 Hello, great. Welcome to the GPC webinar. This afternoon the webinar is going to be looking at a common approach to protection developed by the Red Cross and within the Red Cross movement. And to discuss this topic we have the privilege this afternoon to have two senior panelist, Mr. Pierre Jean-Ti, who is the head of the tracing agency and protection division at ICRC in Geneva. Mr. Pierre Jean-Ti is responsible to establish the ICRC protection strategy and priorities at global level. Specifically in the field of protection of civilians, POC, protection of people deprived of their liberty and detention, restoring family links and efforts to clarify the fate of the missing, the transfer of people and the provision of travel and other documents. Welcome. Our second panelist is Mr. Stephen Weinreich. Stephen is the coordinator for social inclusion and protection in the inclusion protection and engagement unit. And this unit is specifically responsible for developing the policy framework, operational tools and guidance to ensure that all ICRC programs, sorry, are as protective and inclusive as possible through a comprehensive analysis of gender, disability, age and other diversity-related factors. The unit also promotes effective use and volunteer engagement and development, including ensuring the safety and security of 12 million volunteers. So he is basically working with one of the biggest network of development and humanitarian entities in the world. I am the PRK Chief Grandi, so we cannot ask our participants to put themselves on mute. We have a lot of noise in the background. Hello? Can I ask all the participants to put themselves on mute, please? Yes. Much better. Thank you very much. Just to introduce you to my staff briefly, I am Sophie, I am senior protection officer in the GPC in Geneva. I just joined a couple of months ago. And before that, I spent 10 years in the field with the ICRC and with other organizations, including the UN. So welcome to this discussion this afternoon. In terms of schedule and program, Mr. Pierre-Jean-Tier will start by giving us an overview on the framework from the ICRC perspective, and then we will have Stephen giving us the ICRC perspective, and then we are going to have an open discussion with the Q&A. We have around an hour to do so, so we are going to spend the first maybe half hour with presentation, followed by hopefully a very interactive discussion. So unless there is any pressing issue, over to you Pierre, and thank you very much for being with us this afternoon. But thank you. It's a good opportunity indeed to present to other protection actors what we are discussing since now, almost a year and a half, two years, within the movement on the need to foster protection with all components of the movement. It's not new that the movement works on protection as such. So this is not something that we have to see as a certain novelty. The movement has a long... On certain domain, there is a long lasting collaboration. For example, on tracing, we have the central tracing agencies that really kind of symbolize the collaboration of all components of the movement around one thematic since decades, coordinating all of the answer of the movement regarding tracing, ensuring that protocols and procedures are coherent and known to each other so as to facilitate collaboration between the different national society, cross-country, cross-continent. So on some thematic, it's extremely structured. On others, it's recent. If you take, for example, the work related to migrant detention since some 10 years, there has been regular meeting of national society and the ICC and the Federation on the topic to try to have common principles to work together around developing procedures regarding that field. So there is some tradition at different level of coordination on some thematics. But what we try now to achieve is to go beyond this sectoral approach, is to really have a reflection, global reflection on protection within the movement, trying really to promote the principle, the standards within the movement, not to create a new one. The idea is really to take the existing standards and to see how they are applied today in the movement. Existing standards, the sphere, they do no harm from the Federation, the professional standards for protection work, more sectoral one on child protection and others, really the corpus that you know very well within the global protection cluster. So the standard that you are accustomed to and really make sure that they are today widely understood and used within the movement, which is already to some extent the case. So once again, it's not totally new but it's really a willingness to make sure that this is a common basis and understood common basis for all. It's also to kind of see what are the gaps today in the response of the movement to try to identify where we need to reinforce, to facilitate the complementarity between the component of the movement and to understand who has what type of skills, know-how that could be useful to others when others want to develop a programme on their own to who they should turn to have advice, to have support. So having a bit of a sense of what are the centres of expertise that exist within the movement and that everybody knows them. So it's not only that we know them at once in one office in the ICOC and in ICOC but that is a knowledge easily accessible and that it creates a dynamic. With that, the idea was, we worked first to develop a common understanding on within the movement how we could conceptualise protection starting from the YASC overall definition. So it was not about redefining the existing overall definition but how we can translate it for the movement. How can we really from there try to find language that is understandable by all components of the movement that makes sense for all national society. And we came with these three circles. A first one, a large one, that is really the one that is to be seen as compulsory for everyone, if you want. That is not a choice to opt in or opt out. This one is really a compulsory dimension. It's a dimension of protection mainstreaming. Different wording, but I think here we all understand what we are talking about. It's part of the whole work, the protection class on mainstreaming and the federation you're going to say a bit more about it later on as a whole work on to know how we're there. Whatever activity and nationality is developing, we wish really to make sure that the one doing so have an understanding of the protection risk in the area they are working. That this understanding of the protection risk inform the program in a way to make sure that there is no negative consequences for the population and the beneficiaries. This is largely only the case once again. This is not new, but it's just really make sure that today there is no exception to that. And this is