 So good morning or afternoon and thank you for coming to this first webinar on the rollout of the protection analysis update for the one who don't know me and Francesco Michele and the strategic analysis advocacy officer within the global protection cluster and very much happy to have you today. This is the first webinar of three plan webinar that we wanted to organize as a global protection cluster for the rollout of the protection analysis update new guidance and I will do, given the participation, I will do the presentation in English. But if there is anyone in the French speaker, Spanish speaker, please ask questions in both languages and I will try to address them as much as I can. So as you can see more or less from the agenda, the idea of today is to have sort of two parts. The first part is where we're going to look at the basics introduced for 2023 and a bit the process. And then a second part where I will go through with you on the new format of the protection analysis update chapter by chapter to actually show a bit the ration behind the chapters and then having a bit of reflection. At any point in time, please stop me or ask questions, raise your hands or otherwise we're going to have a time for a couple of Q&A after each of the parts. And I will say that I think I can start directly so I don't take too much time of use but before I start there is any question or answer or initial doubts. Otherwise, again, I will ask a couple of thumbs up if it's okay if I start. So please, I have the tendency sometimes to speak too quick so please stop me if there is anything is unclear. Okay, so don't worry about that. The basics. So in the review process that we've been doing the last three months and some of you has been involved. We've been looking at good practices, best practices of the last one year and a half from all operations. And that helped us out in clarifying or concretizing a bit the core objective of the protection analysis updates are the first elements that we try to look into. And as you can see in the slide, the objectives of the protection analysis are around the general area. The first is to present and illustrate much better protection risks. So call the attention on core protection risk in your operation, but also attached to those to the identification of those risk concrete recommendations. So to propose an integrated approach to address risks that can be informed in the sector but also beyond the sector. The second core objective will be more an advocacy oriented one. So the protection is a date can be those documents where you actually bring in a good balance of both data, but also quality information from partner from SAG from you are from local colleagues that sometimes we don't have space in other documents of analysis. So the protection is updates really should be the space that help you out in actually showcasing the knowledge we have. And of course, even the way we structured a new guidance is to actually support better use for advocacy. So the goal is that is the goal that we had for 2023. It's a simpler process, a bit more structure, all focus on doing better on using it better in operation for your needs. And third, they are all connected, but the protection analysis update can be helpful and helpful and document in order to guide and inform planning, response and priority at the level of the cluster. Delving in directly on the new changes. So compared to before we had a loose format and just one and we decided to introduce two formats. And one that we call the standard protection analysis update, which should be used more for the country wide analysis should become the reference document of your identification of protection risks at country level. And then what we call the brief protection analysis update. This came as a request from many operations because oftentimes you have the need to provide quick updates, a quick analysis, not to have a cumbersome process of analysis, but be able to actually show something. And a very quick, very quickly. And so the brief update is meant to use be used flexibly for quick updates when an onset crisis a sudden situation and so on, but also for thematic focuses. You know, sometimes you might need to actually dig into one risk or one topic or one thematic or even subnational protection analysis update. In terms of the frequency and we decided not to have any more a schedule quarterly protection analysis update process, but to be more strategic. So the level of the protection cluster coordinator and coordinator in collaboration with partners, SAG and AOS and look strategically when would be better to have a protection analysis update. And the only elements that you as you will see in the process we suggest is that you maintain a very close communication with the regional focal point at the level of the global protection cluster. The goal being if we manage to map out and have a more or less an anticipation also the level of the global protection cluster we can have a better support both on advocacy both on reaching out to targets to donors and to other actors. And so it's more a dialogue between you and the regional focal point, which is strategic. And of course the regional focal point is a person that will liaise within the global protection cluster to actually use all the support that we can provide for your needs. And the minimum we introduce instead of a frequency we introduce a minimum of two standard protection analysis update the years and one brief to set a bit of a minimum and a bit of consistency across operations. Of course, I really would be good to have sort of a protection analysis update sort of at the beginning of the year and one at the end. But again, you might have different timeline, different needs, specific situation related to your country, some renewal of some mandate at the level of the security council. I don't know, it really looks strategically one will be better to have the protection analysis update. What is new, you will see many small elements but to go to the core changes. We introduced a page limitation. So we have seen from the 5055 protection analysis update different setups, some of them very long potential work and so on. But we just we thought that when we know also from the consultation that limiting the pages help in being more focused, but also to have it a much more less burden in document to produce that you can use more for operations or focus more on the use rather than in the production of it. The second chord change relates to the risks and the presentation of protection risks. So there is a core limitation of five protection is maximum for protection analysis update. Which means doesn't mean that in your analysis process, you do not you should just identify five in your collective process with partner, you are saying and so on and so forth. And it's good to have an analysis of all core protection risks. But the goal and you will see across the presentation is that the protection analysis update is really focused on updating. So updating what is priority, what is relevant to show for the period