GPC Webinar - Linking the Protection Analysis Framework to the Protection Analysis Updates

English. Okay. So, we started. So, again, good morning, afternoon, colleagues. Um, today's session is a bit of a refresher on um practicality since a lot of you are actually now in the exercise of protection analysis updates and you are in between or finalizing or starting your potential risk assessment. So, the idea of today is to actually do three thing. Uh first of all look a bit of foundation. uh clarify well what is the protection analytical framework and why we use it as a common framework for the cluster and what is the protection analysis update and then we're going to have a sort of uh several slides that goes into step by step different section of the pus and how we could uh manage those. So again stop me at any time but I will just since it's a session let me go straight into that. Um so for the colleagues that are new for many of you this should not be new but I wanted to start by clarifying four foundational aspects that we have in our work as protection cluster. So [cough and clears throat] we generally speak about this in term of acronyms or uh uh just by their name but sometimes it's difficult to link those and understand what they are but in a nutshell the protection analytical framework is the core agreed analytical method. So it's a framework. So it's the framework that we use to organize every data and information and also to organize the logic of our analysis. The protection risk assessment is a specific exercise that we carried out now once a year at least in order to assess the severity of the protection risks and uh of course the protection framework is foundational to use the data and information for it. The protection analysis update is a process first and foremost on engaging partner to actually uh pull together our protection analysis in a digestible manner sorry but is also our core documents that we publish as a protection cluster in a country and then we have the global protection update which builds on those other three aspects. So everything brings to the global protection update is the core publication of the global protection cluster that is done once per year and is actually presenting and discuss with donors in order to inform their prioritization strategies. How do they link? Uh so think of the path as just a common logic. So a way of thinking and organizing the information and for specifically for the information management colleague is uh what we use to structure any sources of information you receive from partner being data or being given qualitative information. The protection risk assessment is an assessment process. So we look at how protection risk are severe where and whom and then we use this as a basis now also for the H&P. The protection analyst update is a fundamental because it looks at is synthetiz synthetized uh what change why this protection risk matters now what is what actions are needed now so it's fundamental for our strategic engagement both of partners and external actors and then the global protection update is for us to actually advocate for critical advocacy priorities a global level everything we can scale up but also to ensure that we show the specific situational protection risks in your countries and all your work that you have been doing. Today we're going to focus on these two. Uh we did a session in June which is in available in the website on the potential risk assessments. So I think that you can see this session as complimentary to that one. So I wanted to step back a bit on clarifications on concept and how do they link to the way we do analysis in the cluster. We have been doing this clarification in the last five years and now it's solidly agreed also beyond the protection cluster. So I think it was for me fundamental to start from this. Um so we can use the language protection concern or protection issues at any given point but for us it's fundamental that we use that only when we don't have an analysis. So when we have an analysis we'll see afterwards but we can speak about the situation in a country. We can call it a concern or an issue but as you can see in the example it's something that we are very worried like for instance we're worried about mass internal displacement but we don't have still evidence. This allows us to speak about issues without even having started the analysis because it's fundamental that we speak about those issues. The only thing is that when we speak about those if we are not uh clear how much evidence we have to sustain it let's use concern let's use issues but let's not use actually the language that we use in analysis. Protection risks is every time we flag anything that is actually stemming for a protection from a protection analysis. So this has been given us in the last four years quite as much more legitimacy even in front of our other actors because now when we speak about protection risks it's clear that behind there is an analysis. Okay. So it's fundamental that we do well this partition. Then of course we have protection needs. The protection needs are not the results of the protection analysis. So these are already come the first clarification. So in PAUS as consequences of the risk we can describe some humanitarian needs but the PU is not the place of actually providing the full account of needs and as you can see here the example in uh in our work we can say that we can have analyzed in a country that is forced displacement because we did the analysis and then the needs resulting from that. So due to force displacement we have identified increased mental health and psychological needs. This really allows you or generally us as a sector to engage the dialogue properly in the different uh let's say setting with the doitarian country team where we have to use the language of risks and often we have to highlight needs or the H&RP where it's much more need focused okay and then the centrality of protection is all those elements that are related to the combined actions to address some aspects to reduce the risks that can go beyond what we put in the HMRP. So here for example using the same example we will speak about mass internal displacement as a concern before doing the analysis we do the analysis we we clarify that is a priority risk or is a risk that we see severe uh from that risk that we identify several needs but also uh we have realized in our analysis that there are a lawful action by government that actually had to be addressed by the responsibility of uh in the framework of the centrality protection. So for many of you this is a given but uh um I wanted just to clarify that this is a very we really clarified the difference in the analysis between needs and risks because this gave us a much more legitimacy to present our analysis. So let me give you a very quick example again. So we might see in a country that there is deprivation due to denial of resources opportunity and services. We know it, partner know it but we didn't do the analysis but we need to do an advocacy no quickly so we can present it and it's our concern. So we can speak about the concern as a potential cluster then we go deeper and we might have identified that the situation is actually a specific risk like this case gender based violence. This will be backed up by evidence and then we will see through the session that I already put there some aspects of the path. We have several points of data or information that together we use to say there is these risks but then this doesn't this allows us also to speak about needs but there's a consequences of those risks. So in this case we see that our analysis speak about potential risk of gender based violence and as as resulting needs we might see survivor face this