really, we always speak the same languages. Then the second circle is around the protection programming, the specific action that are really there to address the sources of abuse and curation that are addressing the risks of the threats that people are confronted with. And here it can be of different nature, as I mentioned from detention, from tracing, child protection. There might be a lot of different types of work being done. And the third circle that we identified in a lot of discussion within the movement because many part of the movement indicated in it, it's really this work to try to influence standards, normativity, the framework being at national level, being at regional, sub-regional level or at global level. Where many national society, the Federation, the ICSE, have developed different strategies of influence towards this legal and normative framework, but also towards the procedures existing in a given country around different thematics. So this really for us is a bit to guide the discussions in the movement. As I mentioned, the first circle is compulsory. The other two are somehow, upon the choice of the national society, if they want or don't want to have such type of program, to do such advocacy work. So that's less of a compulsory matter. This is really about choice, a willingness to do so. But once the choice is taken, once someone decides that, yes, indeed, we are going to develop a program on gender-based violence, for example, then at that moment, indeed, the standard of applying should be known, should be really applied. And within the movement, there should be a sense of who can return to exchange, platform of discussion, platform of exchange, but also training modules. So with that, a whole dimension is around the idea to have a community of concern, a community of practice, to be established. We are precisely now starting to work on, I would say, the shell. We have developed version zero that is being tested, as we speak, that should become live next year, early next year. And at that moment, we open to all component of the movement, trying to find different national society, having different competencies, skills, who would take a leading role in some of the thematics that have been identified. And this platform, there would be a general dimension to it, about protection in general. And then there would be a lot of sub chapters on the main activities that the movement is actually developing, where, of course, there we hope to see a lot of interaction between the different members of the movement. So this will be launched early next year and presented at the next international conference of the movement, where states are also present by the end of next year. Besides that, there is a lot of training that are also being developed. And here it's interesting, because they are developed by national societies with the support that we give, but it's really being driven by some national societies. And here very quickly, we saw that there was a need to have training at different levels. You have the development today, the Swiss Red Cross, for example, is developing a training for its volunteers and for its staff. And here it's really about how to react, how do you react if you have volunteers who visit to home, visit, for example, of elderly people, or of different beneficiary, and you notice something, and you notice something that attracts your attention, what do you do? So it's really about this notion of identification and referral. Then you have the training that are more for the people who will be in charge of programming. And here we have North Cross, the Norwegian, we have developed a training where the idea is to bring people from different national societies to put in a place program, exchanging on how they put in place this program with the standards as a baseline. The whole idea is to take different chapters of the standards of protection work, and see how they apply to that program, what difficulty they encounter in doing so. So without bringing too much detail, the whole idea is a platform of exchange, where people should find documentation, good practices, have forward to exchange, face-to-face meetings also training, so a lot of different dimension to try in the coming years to really build up this existing competency, but really to have more of an interaction, more of a collective intelligence around the work being carried out. And hopefully also in 10 years time, really see a movement much more present into protection matters. With that, maybe let me just mention that one too much. Let me just mention that while we started this idea of having a committee of concern and practice, we also went to see the different national society and to ask them through a questionnaire, quite a complex questionnaire, what extent today in protection, what is the baseline today? This questionnaire was jointly sent by the Federation and the ICRC to all national societies. What is interesting is that we got 84 national society we replied, which is quite a high number. There is like for many of you, I guess, tons of questionnaire floating around. So having 84 replies, that's not something you could do in 10 minutes as a monkey survey, if you want to ask me something, you need to consult several, several division within your national society, several people had to kind of join into the answering of those questions. So to have 84 replied, a search is already a first result. It does mean it's much more than what we thought. We did put the bar at 50. We said it would go and have kind of if need be a record and recall and recall until we get 50. And in fact, we got 84. So that was a surprising first result. The high level of responsibility of nationality who feel that indeed, when asked about protection, they have activities and 89% of them say that they do conduct protection activities. When we look at exactly what they considered as protection activities, we see that the vast majority of the population, this is no surprise, is about the tracing activities that are family reunion, that the whole family news network. But we still have very high number for other dimension. We knew there were many, but the numbers are probably a bit higher than what we thought. 