Launch of the GPC Report - Protection Capacities Under Pressure

connecting to this GPC session. We wanted to share with you introduc with you the report that we have been working during the last three four months with your support on protection capacities and the impact of funding gaps. This is a report prepared by the GPC in following surveys and consultation with operations that we started. I think it was more or less February and we just published in our website last week the final report. We are still working on dropping specific Alexis. will have probably an annex on the specific impact on capacities on child protection on gender based violence on inclusion of age people and disabilities and also probably in other areas but that's on the process but we we wanted also to go ahead and share with you the full report as it has been already published and already available in our website for the presentation today. Jessica, you can move. Tesco, you can move please. Okay. [snorts] So, I introduce myself for the ones that you don't know me. My name is Jose Perez. I'm the coordinator of the global protection cluster. For this presentation, we'll explain a bit on why we did this this report. will present an overview of the survey that more than 700 partners filled. We will share with you the main findings and the reported impact on protection capacities and the trends that we are seeing and some conclusions and some initial recommendations and way forward for this presentation. I mean my colleague Francesco Mikuel who is working on statical analysis in the GPC and has lead all the report. He will do the full presentation and also in some parts will be supported by Jo Mutiso who is the child protection lead in the GPC and Jennifer Chase who is the gender based violence lead in the GBC. And so those are the six points of the presentation. I will I mean next Francisco Franchesco please. So I mean I mean the we decided to go ahead with the report because we're seeing already in 24 but I mean clearly in 25 uh massive cuts in humanitarian funding and that's clearly that's not only one donor is generally many donors mean probably we saw a big impact on the cards from the US contributions but also from other donors including in European countries, Germany among many others, UK. So it was a like a general decrease on funding for humanitarian programming and that also has an impact on protection and but we wanted to be and it was also suggested by some of the donors that we are working with to have little more understanding on how protection programming was affected by these funding cuts. What was being lost? what's remaining and what are the more critical issues that require our attention and so somehow the the idea to do this this mapping came from questions from donors they wanted to know the impact of the funding cards in the protection sector. Uh once finalizing the mapping nation to presentation, we have already shared the findings with the main protection donors and the main donors and and we have been discussing with them I mean with some recommendations on on the continuity of support to protection or the impact of not funding the protection sector. I I I want no advance I mean some of the outcomes I will leave it for Franchesco but I mean probably our main message to all the donors and partners that in addition to the impact on the protection sector in in addition to the cars in critical life saving protection services in the field that I don't need to explain that to you because many of you are from the field and you are suffering and living those cuts every day the impact on the people. In addition to that message also wanted to convey a clear message that this is not only affecting the protection response but the overall humanitarian response because if you have a a weaker protection or protection with less capacity we won't be able to identify critical protection risks to position those protection risk and to ensure that or advocate that protection risks are mitigated through the material response. So we'll have a a limited cap protection will affect the entire humanitarian system making it less efficient and less safe. Probably the system can continue trying to respond to needs but won't be able to mitigate protection risks. And with this I would like now to pass the floor to Franchesco can go through the presentation the ma main outcomes of the capacity mapping report. Over to you Franchesco. >> Thank you very much bab and good morning and afternoon colleagues. Um that we will now go through we want to present a bit the findings um both in term of uh overall answers that and consultation that we did with the partner but there some key uh findings that we got across. Uh sorry can we mute some colleagues? Thank you. Um we will please if you have question during the presentation please pass them in the chat. We will try to address at the end of the session some of those we will not be able to address all of those but uh we since this process was a consultative one we will are happy to follow up on those question that we will not be able to address today. So without further ado um so let's disc introduced part of it um why now um there are three elements in our at uh in in looking why the impact on protection is particularly concerning um I think all sector has been impacted in term of funding cuts in term of volume um but we have identified three elements that have made protection particularly vulnerable at least in discuss in our discussion with partner first of all Uh it's a moment where as you all know there is a narrow a narrower and a more selective funding model. So um much more prioritized much more focusing on specific group of people's people and then a much more attention on specific and immediate activities um which we know that protection is a universal ecosystem of activities that sometimes they don't fit. At the same time uh we have seen an increase of the importance of pool fund which is very welcome and they're very strategic but [clears throat] the reduction of funding of the overall funding to protection partner for protection activity is not equipable to the increase of pool funds. So it's a strategic um um let's say change a structural change but not enough to ensure that those protection core functions that the partner continue to do are maintained. And lastly, this is protection specific. Protection has been a sector that is um has been historically uh donor concentrated. So almost 80% of the protection funding in 2024 was provided by three donors. So the pace of changes of the structure has been so quick that has been difficult for the sector to readjust. So there has been a readjustment and a much more balance in term