threat without safe support people harmed cannot access essential health care victims lack of access to justice and remedies. So these are all needs that then we can use to justify why we provide certain responses. And then in this case specifically when it come to central protection uh in the protection risk in the first line of context in this specific scenario there's been a law that is actually uh limiting the movement of of women. So on the centrality of protection what we could flag is actually the reversing of certain laws and certain aspects that goes beyond our monetary capacity. So this is the basis um for I wanted to start with this because it's going to be clear where portal risk fits in term of analysis where need fit and now we want I want you to introduce a bit very quickly again the path but uh before I move on is there any reaction question uh aspects that you would like me to clarify on this otherwise I will ask a round of thumbs up if it's possible see and thank you Patric and thank you again. So the path the protection analytical framework so the protection analytical framework is a framework uh again developed in 2020 uh and has been developed by you know with the collaboration of many partners. So it's the reference framework and now beyond the protection cluster. It's used by basically almost all partner and is now used as a reference in other document like IC professional standards the document the the IDP protection solutions and all those. So is become the reference that actually is helpful for you to engage partner in conversation. He has two general aspect. One is a structure that you can see on the left. This is normally useful to IM colleagues. We will see across the presentation that these broad category very simply are extremely useful to tag information and this will make your work on the PU and in general simpler. I will repeat this message over in the next slides. But for those colleagues that are in the coordination role or that you actually engage partner the path is very helpful as a logic every time you try to understand risks. Okay. So the logic is always the same. Is there a main threat? I mean as we in protection identify the threats or harm to population what has those effect there are capacity to offset those effects and then with this cycle then we we end up in saying how risk how people is exposed to risk or how severe is that risk so it's actually a thinking that can also be used for strategic for the cluster strategy and other strategy we want to do um here you have everything in the anxis but I wanted to show here for instance how one of the pillar looks We have four. So this is the pillar of thread. You have a pillar. You have three subpillars and then you have categories. As you can see I put first level to organize data and info, second level and third level. This is just a hint for IM colleagues that these can be categories to actually organize information. Okay. So and it can also be category to discuss with partner because sometimes when we discuss with partner we ask for information and analysis but it's good to ask information analysis. So what do you have on protection threat? What do you have on the origins of the thread? Using this language more and more allows actually us to have a common how to use the common framework in practice in the path. Um even you don't have necessarily to look into it. There are questions indicative question that here you can see some examples. So at each category you have a question. So for instance on the type of threat the question is is the threat primary perpetrated by individuals group multiple actors not part of a group practice. Okay and you have several question the way I always suggest not to get lost in the excel is first of all to define what is the purpose of your analysis. So when it comes to PAU, what is the main strategic objective you have this year with your PAUS? Is to change the mindset of humanitarian country team or coordinator because protection is not priority is to ensure that there is integrated programming for a specific risk. So defining that very well allows a much simpler approach to the PAS. The question then can be helpful to be used to actually identify if you already have information. We have identified force recruitment. We have some you we use this question. Do we have information actually to answer to those question and knowing where is stemming from? What population group is most effective? What capacities and so on. And this allows us to see the gaps of possible information that we might need. Um once we know the data that we or information is available, is this enough? So the goal is not to collect more but actually to see what we have and see if there is enough. So here is where the question are actually very useful in some exercises that I did with some of you. I mean for my country these 10 question are important not the entire questions of the path on these 10 questions we have enough with the protection monitoring the child protection IMS the GBMS we have enough with that so then we have all the information in the evidences then other question might be helpful just to clarify so if there is a doubt on a specific situation to actually to clarify that situation if the data is enough so the logic is before collecting actually to look at the data and use the path for that. Here I go very quickly. In some slides I will go very quickly. Um but for instance this I give you an example on exploitation due to lack of civ status documentation. So we might know okay because we have data these four aspects. So we might know geographic location we know if that is um um uh a policy or something much more structure. uh we know if there are enamelless or barriers and then some of the capacity you can see from the example that for instance this can come from different sources. So we might have information about B registration we might know our partners showing us that the government is establishing economic and other criteria that cannot be met by the majority of IDP population. So all these aspects using the path is just helpful to see what we have in a structured manner because it can allows us okay what do we want to understand this is sometimes the missing step. Okay. So in this case we would like to know better who has influence over the main actor responsible the underlying driver. We would like to know how different population groups might be affected and general trends and then we can use this using specific question of the path because they are there. So these are coming from the path. So how are the actors committing exploitation to account? What factor actually um what legal factor actually influence the situation? What population move? And then we can use this together with partner to actually look at the data and look at the sources. So the suggestion is again it's something we're also discussing with global partner is not anymore to do this big registry of assessment but do we then focus okay so do we have enough and then just f pinpoint two three aspects that maybe we have gaps of information and discussing with partner which information might be available. So I mean this I will go very quickly but this I make you I made a specific example where again in the case of here we are looking at force displacement we there are information that we miss to be able to speak about force displacement in this case. So we don't know if the verific the legal documentation has been refused purposely by authorities. We don't know about enough if the lack of legal documentation is impeding access to services. we don't know enough about the availability of documentation. So this is information that we might understand we don't have enough and then you can see with this can help us out in