70% for child protection, 61% for gender based violence, 50% for health care in danger, so the whole protection of the medical services, detention, almost 50% also, human safety, a third, a third, weapon contamination, forensic activity, a quarter. We were not surprised by those categories. We were surprised by the number. I think the number are higher than what we had in mind when we launched the questionnaire. So this is a first result for us to see that the baseline today is already quite a big number of nationality having developed program in different domains. Some of them that traditionally we would have seen as the main of the ICRC, on the surface it is typically one that the ICRC would traditionally say this is the main, we are in the movement, the one largely doing it. So it was, and it's positive to see that you have quite a high number of nationality who are also today considering that this is something they should get involved in, that they are already developing. And that's why we really want to have now this committee of practice where discussion are taking place around it. We saw for detention where it exists, that it was really needed, that a lot of questions were there that people were confronted to a lot of concrete questions when visiting, and that exchanging with other nationality to confront the same type of dilemma really helped to create common principle, common standard, and answer to concrete cases. So the dynamic is really something we are looking forward. It's not necessarily to have exactly everybody doing the same thing. If this might be the case for tracing, because for tracing you do need to have procedure that are compatible country to country. The aim is to pass cases and case management through country and through continent, hence for case management you need to have a certain unified way of working. This is not the case for other domain. For other domain we can really imagine that on the child protection rate you have a lot of very different types of programming books within the context. So the idea is not to unify that and have only one type of program. It can still be very different, but at least to ensure that once they are, as I mentioned, in correspondence with existing standards, and secondly that they benefit from this collective intelligence within the movement of trying to exchange a little bit on the practices. Well, I think with that it gives you a bit of a sense of the aim and where we are today. So one and a half year of work to be there to be ready to launch everything early next year. And next year it will be the year where it starts, where really we have these kinds of practices starting to take shape. And hopefully by the end of next year I think the conference will be able to showcase a little bit some of the results. Thank you very much Pierre. Over to you Steven, to compliment on your perspective. Thank you so much. Thank you Pierre. Thank you Sir Pierre. Thanks for the invitation. It's a great opportunity to be here and discuss these things and it's been indeed a great journey I think we've gone over together. It was the two organizations really was one of those times where we met at exactly the right point in the right space that we were both really having similar reflections about I think the growing involvement of national societies in protection area, in protection work and then because of that of course IFRC is the main coordinator and organization trying to support national societies in their capacity in whatever their priorities are was getting more involved in the protection work from that side. It's as you were saying Pierre sort of not new for the movement at all protection work but maybe for the IFRC and for some national societies talking about protective action but using the words and the terms and engaging in the protection discourse was a little bit new so the some national societies may be very familiar with that others may be doing a lot of child protection work say or doing working with survivors of sexual gender-based violence but not maybe thinking of it in that in that area and not maybe seeing the links with other types of protection work. So the photo I have here just to sort of start off the IFRC view is from Cox's Bazaar and chose that one just because it's quite maybe emblematic of them the operation at least the recent operation that we where IFRC is the coordinator of national societies who went to Cox's Bazaar to support in that terrible situation were particularly a stronger focus than maybe any other recent operational protection issues there partly because they were so obvious and so huge but at the same time because we were it was I don't want to say a good opportunity but it was the right moment for us to start to put into place a lot of the tools and guidance and processes that we've been developing protection issues which come back now to the sometimes affectionately called the egg diagram that captures the different spheres of the different levels different types of protection work and this works very well for us because of the breadth of action within the movement and particularly within national societies so there's so many different ways that national societies do and choose to and are involved with protecting people from abuse and harm so one sort of simplistic model of protection doesn't really work it doesn't cover it well enough and this works for us it covers it quite well looking at because I think perhaps it may be that the ICRC specific protection role is quite well known and very well established the mandate is clear that the policy has been there for a long time for IFRC it's more recent so to just go through a little bit how how we see the IFRC role in terms of its own work and also supporting national societies how it fits into these different spheres the first is mainstreaming minimum standards for mainstreaming and this actually very influenced by the global protection clusters own guidance on on mainstreaming because of the well accepted role of that guidance and the link with the ISC but very similar I'm sure that you know people within the cluster know very well that that guidance and that within mainstreaming and the focus on issues of dignity access participation and safety not phrased exactly the same way but very much the same ideas right so I think we're inheriting that collective understanding of what that protection mainstream is all about within the humanitarian world and so our own guidance now called minimum standards for protection gender and inclusion which is really about mainstreaming those three aspects is focused on these these themes of dignity access participation safety very much in lying the sphere as well and really trying to just take collective knowledge of the humanitarian world and make it in relevant for recross recross society so tweaking it a little bit and putting it into recross recross language another part of that I mean linked but slightly different particularly around do no harm in that original sense of do no harm where you're really looking at conflict sensitivity right and the ways in which you might further harm not just making sure your programming is good and well designed but also that it's not making things worse we have a particular guidance around that as Pierre was mentioning better programming initiatives calls again taking the standard sort of approach to what was called local capacities for peace right in the 90s and making a guide around that so and as Pierre was saying that's very much