of funding. But the pace has been too quick in order to ensure the proper processes uh in term of uh followup in term of proper transition and ensuring that the system that we had in place could stay. Um beside the change on the funding there are some uh um my computer. There are we have also analyzed that the general ecosystem of funding. So the modalities of funding has been are changing in a way um that make protection particularly vulnerable and we identify specifically three aspect. The first is we have seen a tendency to uh shorter time frame. uh we I think we all remember the first uh uh tranch of the US uh generous funding on uh of 2 billion was provided a 6 months time frame but in generally um protection require trust continuity um and a continuum of activities that require a longer time frame. So shorter time frame model are are putting much much more pressure on partner to try to understand how to maintain services. On the parallel side, we have seen a tendency in the last year and a half, which is normal to have much more results. But this tendencies has brought to an attention to to to more countable results of the funding. So outputs um which in a sense has been pro provide has been putting a pressure on the protection partner in general to actually prioritize those activity that provide immediate outputs. H and it comes to to say that community engagement and other type of activity that require much more longer engagement but they don't produce tangible outputs have been suffering much more and lastly one aspect that we have seen is that um you know of often time um I think protection partner is a priority to actually trans transfer or ensure the local actors own and they actually own the processes but the funding cuts and the funding modalities has been quite uh has been putting that as strain even for services that were about to be transitioned to national local system but even for for function of protection activity that were already owned by national actors. So these three elements uh so this to conclude that before we enter in the result of the impact we see already that the funding modalities are make protection particularly vulnerable because it's a it's a sector that requires as you all know a continuum and as we will see a chain of activities that uh are not particularly fitting the current funding modalities. So what did we do? Uh as Pep introduced, we launched a survey back in uh January and February for two months. Um as you can see here from the broad numbers, um we had answers from 32 countries, but the report focus on the 22 countries where we have cluster setting and we receive uh um response from more than 700 partner and as you can see already from uh from the slide, seven out of 10 partner they reported that has been directly impacted. So that was the first thing that we were asking if it was a direct impact on of the funding and then seven out of 10 answered quite directly that they they had an impact. Um we care not just to do a survey but we use the survey to to do several consultation both a country level but a global level um both with our protection partner but also in all our specialized areas of work. uh in order to ensure that we we we would not just look at the numbers but we could actually extract some um proper trends that can allows us to actually react and and and and uh and strategize with partners. In term of responses, in term of scope, as you can see from the slide, um the majority of responses came from local and national actors um local and national partner of the potential clusters. Um six out of 10 out of which 16% were women led of organization but we had quite a good um um turnout of responses from organization of person with disability and other nonational organizations. Um so this means that the majority of the finding that we have from the partner actually um mirror the the impact on local and national actors in term of countries. This will go quite quickly but uh we were um considering the also the the the difficult situation from our partner. We were not pushing for um provided that the survey could burden but actually the turnout and the responses was quite uh as you can see quite well widespread across the entire count the whole countries where we have clusters um and uh with an average of uh as you can see um 30 more than 30 responses by country. for around 30 partners per country and in 11 of them we actually quite a good turn out and now we are using this with our colleagues in country in order to do uh situational analysis for the different um crisis. So in the report you will find more the broad analysis that is coming across but then of course we are trying we are looking now in the next months to to do a much more granular analysis um at the level at the level of countries and in many countries uh already consultation has been conducted with partners. So this we are actually grateful to all partner contributed not just to the report but also to the findings that we have that we will use during the year. Before we look at the um results just a quick outlook on how we structure uh our research. So um of course we look at activities as you know or you might not know the protection cluster um in in its consolidation process in the last 3 years and being developed a consolidated response framework. So we use that as a parameter to look at all protection activity impacted but then as Peps say we really wanted to know how partner are adapting to the funding cuts. So we were looking for each activity not only at the impact on the activity but what uh was the the strategy let's say the strategy by which the partner cope. So if they had to reduce frontline and field staff, if they had to reduce geographic coverage, if they had to reduce um services provided engagement with affected population or different types of profile of of staff and also we try to look into if this strategy negative copy strategy, let's call it like a bit but the the adaptation of partner to the funding cuts by activity was general across the entire production sector or if it was specific of certain areas of work. So this was the way we structure and then the finding we will show you the finding both in term of activities but also general findings. Um so the first very quickly on the general uh you can find more detail in the report but as I said at the beginning as I showed at the beginning as you can see roughly seven out of 10 partners been directly impacted and then as we we will see afterwards um all points that the major impact is in all those functioning capacity to be at the front line and actually to to maintain community facing activities and this is a recurrent aspect of the finding of our