actually organizing the available data sources. So mean we might have an incident reporting tool in the cluster. We could use the IPC in coordination with the food security colleagues. We could discuss with reach an impact to add specific question on household and household level assessment to actually address a gap of information. We might actually know the DD DTM they are doing their multis sector assessment as well. So here is just an example but just to show you that the goal of the path is really not to is to simplify specifically also for the AM colleagues the organizing of the data but for the the colleagues on the coordination side is to simplify the dialogue with partners because we are not going to ask anymore with available assessment but we are having a dialogue with partner on what information and sources you may have about this and this actually is much more helpful also in order to to to to move forward. So very quickly the logic then in order to use the path the the simplified as the simplified logic is every information needs you might have here I just put some information needs coming from partation monitoring organize them by one or more risks by and by one pillar of the path okay so that's a simple logic this can really help also in the dialogue with partner they might have their own assessment um because information might be different might be formulated different but if we use the same logic it's easy to put together. Um this is complicated let me let me jump it. Uh so on the same vein this is an example that uh we made for uh a training on protection monitoring in one of your operations. So we were looking at the risks and then we look at the questions of the protection monitoring. So the exercise that we did that might be a useful one for you is what are the key question of the protection monitoring that gives you information for that risk. So in this case restriction of barriers and freedom of movement. So here you can see this question if the people is displaced was the household of origins what are when they were last displaced um is any child missing. So also question that are specific for our areas of work. But then when you see the gaps so information that is not captured about the protection monitoring you can identify what need to be observed and this can become a guidance for our colleagues on the field. Observe the state of shelters and the absence of shelter. Observe there are tensions in household or between or communities are isolated. Uh observe there is malnourishment. observe if there are other flags on for instance separated children you know and then there might be other question in the protection monitoring that might trigger the potential uh presence of that risk. So this was just an example on a way in which you can think about your protection monitoring. So identify question that are helpful directly to understand the risks identify gaps that might require observation and identify other question that can show the presence of something. Okay. So the path is where so this is the the end point on the path. So I didn't want to show you the old theory behind it but a very practical way of using it is to use it as a framework to organize data and information and also the dialogue with talk any question on this today is a very dense session so I'm going quite quickly on some aspect. No. Should I move on? I always ask thumbs up before moving on. Thank you. So the pus um I just put a graph of all the protectionized update all of you uh have developed in the last five years. We are you have published more than 120 something. So 130. is actually incredibly good the work you have done on this in this sense and they are very welcome and there is actually a a request from donors to continue um and of course we are using as a as a message to ask for support because that's actually we know the the work that goes into it in a general sense I just put three objectives that are coming from the to um the protection analysis update is not a cat okay but it's fundamental to uh call the attention to actually call the attention of in your countries on specific aspects that are related to priority protection risks. Um it has to be used strategically to ensure that we also show information that it might not come from data but it's coming from people. Okay. So we have purposely uh not push the pu to be heavy on data or we didn't ask for it. If there is data amazing but it's a it's a it's a product that is actually has to be helpful for you and for the partner to convey what we observe okay because sometimes in official document there is a a bit of a blindness because there is might not be hard data okay so the pu is the is your possibility to actually showcase what we really observe and what partner observe okay um I have five slides of each chapter of the pus I will not go through them right now because uh the idea was to share this PowerPoint afterwards but uh it's composed of an executive summary that we always advise to be one page and has been working very well when it's one page because it's straight to the point and uh is very readable. Um there is a context which is organized in subheadings. We advise that the subheadings to actually flag a situation because from our experience normally people reads the subheadings unfortunately. So use them strategically. Um and then be concise where we go to the context afterwards. There is a section on risks which again is a bit limited in pages as I remind that normally we advise to actually have maximum 15 pages and it worked very well. um when there are more it's bit heavy documents sometimes you might need it for your strategic issues but externally the shortest the better and then um they just here I will start introducing the way we use the 15 risks those they they have become a very good common aggregating aspect so really don't merge them um the risk are not specific to population group but each risk you know has impact all population group so it has use for that and all our data mechanism here I made an example for instance on the MRM data and information can be feeding all risks that we have in the periods the response part I will go on this afterwards is not a separ but it's the to show actually what's happening in term of capacities to address risks and it has to be quite strategic and then we have the recommendation section which I'll also go afterwards and where we actually recommend some aspects so the on the paus there is a standard format this is we will share it again the section are quite uh structural so exactly summary context risks response and recommendations and then um in term then of course you can develop the way it's it's uh it fit your country but there's a bit of a logic that we maintain across all the pus so now I went quickly on more the let's say refresher and Now I want you to enter more in the practical part of drafting a DPAU. So before I start as usual now is the moment where I ask a bit of you to just react quickly before we enter in the section. So I wanted to ask you in your experience or even in your view what does or has made a PU stronger in your context or weaker. So I really welcome everybody that would like to break the ice or even writing in chat otherwise since we know each other I might call some of you. Is a pu helpful for you and what make you stronger? Anyone? >> Should I call out some of your colleagues? >> Gavin, Syria, Scarlett, because I see you on the screen. >> I raise my hand. >> I can I cannot see hand colleague. Sorry. Please open the mic. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh can I can I speak in French please? Okay. Republic Democratic Congo. Oh, I lost the colleague. I think you are muted. >> Okay. Protection analysis. Don't Republic. You can go fast. Foreign Context Mercy over Um thank you very much Paul. Uh so colleagues Paul has been flagging two things. He's a is a class coordinator in in DRC. Um he was commenting that they found themselves in a sort of repetitive mode where PU became something that we just continue but it doesn't have an added value and recently they have been doing one focus on the Ebola. So really to show the situation of potential risk during the abola response and that has been very helpful in that sense. So it was suggesting that one way to make the pu relevant is to really link them to the contextual situation. So try not to avoid to to actually end up in the cycle of just redoing the document uh without presenting additional information. Thank you Paul for that. I don't know if is this resonate with colleagues and if there is anyone else that would like to suggest what make it stronger or weaker in your context please open your mic because I cannot see the handsh >> I don't mind if it's okay >> yes please >> thanks Franchesco so I think something that we found in our context is um where we were really able to center direct perspectives quotes um qualitative obviously mixed with the quantitative data from uh the respondents that really strengthened the human element of the story. And I think another thing that we found useful was of course to take the um overarching protection risk but really work to contextualize it and really follow the trajectory or at least that's what we're trying to do right now. follow the trajectory of how that looks in a different context and how that might be different in comparison to other parts of the country because it's quite a um quite a diverse context. Over. >> Thank you very much, Scarlet. Yeah, you touch on two points that I'm going to highlight afterwards. The importance of frame very well the qualitative information because that's a great added value and also to share the comparative aspects in country. Sometimes uh in all the pus that have been part of all of them since the we started um sometimes when you really say okay there is a risk and that goes back also to your point Paul but we are able to say the difference between different regions in the country that's extremely powerful um yeah thank you Scarlet I might take another reaction if anyone would like to jump in otherwise afterwards it's okay as I don't see hands. >> There is a comment from Aden in the chat. The prioritization of protection risks and evidence um make it stronger. So the evidence-based analysis, so building on what Scarlet was saying about the qualitative evidence, Aden is flagging the quantitative analysis as well that makes uh the PAU very strong. >> Thank you, Adam, for that. Yeah, the prioritization we go back to that. Uh that is one of the core aspects that is fundamental. >> No, thanks a lot for it. Yeah, there is another one. >> Uh yes, just one one one comment. Um >> yes, link linking with what Paul said. Uh so it's a question also of you know time to decisions not to a calendar. um a PU landing uh a month uh before the HNO for example or a YHF sorry YHF is Yemen human funding uh allocation that shapes those decisions or or those processes while one landing after is um you would say an archive material. uh so uh forwardlooking elements like likely uh trajectory or or frontline shifts returns etc etc this kind of thing. Thank you. >> Thank you Joshua. Great point. >> Yeah great point. Strategic decision when to publish so not just publish but really link it with strategic decision so it really supports your uh your aspect qualitative and quantitative prioritization. Make it contextual. So let's not the G from the GPC. We don't push just you to do a PU because we have to do a PU but we really believe that if it's strategically designed it's something that can reinforce your your work. So as Paul was saying contextualize it and be strategic. Yeah. Thanks a lot. So let me go I will you will see that this is coming a bit from the lessons learned on our end. So I think that we some of the things that you said um are resonating. So I just put it in five general aspects that we've seen across the PU in the last 125 that we did. So five general elements that weaken a PU or it make it stronger. So the prioritization it's critical. So when there are too many risks or risk are pulled together with you know just merging them because we want to show everything. This is really a kill for the PUS and also for the objectives that he has when we make generic analysis. So we don't use the data properly. We don't link. I think this comes as given uh long context. I think we are in a stage where we really don't have to describe the crisis but actually be very focused on what is needed. Uh the citrop logic so really leave the citral logic be outside of the pu. Let's we have other documents for that. And then I think it goes back to the prioritization also on the recommendation. Too many recommendations. So I would have to say honestly that across all the PUS that we did recommendations sometimes is the weakest part because we want to put everything. So we end up with three, four, five pages of recommendation that actually they don't they don't help very much. So let me go one by one and please react and open your mic because I can't see very well the hands. So the first thing is the prioritization. Many of you uh I put on the from the left to the right we I heard many of you say we need more than five risk or we need a risk for each area of protection work. We need to show everything. Okay. So this is I know it's happening and it's going to happen. Okay. The suggestion is that we don't transform that or you don't influence the PU by those. Okay. We can accommodate the fact that we need more risk. we we can accommodate the fact that we have to visibilize all our areas of work but that should not be transformed in more than five risks. Okay. So very concrete um use uh I will use an example from Mali that is just recent use the protection risk assessment. This will give you an initial prioritization in Mali. They did that they had five risk. Then they had a discussion with partner and the coordination team and they realized there were many other strategic risks that were missing out. They revised the priority one and then they go they went back to the partners. So this really hankers very well as also Joshua was saying the your prioritization in evidence but also be strategic. Okay. And here I made an example from the recent PU from Colombia where that prioritization was done defensal authority. So it might not be possible in each country but has been used the prioritization in order to discuss with them what was possible and that really helped in nailing in three risk actually that were used for um inter sectoral strategic plan. Okay. So as a general rule, imagine not to be a protection actor. So an HCT member will anal member look at a PU and be able to remember the risks very concretely or not. If you do you see still some issue there, maybe you can revise that part of the prioritization. But prioritization is fundament uh when we prioritize we also in the framing of the risk. So when you put in the PU the titles of the risk those actually might you know might be making the weaker or stronger the PU. So I put on the left examples that we have from PUS and some of the right these are all coming from PU. So the example I put as generic or crowdy that is not helpful selective homicide kidnapping threats and attacks there are too many things is not clear. So I think it's clear to me the sense that we wanted to give but this is not helping prioritization. Uh children physical and psychological safety and will be threatened by compounding risks or gender based violence with data risk of coffee relating sexual violence, sexual