like mandatory for or at least a mandatory I think every national society would wish and hope to be at least meeting meeting standards in their operations and not that it's always easy that would be an expectation just a second yeah excuse me there's someone online that is unmuted could you please go back to mute please thanks a lot just just to check and we're just going to try to see who is yep okay thank you about that moving to the specialized protection activities or standalone sometimes called if we get the animation coming here no maybe you can advance we saw that actually in the survey that Pierre was just showing that there's and indeed it was very much an endorsement of what we understood national society's priorities to be in terms of specific protection work so restoring family links was very very high up there sexual gender-based violence prevention and support was very high child protection was very high the other areas that were also mentioned in that that are the main areas where we've been developing guidance and training and tools for national societies as you hopefully see on the screen there around trafficking in human beings legal advice particularly migration but in other contexts as well then access to education and the safety and security volunteers are two aspects which we see as sort of underlying in their specialized action and their very supportive of protection work slightly different of course than directly supporting survivors of violence and abuse but in a preventative mechanism that is very important for a lot of national societies as many people probably know we have 12 million volunteers around the world and to ensure that their understanding and their own safety and security they can care of is really a key element in allowing national societies or enabling national societies to perform that protective action then coming to the influencing aspect indeed it's a common aim of different movement components in I would say quite different ways I mean the access of ICRC is specific well understood and quite unique and of course that influence is used in many useful ways national societies as auxiliaries to the humanitarian action of their governments have another particular role to play this is a federation we try to really take that auxiliary role and support it and also bring that to the regional and global level and bring common issues common protection issues and other issues but bring those to the attention of international forums and so on representing membership so there's these three different ways in which national societies are active in different ways and as Pierre mentioned very much a choice it's not about IFRC or ICRC but for that matter being directive about what should be done but about rather supporting that collective wish and collective interest and we see around child protection around this TBV a lot of collective interest a lot of collective action and indeed a lot of collective really excellent practice that we're now looking to really capitalise on and benefit from in that cumulative practice that's the overview I have a few more minutes so maybe just go into a little bit of kind of go back to the beginning and go into some of the aspects for each of those as I mentioned we call our protection mainstreaming guide which is basically what it is the minimum stands for protection gender and inclusion and this concept of protection gender and inclusion is one of the seven areas of focus of the IFRC in the strategic plan has a very broad reach in many ways when we look at that broad reach of considering protection gender and inclusion issues in emergency response that's when we look at the dignity access participation and safety and there's a particular focus in the emergency response where I mean in that guidance is very practical kind of this is a recommendation by sector of what sexual deluxe temperate should be doing the easy and often quoted example is locks on toilets lighting on the pathways in the camp situation and many other very practical guides and making sure that basically all the different needs are analyzed well the different needs of men women boys and girls people of different ethnic groups people with different abilities and then addressing those accordingly and by doing that ensuring the dignity access participation and safety so we're boosting that in terms of experts meaning people who are protection experts people working with PSS background such as social support background with a child protection background with the background and supporting survivors of violence and bringing that expertise and knowledge to the field but also bringing into the job descriptions into the terms of reference into really the you know the nuts and bolts of each emergency operation making sure that every one who's involved has a basic level of understanding of different needs different requirements and how to address those so that's what our mainstream guide is about looking at one two quickly yep going back to specialized I mean as I mentioned already but just to sort of to worth repeating those main areas where national societies are working when we're supporting them we'd talk to briefly about how then a national society has IFRC engaging in cluster mechanisms right at the country level and Cox's Bazaar certainly was one example where we were very engaged IFRC particularly engaged in those meetings in the in the cluster meetings themselves in the relevant task forces and sub working groups that were established and supporting the Bangladesh request also to be participating in in those meetings in some cases that national society as I was mentioning earlier is maybe very active in terms of doing very good work but not so familiar with some of the mechanisms the international mechanisms maybe not so familiar with the language the working culture of cluster mechanisms so I think there's a facilitation role where helping to translate that good practice at national society level into those kind of international mechanisms that certainly my colleagues working more precisely are coordinated for child protections are coordinated for gender based violence see national societies and IFRC delegates participating more and more frequently in cluster protection related cluster meetings at country level hence indeed the need for this whole process actually to to make sure that when we are engaging that and national societies are choosing to be involved that we're doing our best job to make sure that we're really benefiting from the collective knowledge of the 190 national societies around the world and the movement at large and very much benefiting from the very detailed guidance in the professional standards for protection work which was by CRC so you know making sure all of that knowledge is easily available and usable coming we lastly to what we call in the egg influencing