study. that we will see across in term of activities. Uh on the right side we just provided um I mean it's difficult to read but you can see uh the different type of activity that are done by protection partner in red is the the one impacted and in yellow is the the one not impacted. So in general from uh mental health, psychological support, monitoring, case management, individual protection system and community based protection and protection items and safe space are the center of those activities that our partner do to ensure engagement with affected population and then provision of support. So they go hand in hand. So this was one particularly initial concern that then we used um in in our consultation to identify with partner what exactly that meant. But beside the impact you will find more in the report we wanted to show you a bit um what is the impact on protection. So not on a direct activity but what does it mean for protection all this impact. So um we the report mentioned the protection capacity chain for a lack of better word it refer to the fact that protection actors they use different ways of working which sometimes are direct activities or direct service and other are modalities of work that are all interconnected and they are all fundamental to ensure that we provide a protective humanitarian system. From that point of view uh by looking at the results of our findings um the entire protection capacity chain so all that process that goes to be close to the population identify monitor refer response and then act on uh on the on the on the monitoring afterwards the entire chain has been impacted more or less equally and has been progressively weakened. Um so of course we know and we have the details of which activity and which services has been much more impacted but what is really concerning from the study is the is the weakening of the entire chain of worker protection. Um so for us what is important from the report is that there is not just an impact in term of volume of activities which is already concerning but the impact is on the interdependence of this protection action. We will see afterwards what does it mean but you are an expert on this. So if we are cannot be close we can't identify well if we don't have services we cannot follow up. So the entire processes has been a bit weakened. Here are just few details on that. Um on the left side you can see the percentage of partner that basically have been responding and has been most impacted on. So the most concerning is the impact on frontline staff. Um this has been the most reported impact across all partners. uh but then uh followed by the reduction of type of services the reduction of geographic coverage the reduction of all those function and activity that are useful or are important for to engage with effective population and then a general parallel reduction on technical analytical coordination and IM capacity. So on the right side a bit going back to that chain that we were mentioning. So what does it mean? Uh that there is we have less capacity to be exactly where we should be in order to identify properly and do early identification of responses. The narrowing of services is actually reducing the channels that people has to engage with uh safely and uh in a trustworthy manner in order to ensure their own protection. Um reduction on geographic coverage comes without saying also and uh and it compounds the impact on the fact that we have seen a less community presence or the a strong impact on those those activities that allows us to be closer to communities. Um we will look at this now one by one just to show you the major highlight and then we will go a bit with the conclusion. But for us I mean um the as Peps said at the beginning we're are quite concerned on the fact that the entire protection chain has been uh impacted. So and this is not just to be addressed by funding one specific activity of the other but we have really to reflect how to ensure that protection the entire protection uh set of activities is maintained properly. um and also that the main reaction the main reduction is on those activity that were also allowing other actors and humanitarian system to be actually protection risk focus. So we we we see a really risk and uh on the possibility and capacity of identifying protection risk and acting upon them. So let's uh just uh uh uh zoom now on those five uh general functions that we've seen and their impact. On the right side you can see we have been um providing the percentage of partner that has been reporting uh what they lost or reduce the most and also since we look at this by activities um in which activities has been most impacted by those uh by the the reduction in this case of frontline uh and and general um staff support staff. So uh looking at the graph uh looking at the numbers two initial concern one is that frontline and field staff was overwhelmingly the most reported impact and this is really really concerning for us. Um of course as you can see goes in parallel with the reduction of almost half of the partner in term of support staff technical expertise technical advisory and coordination and IM but the lack of front and field life staff showed that the partner has been really try to show how to to to try to accommodate the the the let's say the huge impact of the cards um by reducing the presence and this is quite concerning because also the most impacted activity I think this comes without saying is the monitoring community based protection the provision of critical information. Um we have seen uh um so the two things the the impact on specifically on front line is quite common across all our areas of work but then looking a bit of a granular the granular information and gender based violent child protection responses has been quite particularly impacted specifically because is the areas where there is also a concerning high level of impact on specialized roles and technical supervision. So one of the um findings that we have found let's say the major two highlights of these areas of impact is the the reduction of frontline staff but also the fact that we are very concerned as a sector on the fact that the partner partner ability to maintain protection standard and safeguard is being impacted and might be impacted even more. So we have a parallel reduction of frontline staff with a concerning reduction of supervisory and technical and specialized staff which together maybe we will be able as as protection actors to to deliver still but with less safeguard and with less uh proper protection standards. So this is quite concerning. The second general function uh or general areas of impact of the entire protection capacit chain is