exploitation and abuse of trafficking, sexual harassment and other form of GBV. [clears throat] We understand but this is really not communicating externally a prioritization. Okay. So this is wording that we use in pastu. I'm not saying that they were wrong but this actually we actually [clears throat] suggest to avoid because from our uh also the lessons learned and the feedback we have from donor this is not helping or the last one attacks on civilian and other violation of physical integrity rights. Okay, it's still not clear what we are prioritizing there also because it it open ups to all violation of physical int rights. So it mixes a bit protection risk and human right language. On the right side some of the example again from the pa h mental psychology caused by acts of violence. It's very generic but it really links where it's coming from. So that's why it can be helpful. The second unvoluntary and indust return in advanced circumstances. This is from a pu in Mozambique but we have similar one in Nigeria. This takes the risk of movements to the 15 one. So you can see that there is no wording that is originally in the original definition but it's very clear. It's a risk related to movement and it was very contextual uh excessive and other unlawful use of force and attacks against protected person. This it comes from Palestine and is very precise because it uses exactly the language used at the HCT level to actually show that risk. So it was very useful in that sense. The last one, destruction of personal property and land disputes related to secondary occupation of homes and fields in area where people have returned. It seems a bit a lot but it's very good because it focuses where the causes and and you know so it's very precise. Okay. So here just two here the two takeaway the generic definition that we have is extremely useful if you want to avoid sensitivity in your country. that language is a very generary language anchor in in international language. So you it's done on purpose not to have repercussions. So use that definition as it is if you find sensitivities but then when you draft a pa try to be precise on the risks there is not I know that we want to show a lot of things but sometimes when you put all in the title it pushes back and it shows like we are not prioritizing. uh other two aspects uh often times we see weak jumps so that's actually a sentence that we have seen from one PU there were incidents therefore women children or the person and person with disability are vulnerable let's avoid this I think we all agree on the sense but the PU is our document where we actually show exactly so this is I think maybe enforcing a bit sometimes the vision that we are too generic so let's avoid this weak ch if you writing a weak jump. Let's not put that sentence. Let's not put that aspect. And the general rule is for every piece of data information that is provided by any partner exposed to what, where, why, compared to whom. Specifically, the comp I mean the comparison part is fundamental on the context. We touched on base before. Uh we tend to be redundant. So reexlain the entire crisis. the peace agreement in 62 then this happened and let's avoid that context really focus on a shift maybe going back to what Paul was saying in DLC let's there is no need of representing the entire conflict of the RC of course few sentences with links to sources just to show the conflict situation but then maybe in the Abola focus what's happening on the Abola situation okay so an event something that you know the pu can touch and explain why certain risk change or uh and so And then in case you want to provide more information points readers to background information so there is no issue in uh in linking with the existing uh contextual information. Um I will pause afterwards. I have five slides. the on the response side with the usual logic on the left a piece coming from a PU that we suggest avoiding and on the right side some example that might be very helpful the left one is not bad we just suggest avoiding because it's a seat rep okay I'm sure that you have many documents that shows how many people we have reached how many funding we have how many funding gaps there is no need of repeating all of that in the PU okay so point to another document point to a dashboard you already have let's not put all the pa is not expecting the paou to show all the activities that we have been implementing it can be an additional document and so on and on the right side some of the example that I'm putting I just give you example why they are interesting for instance child protection response is constrained specifically in those two areas okay so it's specific on regions So we might not be able to say something but clarifying where certain response do we have some constraint is actually very h the second I think it's coming from South Sudan h in joining displaced families emphasize the need of sustainable internet access they propose the establishment of community early warning system and protection committees this is extremely helpful I think it builds on what scholar was saying because it shows what capacity are needed or are asked by people in that in that region Okay. And the last one, it comes from Ukraine. It's very interesting because it doesn't present it present a shift. So something very strategic that that you can use with donors to explain certain situation. Okay. So there are two things. The shift on the response. So the trends on where response is moving and the second is probably qualitative information. But many survival of violence do not seek services immediately after any incident. So we might not have hard data but this is extremely helpful information very strategic to show a problem in capacities at last and then I I made I make the pose on our let's say pa clinic recommendations. So the recommendation as I was saying often is our uh weakest part. So on the left side I will not go through all the example right now but the five criteria to make recommendation stronger I mean first of all please do not exceed the two pages really I you heard me sometimes when I revise the pus but if we have more let's put it somewhere else but let's make the pa very focused recommendation and we can follow up okay sometimes we mix advocacy message with recommendation a recommendation has to have a target very clear an action an area geographic areas or a group a timeline will be interesting. So we have this has to be addressed by and then to address which risk if we have those five component more or less for recommendation it's always very strong. Okay. And then on the right side some of the examples. So I just go to couple of them like the last two expand legal services which normally I see as a recommendation without specification which is bad but in this case to nimbrros and kundus where partner presence is limited despite large retic case load. So it's very specific. So I'm asking of course for an expansion or a support to a specific area of protection but very precise with a reason that's a very strong recommendation or like the last one expand cash and livelihood support in provinces where monitoring show highest child labor prevalence and that there are the three regions this is a very strong one because it's not just saying it will be good for donors to support cash and livelihood specifically it's really precise very focused on the analysis because it were actually there is an increased child labor and specific on an area. So honestly I mean now that this you're working a lot on recommendation the more you can be precise on recommendation the more we can do follow-ups. So just to conclude this part find general uh a sort of checklist when you're going to revise or work on pus first of all are