covered by the protection analysis update. So you might have protection is that we know that are in the country, but in the last four or five months what is what on what we want to call the attention. In order to guide you through and to streamline a bit that process specifically with the colleagues of the you are the partner and son. For the last three months, we've been working closely with the global in yours and we develop 15 core standard protection risk definitions. So now they are agreed between us and the global a US and the goal is we should use in the pay us those definition to present a unique narrative. So not any more different areas of analysis, but our analysis is to identify core protection risks. And of course, in your process, it tried to have all the joint process where all the combination of the impacts of the drivers at the level of each area contribute to the risk or are affected by the risk. In that we try to simplify the format. So we introduce some standard sections like the executive summary in the response and recommendation that we will see afterwards. And we introduce some criteria to look at the quality, but also to devise a bit to how to publish a pay you so a bit of consistency. And the as we will see afterwards, we are working very closely with the geographical focal points so they can really guide you. We all can guide you, but the geographical point specific and really guide you in shaping the protection analysis update. The good aspect is that there is not going to be any vetting, meaning that it's not that if a document arrived to the global protection cluster, we decide to either use it or not. Any document of analysis producing cluster will be used and will be disseminated. What we try to clarify is we wanted to maintain some consistency on what is a protection analysis update compared to many other analysis that you actually do very well. So also to take out that elements that protection analysis, they should be just the overall encompassing product. Okay, so we will see afterwards some of those criteria, but the goal is that between us and the point and you, we decide that each time what is important to maintain as a protection analysis update or be used as something else. So here the guidance, the guidance. So you have to the two new formats. So both the standard and the brief. What we try to do is not just to give you a structure but to actually develop a full entire analysis. So you will see that the two formats are actually sample. So you can have a reference on more or less how it should look like, not just the chapters, but all the full analysis. And also they are involved so you can modify, adapt them according to your needs and the processes. Related to the definition of protection risks, you will find what is called the protection risk explanatory nodes, which contains both the definitions. And in the definition, you will see that we try to be very operational, so not be legalistic, not be technical, so they can be used with partner and colleagues. And they are divided in three parts. What action or actual events constitute the presence of the risk and what will be useful for us as a protection cluster and protection cluster partner to monitor and also with some hint on information and data that can be helpful. And why the definition provide the standard and the core. Then what we try to do is to develop hands on two pages. Very simple that basically take the same chapter that you have in the sample format of the protection risk analysis, and it actually links the different section of the narrative with the protection analytical framework categories. Because we have found that oftentimes our colleagues from the IM side, they understand very well a framework, but sometimes the framework is difficult to be communicated to other partners or colleagues that are not IM specific. So the idea is that the document can help you out in explaining maybe partner colleagues and maybe other sectors and what do we mean with threats, with the effects of the threats and so on in an analysis document. And, and of course, as to last, we develop what we call an annotated template. So it's a document that basically take the sample and it provides a bit of guidance on how to use it up the map. And some guidance on the content based on the protection analytical framework and also provides suggestions and sources of data information presentation and some other elements that can be. The package is a whole package. So the idea is that you just don't have a format, but you are also some guidance on how to go about protection risks that can be helpful for joint analysis. And also on understanding how to use the format so you can really use it flexibly. So even if we try to structure it a bit to try to be very, very to give you some guidance so you can adapt it to your needs. So this is the course. So resuming the changes are to new formats and the decision should be strategic on when to publish them and very much focus on protection of risk with the guidance that we try to develop together with the AOS. I wanted now to present you a bit of process, but before going into the process, maybe I pose a bit and over to you if there is any question doubts or reflection so far. I would like us instead of moving very quickly really to be sure that at least the minimum I am being able to express it properly. So over to you is there any question doubts so far. Thank you Kimberly. There is no reaction. Sometimes up if you want me to continue and then I could continue. Thank you. Thank you. So on the process, which really trying to make an effort also I mean building on operations work of the last year and a half. Not just to work on the four on the formats and the guidance but also to look at the process to make it a bit less cumbersome and much more effective. The first elements is that the decision on the scope, the timeline, the objectives of a protection analysis update is defined within the cluster. So we really advise to involve your coordinators that now they are also briefed about all this guidance, the fact that we're focusing on risks and so on. So it should be a bit easier compared to some other example that we had in the past. And but is up at a level of protection plastic coordination with the partners that you actually can identify. So we really suggest that you try and maybe this month or maybe this quarter to map out ideas of protection on this update you might have during the year. So try to map out when will be ideally for you to publish if will be a standard brief and have a bit of conversation in that regards. And what we suggest that you engage strongly the the geographic focal point from the HPC. So because we are constantly in touch with them on those strategic aspects of global level. So in this first period between March and April, if you can map out together the PA that you foresee that might be published in your country, then we can really plan together not just the support but also strategically use them better. The supervision the meeting about the development process