standards norms and law and also through that I think influencing behavior you know at the community level actually and here's maybe one of the particular areas where it's not there on the sides but the the fairly unique role really of or aspect of national societies is that they are completely local national organization right and they are have always been present before well before during and after crisis events are embedded within the community that in the best cases the volunteers are very much community members themselves but with the links to their government as I mentioned earlier and links to the international humanitarian assisting through the international components of the movement so there's ways there that we're they're really able to have that local understanding and have that contextual knowledge that allows for the protection work to be very well informed by that from the bottom up and from the top down as well actually and I think that's particularly important here in terms of the influencing standards norms and laws so there's a one aspect that we talk a lot about and it's also in the global protection classes mainstreaming guide we're talking about environment building or the enabling environment of different ways to talk about well every possible action and every possible element that you could think of really that is supportive of a protected environment right so both the legal aspects but also the cultural aspects and it's very cool here that yeah as I say I mean a particular role for national societies to play I think because of this special sort of unique status which which you don't really find elsewhere not to boast but just you know recognizing that there's a potential there so within that the protection work then extends not just into humanitarian action per se right in terms of the crisis moment and in terms of the when the risk of violence is particularly high but it's also really that ability to support an enabling environment before and after such conflicts a war another particularly moments which are prone to violence so that that's also gives a one of the ways in which the understanding or the scope of protection within the movement as a whole is necessarily broad as I say similarly broad if we look at ISE's policy also has that very broad view around an enabling environment that allows specific and precise actually functions as much as possible we have somebody yes thanks for that but that brings me to the end of the things I wanted to share anyway I'll just wait for that to be yes let's just try to resolve that noise in the background thanks thanks thanks a lot Stephen yeah so just to conclude I mean yeah it's um I think we've together given a view of the breadth of the movement work in protective action there's a huge scope there for engagement with external actors of course and that's already happening very much I mean in many ways I think from national studies ISE ISE of course in many ways that we're engaging and that's I think why we were interested and very happy to be here to share some of those thoughts because there's a lot more that we could do together in terms of having common understanding common work and looking forward to questions comments any clarifications yeah great great thanks a lot Stephen and great great to hear that that there's an effort now to the coherence professionalized the work of protection of the national societies and definitely a great opportunity for for for the cluster to to seek more interaction with the national national societies on the ground and the IFRC when when you present so it's a great opportunity for for interaction I'd be really interested to hear your question from the field so if you have question please unmute yourself and state your your name and maybe the country where you're based and maybe just to kick start the discussion if you allow me I'm just going to ask you one one question we've seen a general trend to have increasingly autonomous and strength strength strong role of national societies so with their more explicit role in protection now what are the risks that you you perceive knowing also the close relationship that we have between national societies and the government and what are the mitigation measures that you are taking just to ensure that minimum standards are always respected even when the government is part to the party to the conflict and sometimes also exerting coercion against its own population I must say that there what we see today use me colleagues on the in the field hello hello could you please put yourself on mute thank you very much okay okay no no no problem thank you just press the little mic hello colleague colleagues in the field is someone who is not muted thank you much better thanks thanks so basically today you have a variety of national society and a variety of different realities for the large large majority I honestly don't think that today there is an issue with the fact that indeed they have this whole of auxiliary to the austerity but it's a role where usually nationality find a space to have a dialogue with the austerity and that's why the importance of the third circle is there is that what we see today is that nationality are also and it's more an opportunity than a risk in most cases it's an opportunity because they do have this capacity to actually bring their views and try to influence policy and also influence the own government on some of the issues that they are concerned with living today what we mostly see is national society who try to find this equilibrium between being an auxiliary to the austerity on responding to some crisis and bringing up a voice towards austerity and advocacy to have changes in the frame when they see that this is necessary and it's of course an equilibrium but we see mostly today national society who are taking that seriously and I think they're the fact to exchange around it to try to see what has worked or not to have this committee of practice to bring those example forward we only have you may have cases rates more difficult and some are still choosing not to work on some areas and that's why also it has this motion of choice is not that we expect every national society to work on everything possibly in some cases it's perfectly understandable that they won't they won't work on some thematics so this is today the variety of the realities in the field to which nationality are confronted and the option they take is there is to be recognized it's not about having a one way of working and expecting the same thing from everyone what it is about is we to make sure that when people take the option to enter into a protection dialogue they do so in a way that is really compatible to the standards that when this decision is being made it's okay there we think we can influence our authorities or other stakeholders we think we can put program