there few clear priority risks are they readable the wording is not crowded is prioritize is the prioritization based on the risk assessment and discussion so that's first is the analysis evidence based so it really combines it doesn't do jumps is the context analysis very specific so it's a really helpful to understand the risk or is just a general context analysis. Is the response not just a C trap but providing additional elements to understand why those risk are actually people is very exposed to those risk and then are the recommendation clear can we follow up on the recommendation there is clear talent a clear action a specific area so if this five if you use I mean I'm I'm happy to hear from you but from what we have seen on the bulk of the corp of the all the pu down so far if you generally use these five rules to revise it they are very they can become very strong documents h and generally one advice that we always give also between the GPC colleagues is imagine a nonp protection actor reading the p okay always imagine that so not because we have to not speak protection but I think it's very helpful if it's understood because it can really push central protection inter agency mechanisms convince HCT that are not protection focus so you are the anchor of the central protection so we can use it properly. Let me pause. I have been quick. Any reaction on this part? Even aspects that you might not agree with or additional suggestions. Please open your mic or Lisa help me if there is any hands raised. Is it clear so far? Can I have just at least thumbs up? Thank you. >> Just to confirm, Franchesco, you're getting plenty of thumbs up, but there are no hands up. >> So, I'm being very clear. [laughter] >> Oh, yes. >> No, thank you, colleagues. So, let me relaunch a question. Let's dedicate two minutes to that. Uh because there is I know that the most difficult part you face is the privatization. So I wanted to just go through how to manage the prioritization. What does it mean one or two of you? What does it mean for you to prioritize a partial risks? Is there any one that would like to react is prioritizing protection risk selecting it for the reactions today. The summary is coming. So, let me jump on it and go into the prioritization. Okay. So, I see in the chat uh Paul when pro particular challenge in central Africa move some such related device into the contest section. Great. In Cameroon, the PU helps in focusing on key protection risk. However, there is need to more dissemination of view and more involvement of local partners. Great. Thanks a lot for that. Okay. So, let me go to those points by going to the next part. Prioritizing. Okay. So, I have been in many conversation with many of you during the last years on prioritizing. What does it mean? How do we do it and so on. So, let's recclarify once for all the way we we look at it in the production cluster. Prioritizing doesn't mean hiding other risks. Okay? We decide which risk anchors the Pau because they are strategic. But then we use we have to speak about all our risk. No risk is independent. All the risk are interdependent. So that's a given. Okay. So here a bit of uh few points on maybe how you can manage that. What is important for us is as you can see there that's the general process I suggest following. Of course use the potential risk assessment. Look at the severity. This is your anchor to say that we are evidence based and actually to evidence on partner discussion. Okay. But then the tool that we have that we see on the previous session give you a ranking one to 15 that doesn't have to become automatically the prioritize risk in the pus. Okay. So engage partner engage the coordination team revise do strategic considerations. Okay. After that you can re revisit the order and then I suggest that strategically you look into into it with the coordination team the sides and partner but the third layer is strategic okay so maybe citing Paul in the RC Abola is the issue there is one specific risk that is fundamental because it's linked with the conversation on Ebola okay or um like in Mali right now they change some of the risk because they were not coming up. They have a particularly objective to to work with ACT and other clusters. So they actually revise those risks. So evidence verification lens with partnerial team strategic verification and then what goes in the PU the five risks are our anchor are not are not the only risk we're going to speak about okay and I'm going to go towards that. So the pressure of prioritizing more risk will always come. The solution is not to putting all of them in the PUS as titles or sections. Okay, we are going to see some some ways of that you actually have done. Okay, so here for general strategy that are not coming out of nowhere. This is more or less how we managed that in the last 120 something paus. So uh some risk can go in the context. Okay, I remember one in northwest Syria where legal documentation and access to legal identity was a huge issue and we actually did the entire con the entire context on legal identity and barriers. Um we are now discussing with Mali that psychological distress is a structural risk. So possibility of putting it into context. Um in other countries the presence of mine is not a priority risk but is actually in the big areas of the country is one of the driver of other risks. So risk can go in the context. Okay. Um if there is one risk that is overwhelming that is a situation like it can be movement or force displacement or force return because it's huge you it can be the theatic lens of the entire pu. So what does it mean that we could do a PU where because also we we can focus it on displacement on uh family separation on recruitment and then we prioritize five risks that are linked to this overarching structural potential risk in the country. Okay, that's also a very from the advocacy perspective is a very powerful way to present an analysis show interconnections. So if there is a risk other risk are linked. So if there is attacks on civilian we know that there is contamination we know there might be displacement attached to it we know that there is family separation or even association of children with recruitment. So you can present attacks on civilian as the priority risks but in the analysis you can present all the linkages. Okay then once we do our pa we still have the possibility because that's part of also the way we work to do a focus paou on something that are byproduct of the original paou. So I put an example in Venezuela where last year we did a protection analysis update as a cluster and then with the colleagues of the child protection work stream we did as uh later a focus pu on the impact on children. So where we took the five risks and then we focus and we actually describe all the impact on children. So these are four ways in which you can manage the presentation of protection risks that are not priority. Okay. uh we don't have much time this I will share it afterwards but it's a way of actually what you can look at uh this is now I want to link a bit with the path um here is just an example and again this is material we're going to share once also for the I am colleagues if you organize information against the path pillar then this is the way you could possibly put into the document so in the context in the risk section and in the response and particularly for the risk section So this one under each risk the logic the let's say the narrative logic always to present threats the effects and the capacity between me and you the two weakest weakest point that we all ac we have generally across paus is we focus so much on incidents so numbers violation but we don't describe the threat so there is an elements of perpetrator to I know that we