about the aid organisations operating in the area, to encourage them to open up about the experiences they have had.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government states it has adopted DFID's practices for investigations and will continue to build on them, requiring partners to report cases and improving investigator skills, indicating current efforts address the need for robust reporting mechanisms.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference:
20
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government · verbatim extract
Accepted
A well-functioning Community-Based Complaints Mechanism (CBCM) can provide an avenue to survivors to seek justice and to improve accountability and support to survivors and victims at local and national level, including by linking survivors to support services. CBCMs are designed to be both culturally and gender-sensitive and to play a prevention function through training and awareness raising. The inter-agency CBCM model sits within broader country level structures in humanitarian contexts, including formal SEAH Networks and Coordinators. As the inter-agency CBCM guidance referred to in footnote 128 of the Committee’s report says, “independent review and referral of complaints is one of the most important functions of the CBCM.” The guidance also highlights the benefit to beneficiaries of having the option of reporting to an agency which does not itself employ the alleged perpetrator of the misconduct, reducing the fear of reprisal. CBCMs cannot decide if a ‘failure’ has occurred. They can offer a view on whether good practice has been followed and provide an individual with an avenue to an organisation whose remit includes making such judgements and so alternative routes to report the incident and any concerns about the handling of the case. Alternative routes or avenues that we have in mind include: the relevant National Human Rights Institution; legal service providers; a donor whose funding is involved in the project in question; a relevant oversight or ombuds body such as the Charity Commission if an NGO from England or Wales is involved; and relevant appeals bodies within the UN. We are also engaging with Dutch colleagues on a project which is looking in depth at the operation of community complaints systems in three countries. It will identify what it takes to build robust accountability systems that are survivor-centred, enable safe reporting, investigate thoroughly, and hold perpetrators to account. It will look at what works well and identify what needs to be improved.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