stay in the cluster we on the GPC side on the global protection class aside. We are just there for support. So you just call us in when you need and all yours needed on the supervision is on your head. But the one thing that we introduce is that compared to maybe the last year and a half that you might have had different colleagues and people that could support you but different voices. The geographical focal point are always your entry point to actually understand better the quality the publishing criteria and other aspects about the protection analysis update. And so you can reach out to them and then we are working very closely with them in order to understand if there is a support for instance from us out of the advocacy side or from the colleague of the AM side. So, I mean, prospering is on the pragmatic approach that will be ideal in the next couple of months to do a mapping discuss what with the regional focal points are not just what do you foresee that you would like to do but also where you will need support. And as the other cost that that we introduce is that in order to maintain some consistency in terms of protection is updated on the advocacy side so the team composed by Marie and me and that is not that you might know. And we are going to look at core criteria as the now I will show you in order to identify whether we we can go about on for a document as a PA use or as a protection as update or something else. At this stage, or even before during the process, of course, we discuss very closely with you in the country, the best dissemination strategy. So we could have a private approach that happened already with some country where we don't want to publish it on the website publicly and so on but we were just a private sharing with key actors or the generally the donors, or we can decide that we publish part. So what is important is that before publishing we look together at what is the best dissemination strategy. If there is none, nothing particularly the standard that we do is that we publish it in the website and the website is already connected with the relief web and other platform. So that's maybe the need the other change, which all the publication of the pay you go through the GBC website. So it will be ideal that once you have planned it, you share it with us with the geographical focal points and us, and then we normally show that we publish it within the day. I mean, we have a team and one of our colleagues that's very efficient and we normally publish them very quickly. All these steps are in the SOPs that I shared so you can also have a look and share it with the colleagues. And what you're going to see is this visual. So it's more a visual approach so you can clarify well the very simple steps and use and use involve at each time. So you can see the first part basically with the somebody what we just discussed. So at the level of the class that you decide the scope the the time and the objective you have in maintain a conversation with the geographical focal point in the global protection cluster. And then at the level of the global protection cluster we are in constant communication with the geographical focal point for any support. So in the second part what he provide visually is this this these elements that I was explaining that in the moment we're going to look at the criteria. We are going to discuss the geographical focal point, whether the document goes as a protectionist update or not. And also and then either opens a dialogue between us because we might see an interest of having a protectionist update because we actually attach specific advocacy action or a subfinance. So in all cases before republication they all dissemination strategies discussed together. You will see these in the SOPs and also there is a detailed plan with the description in case you have to need to use it with the sub with the partners in your countries. To finalize on the process side. I wanted to show you the four core criteria we use for publishing that there are others that are more qualitative. But when it comes to publish it as a PA you the first is about the process. What we learned from the last year and a half and probably you know more because you are in operations is that when we managed to do a very good consultative process for the protection analysis update that is a better by and there is a better use. And they are much more impactful. So one of the things that we actually ask is that this year we try to be more consultative in the process. There's a reason that we simplified the even the document. And of course there is not going to be any vetting so nobody's going to come and ask exactly will you involve the soil but it's up to the cluster coordination. I mean, between cluster coordinator coordinators and the cell to actually try to make sure that the core actors are involved in the process of analysis. The second element is about the limitation of the five risks so documents that have more than five, six, seven, ten, eight, we can just produce them as something else. But so we ensure that when I don't know when the monitoring coordinator they receive a protection analysis update, they always know what to expect. They will know that the maximum five risk that are the priority for the period. So it makes the document much stronger in that sense or at least what we've been thinking in there and the consultation we've been doing the last three months. Of course there is an analysis of the format so there is a lot you will see there is a lot of flexibility possible but we are going to look about at least a bit of consistency. And then one core chapter that we introduced that we would like to that is maintained across the protection analysis update is the acceptance summary. You know from experience that oftentimes the first on the first page is what is looked at the most by external actors, but also we by doing a good executive summary. You don't need some time just to present all the pay you can just use the acceptance summary as the first element that you can use in briefings and then of course share the protection analysis update afterwards. So we actually simplified the process and give you the possibility of having an additional products to be used. We will actually delve into the elements afterwards. But the goal of the acceptance summary is that there are the core updates for the period in terms of what happened in the context, the list of the five risk identified and two top line recommendations. They can be either built on the recommendation below that you're going to present at the final part of the protection analysis update or they can be two big asks or two core messages that can be also be advocacy message your course to action. Those are the criteria in the experience because we've been testing many of this with some operation we'll see that if you maintain a dialogue the criteria are going to come easy so there is never there's never been so far a moment in which we come there is a lot of change. But we thought that structuring a bit better. So the core aspects of the process