can't put everything in the PU but there are elements that have to qualify those number okay so in attacks on civilian is not enough to put in the the the injuries or the death what is the threat and the other weakest part is the capacity we often never put anything on capacity in the risk analysis okay we we focus on the threats and then on the effects okay so this is a way where you can use the path use it to organize the information and then use it to organize the logic I will share these these are examples that uh I shared in previous uh in previous training where what does it mean inputting pieces of paragraph related to threads effects and capacity so I will not del into that the material is available on this um but here I want you to go on how you can manage the endless process of asking contribution to partner and to other colleagues I know that is the most tiring part Use the path not because we are obsessed with the path but because it gives you a logic. Okay. So our suggestions or my suggestion also have a look at the processes with you is do not ask partner to send all available data. There is no need of it. It's going to be painful because partner they expect you included and for you when it arrives because often it doesn't arrive it's really difficult to put it in a document. ask them conversely short inputs but against the against the pillar of the path for instance not just about the risk um and even just a short input is much better and also for the partner specifically local partner just ask them something very precise I would like to know about threats or the effects on this in this area and I put an example on the right side okay so we are the prioritized risk is impediment to legal identity we context movement restriction and document and checks have increased. Threats authorities refuse civil document at checkpoint effects displace women headed households lose access to services and capacities. Legal partner verify cases support mobile documentation. These are very general but you can already see that they can come from different partners you know but then for you can be easier to pull them together. Again in the same logic avoid you have been hearing me avoid section related to our art of work we don't have gender based violent risk child protection risk my next action risks of course we have one on GBV and one on my next action but what I mean is all risk have impact to all population groups and we have to be able to describe the impact of all our response across all risks. Okay. So when you prioritize prioritize avoid distributing risk by what by our way of dividing or section only by who has the data okay sometimes you just have a very strong partner with strong data and then becomes the productized risk that's also to avoid and then another things that I suggest to avoid is asking partner just to feed in one risk sometimes might be helpful but you know partners if they are specialized They have information across all the risk but even if they are not specialized it's really helpful but again use the path do not ask for look at all risks but oh it might be interesting to have your inputs for attacks on civilian on threats or for legal identity on effects okay and here I put couple >> don't really politics yet >> hi Kim so here the example uh you can ask partner A, partner A on attack civilian to actually just share data on threats because they have that data you know and just verify the trend. Partner B they are on the ground they can observe and they might just send you some inputs of what they observe on effects. Child protection coordination part or our colleagues in the coordination team they might have information on impacts to schools that is very useful to actually describe the threats and data on family separation that it might be helpful to describe effects. the GBV colleagues might have information about the functioning services that might be helpful for capacity and in the same vein you can see the second example that can really help in organizing better information. So instead of coordinating the pa by oh you take this session you take the other section you use the path as a logic to actually feed in all the blocks all the boxes please tell me yeah I'm I'm conscious of time so I'm trying to go quick but not fast but please tell me at any point here is I think that some of you already said it here I think uh Scarlet said it Lisa said it as well we don't want the PU to focus only on incidents. Okay. So we have been our definition and a way we monitor it doesn't just look at the data tells us scale trends location most effective fantastic but it cannot be the only information that we put on the pu what is fundamental is to actually have a good balance between the incidents given by the data and the monitoring and the reality that partner observe why harm is increasing who is the most affected what the data may be missing. So this is fundamental to really find the balance. We had this recent conversation again on Mali. Sorry for to put the colleagues on the spot but it's actually we're looking at real right now where they actually contextualize very well our severity criteria of the risks by having benchmarks of the incidents. But let's not use just that. That's very helpful to organize the information but we really need qualitative information. And here I put an example. Avoid 124 incidents were recorded. That doesn't mean anything. 140 incidents were recorded here and there. Partner reports that most occur at checkpoints affecting undocumented retention women at the household. So it's also there's a focus on groups suggesting rising restriction to legal identity and access to services. So this is a good way of presenting qualitative and qualitative just pull them together properly. Okay specifically when hard data is limited for your information. For instance, we are doing now with the colleagues in Afghanistan are almost purely qualitative pu. They run many focus groups and we are discussing with them how to pull together all the focus group information and do a qualitative period. Okay, which is also very powerful. Um again, so I go back to the how to frame the request to partners or to our colleagues in the coordination team. I go first to what avoid asking send comments to the document by this date. other paragraph on uh GBV on child protection on minion on displacement on inclusion on something that is just your mandate share all the data you have please review the whole pu so I for many partners you might have these general moments where you ask for comments fine for the last for the last review it's okay but when you are in the drafting place in the drafting phase we suggest that you focus on concrete questions which risk does this evidence So if if someone is sharing where uh which pillar would you reinforce? So read the the the section on these risks what where are we weak in threats in effects in capacities. Uh do you have inputs on effects for children for women for person with disability? So to specific groups that's a very good question and very specific uh the capac or this session is weak. Can you verify if you have this mechanism or this other mechanism? Okay. So the suggestion is to try to use the path again as a way for you to actually guide better the recommendations sorry recommendation the the inputs that you can have from partners. Okay. And also this will be helpful much more for partners to know where to put uh pieces of data and information. This is actually my last slide. So uh the the the the objective a bit of the session and uh I know that with this time we don't have much a lot of Q&A but was to actually give you a bit of practicalities in the way we solve some of the issues with the PU just for you to think and come back to me or