in place and we have the capacity and they have an incredible capacity very often that then it is done in a way which is professional it is done in a way which does take into account extremes of others so we will we still end up at the end of the day even if in 10 years we are successful with having been able to to brought that up in terms of more exchanges more personalization a better understanding and appliance of the standards you'll still have a patchwork of nationality doing different things and this I think is something we not only are conscious of but it's even probably that better like that that people do well what they think they can do rather than having the feeling that they need to do everything and in the end not doing it well for a variety of reasons yeah I mean it is sort of probably I mean I know the global protection plus the conference last year that that related issue was was one of the thorniest ones right one of the most difficult ones to I mean not in terms of national societies but what to do when the government is complicit or suspected to say to be complicit I think I would also say I mean there's the risk is quite rarely limited for national societies that there is a risk it's more when they're maybe not as active as they could be rather than being active in a in an unhelpful way also I mean there there are this is a variety of national societies a variety of ways in which that relationship with the government is is balanced and we have guidance on how to make that relationship a balanced one in indeed I think maybe what we're trying to really develop there with this community of practice and related mechanisms is where there's a national society who sees protection risks that they would like to really be involved in minimizing but don't yet have a lot of experience in doing that then they can call on their sister national societies and the components of the movement for further guidance on how to do that and indeed that some of that guidance might be that there's a better placed organization within the the country to to work on say child protection right quite a lot of the guidance are in the minimum standards that are protection gender inclusion around referral and we have a I mean a big part of our work is as you have these you know community volunteers on the ground seeing issues seeing protection issues from Stockholm to Cox's Bazaar to Kinshasa having a huge range of possibilities to actually deal with that issue directly but I think all of them you know the minimum will be able to recognize the signs of actual violence or risk of violence or risk of abuse and then know what to do about it know who they could go to know who they could refer the case to so and then those national societies who then to really build up that capacity and hire a specialist and hire psychologists job protection experts you know can then start to in those cases really adjust the cases directly and that's the choice that they make so I think the biggest risk is is more us not capitalizing on and collecting and using the benefit of that movement experience and that's that's the purpose of the project in a way maybe if I may just add one thing in some context in conflict situation there is still clearly a role that is very specific for the ICOC so this endeavor to try to to bring the movement more in phase with protection today is not about trying to suggest that in conflict areas the ICOC will kind of go out of its of its role so if you take detention we clearly see that national society today are engaging a lot when it relates to migration migration detention but security detain me in conflict is still clearly the ICOC and there I would I would suggest that this makes sense because they are precisely not only do we have the experience internationally of having worked on this type of detention since decades but also yes the relation is the government is different discuss those type of of situation so I think there very clearly there is also actually understanding within the movement in some cases that some protection domains in conflict will still be clearly linked to the ICOC while others will be linked to national society what maybe has changed is that even if it was not the fact or always the case but there was a bit in the rhetoric a sense that when it was conflict protection was necessarily the ICOC at one stage that bit in the rhetoric whereas national society were more potentially developing protection work out of conflict area I think to date with the recognition that even in conflict you may have some activities that national society can do in terms of protection that make a lot of sense what they can really bring a difference and where this is not about a competition between the members of the movement whereas there are some activities that want more detention to safety training which will remain the work of the ICOC because of its unique statutes and because of the agreement it can pass and the protection it can give to its own staff when working on those type of issues so that there is I would say there to also clarify a bit its notion and we'll have to go to give it more certainty to what is it that we expect or not from the ICOC and national society in conflict environment Thanks a lot some conscious of time we have around 12 minutes 10 minutes left I'd be very interested to have comments and questions from the field so please go ahead and introduce yourself when you ask the question Hello Hello Hello, good evening I am Zahra Haqsam Pakistan I have a question Thanks a lot it's really fruitful session it's really informative I have one question around minimum standard has IFRC its own minimum standard on gender protection inclusion are has adapt from intelligence standard committee minimum standard another question is can you further elaborate about inclusion minimum standard what my understanding about inclusion mainstreaming to include the excluded group like as minorities persons with special need are persons with disability are transgender minorities thank you thank you do you mind just rephrasing and please keep your question short because the line is not very good do you mind just rephrasing the first one we didn't get that thank you my first question is has IFRC its own minimum standard on protection inclusion and gender are has their adopted from intelligence standard committee minimum standards yeah okay yeah I mean the short answer is yes we do we in fact the the second edition of that guide so minimum standards on protection gender inclusion was arrived in our offices today so it's exciting day and it is very much in line as I was mentioning with the global protection cluster's mainstreaming guide and I would say very much sort of inspired by a sphere and also the internally-deplaced persons I can't remember the exact title now but the guidance on protection for IDPs so it's