the reduction of the service package. So we looked at activities but also we ask if partner they have been able to maintain the activity but reduce the services within activity. So provision of mental health um there's been quite an overwhelming uh response that the activity is maintained but partner are reducing the services they are providing. So sometimes this is for us also a concern because uh this might show that activities are maintained but in reality the the people that is affected is much more affected than before because we are not providing all the range of services that the partner were providing. Among the general trends that we have identified with partner is a tendency to prioritize group over individual support. So the individual support has been reduced quite drastically compared to maintaining group support. Um a focus on the high risk cases uh or the emergency cases. So the narrowing of uh the cases we can respond to um reduce follow-up and continuity. So even when we are able to maintain and support cases the we partner has been reducing the capacity to actually ensure a proper follow-up. Um also this is linked actually with the the fewer specialized referral option for survival. It doesn't just refer to uh our own capacity to refer which has been quite impacted and we will see uh afterwards through Jennifer our colleagues from GPV will will dig into that but also from the fact that the services that were provided by other sector has been also reduced so uh this is actually quite concerning and then um this goes with the prioritization done by partner in some other cases we have seen trend that partner report of course prioritizing lower cost or is it to resolve cases. This probably is linked with what we saw at the beginning. So the pressure on providing outputs combined with the reduction of funding is pushing uh towards a system that is quite focused in ensuring results and which is quite concerning. Um on the right side you can see six out of of 10 partner reported that type of services the reduction of type of services they were delivering has been reduced and you can see the most impacted activities. The third area of uh of major findings which goes we don't see these as separated functions but they all together are concerning but we have been dividing a bit just to to provide a bit you know a bit much more structural way to see uh the impact is the geographic reach. So of course I think that in all sector the geographic reach has been reduced. Um but in uh in our case what we've seen in our study is that what is concerning is that we there is a natural reduction in those areas where actually we should be more present. So are to reach area to access area of course towards a tendency to go to safe where it's safer to provide humanitarian assistant or where it's easier to provide monetary assistant there is been this bit u movement in term of response that is provided. So this is the most concerning aspect uh of the geographic reach. Of course, it's concerning also the fact that we can't cover all the areas we could cover before. But what is particularly concerning is the fact that we we it seems that the impact is on those population that are in area that are much more difficult to to respond or that have high severity of protection risk or there are high um displacement patterns. So this is something we this is one concerning aspect we are going to continue to discuss with our partners and with the donors but it's a it's it's a fundamental uh shift that uh it has to be addresses readressed as soon as possible. What cons what is most concerning from our study is is not the fact that uh the presence is not sustained as before but then we have also thinner operational modality. So and there is a tendency from static presence to our protection partner has been historically across uh let's say across all sector to be in the front line where we should be present which is a fundamentally important aspect of protection but the the lack of funding has been pushing a bit partner to move to more mobile or remote uh modalities of work or concentrate services in urban or lower cost areas I was saying before. Um so we have to really carefully look into that and as a GPC this is one of the followup we want to do because it might be that location might remain normally cover nominally covered but the intensity of services uh and what is provided is actually much less. So for us this is something we have been discussing with the donor that let's say the formal monitoring uh on the responses might still show that there is responses but we are quite concerning on the quality and all the ranges of services that potential partner were providing. Um the fourth area of impact which is I think we already touched upon it but we asked specifically we asked partner if they've been directly impacted on their capacity to engage population and as you can see the answer was quite um high and this must be read in the fact that also there is impact on on the specific activities that allow to engage population but also the out the reach and what we were saying before the the incap the lack of ability to be where it's more needed in the art to access areas. So the the let's say the responses in term of the type of activity that has been most impacted by the geographic reduction and then the loss of fraudline staff are the same activity that are also highly impacted by engagement of affected population. So this can so this is monitoring community based protection uh provisional of mental health and psychological support and critical information and case management. those five activity as a bulk has been the most impacted by uh both reduction of frontline staff, reduction of geographic coverage and also capacity to engage the population which is quite concerning all overall. Um so the most concerning aspect and this is what we also been flagging to to the donor in our dialogue with them is that we are really concerned of the what was the strong ability of protection actors to actually maintain affected population is probably the function or the capacity protection action most impacted and this is really concerning because protection actors and the protection sector has always had the ability to be closer and also to be able to identifying changing risk and changing partner patterns not only to protection but to the entire humanitarian um action. So this is quite concerning not just for the protection sector but the entire humanitarian action will be we see that we'll have an impact in term of being able to target safely to target uh and anticipate a specific situation and and this could cause that we arrive late where it counts. So that >> Francisco, it seems that we have lost you. You connect. >> Can you can you hear me back, colleagues? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Now, now we can hear you. >> I just had one second problem with internet. >> I thought it was me. >> Sorry for that. >> But it's you. >> No, no, it was me. Sorry. >> So, um just to conclude on this part, uh we look at the system enabling capacities. So namely uh the knowledge and technical expertise that we provide as protection actors to our partner to local actors but also to the other humanitarian actors technical advisory the coordination and AM staff h but also do two areas of work capacity strengthening activities that is are extremely important to ensure protection safeguard across the humanitarian response but also protection analysis and early warning mechanisms that also are two fundamental aspect to ensure the centrality of protection across the entire humanitarian in action and um as you can see also those has been quite strained and what is concerning for us is the the impact that this might have in the ability or is having in the ability for anticipation and early warning um in the impact is going to have to communities and people capacity to actually provide first account of their situation specifically when it comes to violence coercion and deliberate deprivation which as we know they require continuity they require presence but also they require specialization to know how to deal with those situation and also two aspects that we've been identifying in the consultation with partner is that there is a tendency or there's a tendency there is been a natural increase of case load for frontline workers uh with a reduction of technical oversight. So even when we have presence and when our partner maintain the activities the pressure on our capacity to proper follow up on cases with the proper safeguards has been quite impacted and second um we have seen a reduction of course rapid change in staff in structure you you have seen it as well so downgrading fast-paced nationalization opposition but what is concerning for us is not that it's it's that this has been happening in without the sufficient skill transfer or the sufficient plan to actually have skill transfer. So, uh this has been creating pressure on local mechanisms as our colleague Joyce will show afterwards but also to our to our first line of response colleagues that now have more pressure and less technical support. So just on my side and then I will pass to on to to Jennifer. Um just maybe concluding on those two general summarize highlight. One is that the impact is wide. So all the protection partner has been impacted in one way or the other. And what is concerning for us uh beside of course the impact on specific activity is that partner have much less the ability to ensure that protection chain that was ensuring that each affected population was identified follow monitor and also we could anticipate protection risks. So this could go in uh in uh having going back in those situation where humanitarian needs will increase and we will not be able to anticipate them by addressing the protection risks that actually drive those humanitarian needs. But uh with this we wanted to show two particularly concern that also came out from the study and uh with this I will pass to Jennifer. So Jennifer over to you I let you present yourself and and take it from here. Thank you very much colleagues. Um thank you um Jennifer Chase the GBV um global lead and I think really it's just to give you some contary examples of the concepts that Franchesco has so well presented um around how services scope staffing those reductions have all had an impact directly on the the beneficiaries and and the mo mostly the women and girls that we have been um supporting as the sector related to GBV. So, so for example, looking at how the referral pathways have been weakened because there are less available services, some of them have been shut down due to lack of funding. Others, I think, as as Franchesco pointed out, might still exist, but with greatly reduced um uh within the services uh what's available. So an example of this is looking at Somalia which actually we've heard the statistic even 86% of women girl safe spaces that have been shut down which are the entry point for the referral pathways and for services. So this reduced operational presence especially in the more hard-to-reach areas, the more rural areas um has limited safe and timely referrals for GBV survivors, children at risk and for other vulnerable groups. So I think we really have seen this and and often rural areas or hard-to-reach areas correspond to to high severity um areas in OPT. Um we've also heard about how referral pathways are breaking down. Um also related to services that um are about tracing for missing persons for detained persons. Some of these services have even been halted um due to the inability to continue paying lawyers and to sustain operations. I think in OPT also the constant movement of the population um the repeated displacement has really interfered also um with referral pathways and has resulted in a breaking down of the networks and services that um had existed in the past in Yemen. Um, again, the structures and community networks that have been built over years. And I think this connects very strongly to what Franchesco was saying about the trust that there are that exists with local actors and and how um it's not something you build overnight. And so years of of of ex engaging in communities with local actors, how how that has been weakened and broken down. Um we've seen this also that with the situation of case managers that um if their jobs are ended, it's not like you can train people overnight and get these services back in place if new funding becomes available. Um I think also Franchesco pointed out how the services have been reduced or are contracting. So women and girls face fewer safe and confidential options. This often leads to increased isolation. Again women girl safe spaces or child-friendly spaces once those are shut down. Um I spoke to a group of adolescent girls um in Nigeria who said the women girls save space in this particular camp was the only place that adolescent girls had to meet and to um get out of their houses and so really it increases um isolation as well as many other kinds of risks. Um, also it's a reduction of information since often um, child-friendly and women safe spaces and community service centers are places where people go and get information about existing services or have someone there who can provide psychosocial support or case management. Um, so again, the lack of information, the lack of being able to mitigate risks,