to us in ways that we can support you more. So the last slide is to show you a bit the resources where they are but since we have 10 minutes maybe I stop there if there is any question or reaction or comments >> Dorian has his hand up. >> Thank you Dorian and thank you Lisa. >> Hi thank you. Um I just wanted to rec at one stage you mentioned uh organizing the data you you called upon the IM and I I have a little bit of a practical experience uh that I could I would like to share. Uh so in in my experience in South Sudan uh getting information that will both have the analysis and the data in the same let's say paragraph from the partners is very rare. Uh so uh uh we have for the couple of years we have worked on the qualitative comments let's say uh bandwagon and it was very hard with the data but luckily we have a protectionist monitor system which kind of compensated for that recently we have actually established an information and analysis working group where the members are mainly M& IM uh data analysis people and now we are getting a lot of data and qualitative and quant but data evidence but not really written in a way that you just mentioned uh that what that what what does it mean so uh still we we have replaced one problem with another problem so um I don't believe that we will ever get inputs like that uh maybe here and there uh that meaning that we still need to do it ourselves which requires time, energy, efforts and and of course understandings uh uh of all of that or it requires time time and training. Um as we speak now I'm going through uh many many inputs that I'm receiving from my next uh pow which are full of data and have very little explanations. Uh and then also I get inputs with explanations but with no data with no evidence. So just wanted to say it's it's it's it's not easy and it is really does require continuous continuous capacity uh capacity uh building and also it does require efforts from outsides to to put these three things together in a way that you just mentioned. So I just wanted to flag this is not not a commentary it's just like a reality check from the field. So one way is to have your u agency directors protection people sending you qualitative or getting the actual data but getting both at the same time seems to be difficult. Thank you. >> Thank you very much Dorian. I will wait to react on that if there is anyone else would like to jump in. Do you see any hands? >> Uh, no hands, Francesca. >> Thanks a lot. Sorry for asking. [laughter] No, I think uh maybe Dorian I pick your input to just bring to the conclusion if colleagues they don't have there isn't any question. We are not there yet and uh it's very clear from us at the at the GPC and the reality check is actually an important one. two aspects on that. Uh the first one is take this as a starting of a process. Um the having part in some countries partner already think path. So I'm I'm thinking of Syria. I don't know if Gavin is still there but when we have partner that were asking us we are organizing information against the path. So they were actually asking for it. >> Uh sorry Gabin I didn't want to call you in but please come in. [laughter] >> No no no it's uh No, it's true. I I uh no you're right. I actually just received um a protection kind of analysis report from one of the partners using the the PA framework. So I do have very strong partners. I think my ch and I found this very helpful also a useful refresher. Thanks Francesca. As you know we're we're we're trying to work on our PU now. But but indeed I I I worry slightly because indeed there's then you know I think we in in we can talk about Syria bilaterally but there's one or two preliminary steps that I feel we need to kind of go back to basics uh uh somehow but any we can talk about that bilaterally but this has been super helpful um and yeah we have a lot of capacity here certainly in Syria to tap into the challenge is you know our capacity as a team to to structure and and guide and and then indeed bring everything together. I think that's that's my perennial stress over. >> I know, Gavin. No, and thanks for jumping in and sorry for to call you in, but this was for me to a bit compliment on what Dorian was saying. Um I think that now we have a clearer approach that also is common to our core partners okay that you sometimes don't see in the country but as a GPC we're discussing this very structurally with them with the much the many protection partner also local um and also it's also common us in the consolidation so we are happy I'm happy to support every single one of you all capacity building the needing country okay sometimes I found that it's fairly simpler to do an initial uh sort of training capacity building in this logic than one that we saw be today uh where we agree with partner yeah I don't need anymore all your data I just needed this is the way I want it and then once it's here then it might become a system or not Dorian so I mean then depending on capacity what surely we don't have to push it's something that is just solid and anchor and structured and might be difficult to to to to flexibilize but And we can really adapt in each country. So in country might become a system that is just interoperable in other might become just a way of organizing the work with partner. I remember in uh Burkina three four years ago even before we could support them they naturally start they had an information and analysis working group or less donian as you are and then what they were doing they were discussing that during the the the the sessions they were having as an information working group by risk and by buff pillar so it became the logic of the group and then slowly that became a way where everybody was thinking and made some things easier so it's a process What I wanted just to show you today is a bit of lessons learned on the perennial problem of the productization. Then in the PU we have ways to address it. So the five risks are for us to anchor because it makes us stronger. the clarity on the language of risk. it makes us stronger. But then we are you have way to present it and then uh ways that where you can slowly start using the path maybe to organize better the request of inputs and organizing of information. But for me the last message is uh we now have several models and lessons learn with many of you to do this. So please reach out happy to do capacity building or support and then um between now and next year. So um as a GPC we now have the right resources to develop some technological tool as we mentioned before to actually organize the information against the path for all of you for pus and other exercise but uh I'm not saying it as just the last positive message because we don't have it yet but uh that we are very conscious of the difficult capacities that are or the capacity that are needed to do this exercise. So um for us it's a priority to support you and then with this and for anything else please reach out um the resources we will share the presentation so where also we put where the resources are and we will share also the recording but please reach out now that you are in the process of the pus for anything you need on my side. Um I think I can close here. So if there is no any last uh comment over colleagues and with a lot of thanks for every participating in this Gavin I I know please have the last word. >> No just to say thank you very much Franchesco I really appreciate I mean I I yeah I hope we can uh at least meet some of the standards that you that you've outlined. So thank thanks a lot. No it's been very helpful. A pleasure G and uh thanks a lot colleagues for all the work on this and we are available at any time. So I miss you and thanks a lot. Have a great rest of the day. >> Thanks Franchesco. Bye.