it's not it is its own one and the reason for that is because of the particular ways that national societies and IFRC work so it's adapting the same ideas that say the same principles around dignity access participation and safety for a cross-requisite environment and I think your second question was about whether or not it considered issues of inclusion of minorities people with disabilities transgender and so on absolutely very much so it's quite it's a very central aspect of the guide it was actually previously called the minimum standards for gender and diversity in emergency response we changed the title to make it clear and emphasize a bit more the protection aspect but our protection, gender and inclusion way of working is very much based on looking at the needs of those excluded and marginalized people and seeing how to best address their needs knowing that they're very often at the highest risk of protection concerns thanks a lot another question from the field anyone yes we can hear you yeah actually we are in Yemen these days about the world we work in the organization that's keen about protection childhood and for what for refugees from different countries from different cities in Yemen we need to know the latest standards about the norms and law are you referring to norms for the movement or in general yeah in general because we have three activities okay that goes a little bit beyond the scope of the discussion today I think but we can take this offline and maybe send some information to you bilaterally do you have any specific question related to the presentation and the movement itself okay we need to know about the gender can try to I'll be clean the two question very clearly when we discuss within the movement about how do we operationalize this overall definition of protection that the Yask has agreed upon which basically is an agreement between very different types of organization having different types of activity hence today is very generic which is about ensuring that dignity but rights of people are also being respected and refers then to the existing legal framework and here what we clearly reaffirmed is that indeed all the protection activity that we have is not about pretending that we are responsible for protection it is the authorities and in some cases armed groups who have this responsibility so the responsibility lies clearly with the authority and armed groups to protect and respect international norms what we can do is to try to bring measures that either are linked towards the work towards the authority to precisely have them taking more seriously this responsibility pointing to areas where this is not the case supporting sometimes the measure they can take or on the other hand working with communities individuals to try to see what can be done to diminish the exposure to risk to diminish the threats that they are encountering so you have these two these two dimensions from the community or the people at risk perspective diminishing exposure to risk increasing resilience and diminishing vulnerability and you have the perspective from a more state-centric approach around the notion of ensuring respect for the existing legal framework the existing legal framework this of course is not a framework where such we can reinvent it as we see fit this legal framework is the one adopted by states the best we can try to do is from experience in real life try to then influence global discussion we now have very soon from us in a few days the signing of the refugee and migrant agreement compact which are the result of a long lasting process where both the IFC and the ICOC and many others many national and many actors have tried to influence to ensure that protection dimension is being input into those texts so then that's the way we can influence this kind of overall text and successfully so and successfully so in that dimension now the standards are much more linked and that's the one we are really now trying to to put the weight into this initiative are really linked to somehow the whole lessons learned that we have collectively as you may turn human rights organization been developing through our own experience so having had decades of work being in certain dimension protection gender-based violence or being globally on protection from this experience we take we take those standards for us on the do's and don'ts in our work so they're of course not normative and they are not redefining the applicable framework but they are about how we should run our operation to increase the chance of success so I hope that this kind of answer a little bit to your global question it's also linked to what we try to do within the movement which was really this logic of pushing the standards as a basis of work to be used when designing action but also on this last part of the egg that we mentioned and this third circle influencing making sure that component of the movement don't shy away from having a dialogue at national level from with their authority on responsibility responsibility sorry the authority on their obligation and that this hopefully they do it can be done discreetly it can be done half discreetly it can be done publicly so the different nationality in different circumstances may choose different ways but important is that they try to have these dialogues and when there are discussions around new normativity that we bring the wealth of knowledge from the field to influence those those texts and that's exactly what happened I think with the compact it was about bringing the wealth of knowledge of what are concretely the problems that people encounter what are concretely the case that we see the type of protection issues you would like to see in those texts based on the experience of all of those national societies yeah I mean I just add I mean it is a great example that shows how this inner circle of kind of influencing can kind of trickle down right today working with local authorities to really having a very specific discussion about say a referral procedure to the national authorities within one country and then indeed bringing all that up to the global level so I think that's one of the great delights of working within the movement is to be able to see how to aggregate that kind of concerns and to have that kind of movement thanks we are almost close to the end I'd like to invite one more question from the field if someone wants to speak please speak now yes we can hear you someone still has their mic on is there anyone who wants to ask a question from the field thank you so much welcome hello yes there are two things one I want to make a compliment on what Pierre was saying protection is many people don't think that is all about I mean collective efforts we need to recognize the local law then the international law that it should be implemented like all of us and each and every one