UN did not name NGOs implicated in refugee sexual abuse dossier 'to protect child witnesses'

Human rights office says it wrote to each organisation and 'followed up' to check action was being taken

The United Nations General Assembly, which heard an investigation into UNHCR and Save the Children's initial dossier in 2002 (File photo) (AP)

The UN has defended a decision not to publish the names of organisations implicated in a dossier detailing allegations of widespread sexual abuse by aid workers, saying it was taken in the interests of protecting child witnesses.

A report alleging the exploitation, including of children, was compiled by consultants working for its human rights arm (UNHCR) and Save the Children in early 2002 following claims made in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

But the UN did not make public the names of non-governmental organisations (NGO) implicated by the research in order “to protect the child witnesses, to ensure fairness and to protect the integrity of the investigation”, it told The Independent.

Instead, UNHCR said, “letters were sent to the NGOs mentioned in the consultant report and [a second] report, informing them of the allegations implicating their staff”. It “followed up to find out what action had been taken”, a statement added.

After the consultants gathered evidence by interviewing refugees in the region the UN sent in a separate investigative team from its Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).

That team’s report was published in October 2002 but also did not name any organisations as having been implicated.

The OIOS could not substantiate the earlier reports, it said, but identified 43 cases of potential sexual exploitation by itself, including rape. Ten of those were borne out by the evidence, it said in 2002.

According to a copy seen by The Independent, the original 84-page report contained allegations that aid workers were “among the prime sexual exploiters of refugee children”, trading supplies like food and shelter materials for sex.

MPs on the Commons’ international development committee are understood to be investigating.

In its review of the initial dossier, OIOS wrote: “Although the stories reported by the consultants could not be verified, the problem of sexual exploitation of refugees is real.

“Extensive interviews of many potential witnesses, victims and others thought to have relevant information enabled the investigation team to identify new cases of sexual exploitation, ranging from consensual relationships that occurred as a result of the exploiter’s position of power to allegations of sodomy and rape of refugees.”

Following both the first and second investigations UNHCR released press statements detailing what action it would take in response to the findings.

UNHCR told The Independent that no decision had yet been made on whether to make public the initial report.

A number of NGOs have confirmed to The Independent that they were made aware of the UNHCR-Save the Children dossier.

A spokeswoman from the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said all staff now underwent compulsory training on its code of conduct. She added: ”We released local workers whose involvement was confirmed. Since 2003 the IRC has had staff dedicated to addressing and preventing sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse. They have been supported by continued investment in systems and processes.”

The Norwegian Refugee Council said it had fired one national staff member in Sierra Leone as a result of the report, and now employs a full-time adviser on the prevention of sexual abuse. “We exercise zero tolerance and all staff are required to sign a code of conduct. We are continuing to carefully review our systems and procedures in order to improve our prevention and response to all issues related to sexual abuse and exploitation,” a spokeswoman said.

The World Food Programme said it was made aware of unsubstantiated allegations against a member of staff in Sierra Leone. Nonetheless, it said: “The report triggered action on the ground and policy revisions. Preventive action was taken, for example strengthening of post-distribution monitoring and employment of more female food monitors.”

Action Against Hunger said none of its staff were involved in misconduct in Sierra Leone or Guinea, though that one member of local staff was alleged to have sold food for cash in Liberia. “No cases involving children have ever been reported in any countries where Action Against Hunger staff work,” a spokeswoman said, adding that “substantial policies, standards, guidance and trainings have since been developed and disseminated”.

Care International said it investigated one allegation against a named individual in Guinea but found that it had not employed anyone of that name in the region. The group added in a statement: “The wider allegations made in the report were also investigated, with a special focus on the controls that were in place. We found no evidence of abuse by Care staff at the time, but committed to remaining on the lookout for any additional evidence related to those allegations, and the problem of sexual exploitation of refugee children more generally.”

GIZ, a German organisation, said “the allegations in the report did not prove true” for its workers. It added: “We made a sound investigation and carried out training for all employees after the publication of the report. Later on we established a professional system of safeguards and counselling.”

A spokesman for the International Federation of Red Cross Societies (IFRC) said an internal review in Guinea in 2001 and 2002 found no evidence of its personnel being involved in sexual abuse, but that the OIOS report prompted the introduction of a new code of conduct.

He added: “Over the past five years, IFRC has received a small number of complaints relating to staff misconduct. We are concerned that this may not tell the whole story. We know that sexual harassment, abuse and exploitation are often underreported, and that more needs to be done to address, prevent and punish such misconduct.

"It is not clear if specific allegations against IFRC/Red Cross personnel were received in 2002. We have reviewed our archives and have approached UNHCR and OIOS to track down any relevant correspondence from that time. We are currently undertaking a review going back to 2000 in a bid to identify historical incidents.”

Save the Children, whose consultants participated in the initial report, said: “The investigation found that far too little was being done to prevent and report abuse across the humanitarian sector.

“At the time [we] took immediate action against three individuals. We have since made sweeping changes. Every member of staff is now given mandatory child safeguarding training within a week of joining the organisation. We have established a dedicated global safeguarding team and 445 focal points for reporting concerns.

“As our reporting systems have been strengthened, the number of safeguarding reports has rapidly increased from 31 cases in 2013 to 210 in 2017. These include road traffic accidents as well as reports of emotional, physical and sexual abuse in the communities where we work, whether or not they involve Save the Children staff.

“[We] have a culture of zero tolerance for misconduct of any kind. Anyone found to be violating this policy is held to account.”

UNHCR said it had “come a long way since 2002”, with a new code of conduct reinforced by refresher sessions and more than 300 “focal points” around the world “to ensure preventative measures are taken at field level”. It has also made it easier to report sexual abuse, it said.

A spokeswoman added: “On a regular basis, the high commissioner himself reminds personnel of the importance of identifying and reporting all [abuse]allegations, urging victims to speak out, and reminding managers of their duty to prevent, report and deal with [abuse]. He also regularly informs staff of the sanctions imposed to those found guilty of such misconduct.”

Several of the groups said they were cooperating with the international development committee’s investigation or had already provided evidence.