responsibility it is not like probably how other people think it is probably a mandate for ICRC or a mandate for you know for the UN for a mandate for UNSERA or a mandate for a particular organization if the collective efforts and that's also answer part of the question that I put forward is that how do we mainstream protection Parakele child protection and GBV in the local context to make it practical thanks sir where are you calling from from Juba Juba hello Juba over to you yeah thank you you must have mainstream yes how to kind of maximize the work of local actors and to mainstream protection particularly child protection GBV at the local level right I mean I think from our perspective I kind of mentioned the key ways that we do that I mean it's very much about making sure the analysis is right and then the analysis is informed by issues of gender diversity of all types he and age in particular language ethnicity and so on and doing that in an informed way by people who are used to the right let's say the best way most appropriate way to identify risks and then having done the analysis then look at the best practices to apply right and knowing that protection risks perhaps in particular are very very contextualized very local and so from national society perspective it's maybe that's the advantages that they bring and then bringing which basically is what we've put into our minimum standards guide the collective experience of national societies around the world of how to then act on those risks once you've identified so it's about the contextual analysis and then the appropriate action and I think that's a common message in as the other participant mentioned there's a number of mainstream guides there's a reason for that you know different organizations need their own take but there's a lot of common points and I think it's those two about the context and the appropriate action I might add something I think that there is two dimensions that we try to promote one is to make sure that you have a dialogue with people working on protection in a regular basis so as to have an understanding of what are the trends that are re-existing the one that are evergreen the one that are coming up the one that are disappearing but that you have an updated sense of what are the threats in the area you work and if yourself as an organization you don't have that capacity to have this analysis to have discussion with people who have it so as to be able to make informed decisions the other part is it can not only be about listening what other organizations are seeing, analyzing it's also about of course hearing what people themselves beneficiaries are saying so to make sure that you kind of have these two dimensions one is what people working on protection and working on trends see as trends but the other one is from the committee perspective having their sense of the risks they are on front of too and when you organize whatever activity try to really have a sense of how do they feel about it how do they feel about the way it is being done if by distributing some assistance in a given place you actually inadvertently provoke a risk for them in single link them out as beneficiary in a way that then might face pressure that you have the capacity to have this feedback this understanding so and this is just very often spending time with people to hear about their concern and hear about the risk that they see and be open to to address them my experience personally is really that if you have short time with commission people people know us very well so they know exactly what to say usually to get the maximum out of the program we can have because they know our program they know so if you just have half an hour basically people will and it's normal address you to try to to make sure that you understand their needs from the perspective of what they think you can bring if you spend much more time they start to speak about a lot of other things about things that are not related to what they think you are able to bring and that's where you start to hear about a lot of their concern and that's where suddenly you pick up things that you say oh but this maybe it's not related to my program indeed but the fact that I know it exists maybe I should do my program slightly differently so it's time it's really time with people time with committee listening to them listening to them to speak about things that are not directly linked to what you are doing it looks simplistic the big issue there is time and today I don't know for you but I see for my colleagues time is something we don't have time is something that we we cut short for a lot of reason bad reason good reason security administrative task databases can make a long list of reasons but the time we spend with people on the ground listening to them despite everything we say is not enough and I think there if we have to be serious about really mainstream protection we need to spend time with people to do once more hear all of their concern that sometimes are not related directly to what we do and this takes time for people to tell and you then relate that with what people working on protection from HCR from my social model organization tell you about trends and I think if you have the two then you are in a good position to make informed choice on how to have program that are not bringing any more out thanks a lot very interesting discussion unfortunately we're reaching the end of our webinar just want to conclude on with two key conclusions I mean the great kind of welcoming news that you know national societies who have already been doing a lot of protection what will be more and more increasingly doing so in a more structured way and as you said so very strong and important local actor present throughout the year before after crisis so very very important sound board for us to engage with so I invite and I hope we will have increasingly kind of more more engagement with national national societies on the ground at the same time as it was mentioned earlier really this collective outcome on protection the fact that the realization that we can only all collectively achieve this protection outcome and that is only some total of our various interventions that can contribute to that objective so really continue in working together and it's really good to have you on board with us today and hopefully we'll continue that dialogue and on that note I invite you to join us next month we have another webinar with the ICRC on around the professional stand-down protection so a discussion a presentation on the standards but also a kind of a discussion around how it is used and implemented in the field so we'll send you another invitation for that next month thanks a lot for joining us from the field welcome to all of you and see you next month thank you very much to all of you for coming all the way bye