are strong connection with the geographical point in the level of the global protection cluster. Compared to the past we really asked to try to map out the protection analysis update now for the year, because that will really help us out in doing anticipation. And actually foresee strategic use of the protection analysis update. So if we know that there is the global level renewal and the security council in July of some mandate or and we know that you have a plan to be a user that we know that for certain briefing or for certain mission that may be sometimes a Sunday. Global protection cluster coordinator as we know that we can provide the documents to him and attach it to different actions that the global protection cluster is doing. as we know that we can provide the documents to him and attach it to different actions that the global protection cluster is doing. And so the process is that I will actually pause now. I would like to hear from you if any of these make sense if you see any already something that is going to be challenging or if actually some of these already answered to some of the challenges you have and before moving to the second part because the second part we're going to go and look in the details of the documents. So I would like to pause a bit. So over to you if there's any question, any doubt? It's almost clear and I wanted to express that for our experience in Venezuela we have used the template already to produce. It was super smooth experience. It was clear. It helped us organize better and it went all well actually. So we had the first-hand experience with the new format and it went really well. Ah, good. Okay, it's good to know. Yeah. And did it help in actually bringing together colleagues from AORs or other partners in actually when you went to privatizing? Yeah, of course. We actually had a consultation with our partners, other organizations from the civil society and also the coordinators of the areas of responsibility specifically to consolidate some recommendations and identify the main protection risks across the country. Good. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any other inputs? Qualifications? I don't know Natasha and Grilla probably you know them are two of our regional focal points. I don't want to call you in but if you have any comments on the process on way forwards? No, I mean the only first of all congrats on all this work. I think it's really it's really excellent and I'm myself a field person so this for those who don't know me and I would have been very happy to have this kind of document to work with. It gives a structure and I think it helps to think. It helps to be systematic in thinking and in analyzing and in the conclusion. I think that any future adaptations or ideas or anything will then come with using it. It's always difficult to see it in a theoretical situation but no I think it's it's absolutely excellent with all of the guidelines and all of the you know additional aid that you developed so yeah put us to you. Yeah there is one element that we've been trying to really reflect a lot which is we think because I'm an operational person in my life it's good to have something structure but that gives flexibility to adapt it to different situations. But it's really a very difficult balance to find and what we are having the guidance now it tried to look at that balance but we will learn by using it. So there's a reason that one of the idea of the webinars that we had beside the one of next week that will focus on protection risk analysis is to have one by the end of April. So we really encourage you to look at the guidance, try to use it, try to engage partner maybe on the reflection of the PAU. So then at the end of April we can really have a good webinar of reflection and then we can think about how they use it. So no thank you. If there is no other comments if you're still there because it's sometimes it's morning for some of you and sometimes it's after lunch I can move to the next section. Is that okay? Thumbs up? Fantastic. So now bear with me because I'm going to go chapter by chapter and my idea was to present you the rationale of why we structure in a certain way. So happy to hear if you don't agree with the rationale, if it sparkles some ideas or have any reflection and if I need to clarify some doubts. So we already discussed about the executive summary. So the executive summary looks as you see the maximum one page and this is really our strong advice. One page and two line doesn't work because we cannot use it properly and so on. So really to keep it in one page because also that helps in really reflecting together on what is core to present for the period, what is the core aspects and that's actually make our messages stronger. So the first part is to provide some context updates but there are two paragraphs, very concrete, not general context update that everybody else can read in and in other documents but really focus on what we think it's fundamental to show and that can illustrate why we identify certain protection risks. Here you can see the example from the sample itself. So it can be something general as the first paragraph where we are saying that in these fake countries that we develop in this scenario that we develop there has been a combination between droughts, climate shock and forced addiction and this is having accommodative effects in coping capacity and actually there were already existing protection risks but these are increasing. Another way is actually if you don't it's good actually we suggest that we saw it in certain operation and I think it's a good and we had a good feedback is that instead of focusing on account in a country but wide update focus on areas. So there might be things that are not to everyone but that we can provide as a protection cluster an attention to certain areas. So as you can see in the example on the second paragraph since January 2022 risks and conflicts in this other region matched with flooding in this other region. Together they are creating this situation. That is if it's not addressed by a specific period it's going to be worse so it's also a way to send a message not to present just an update. Then of course the list of protection risks. No need to explain much because there is going to be a full chapter so people is actually invited to look at the chapter and then as we were discussing before core origin action needed. We actually decided to use the word action not recommendation we have a section of recommendation but here is to really flag what are the two three core messages that we want to send either to the humanitarian coordinator, the humanitarian country team or to different actors and not necessarily as to be framed as one of the recommendation can be also I mean a advocacy message or something strong. Then there are some elements that we suggest to make it stronger but I will present it later. Here an example I mean again in the scenario we developed for the protection analysis update in a scenario you will see that there has been the government issue a law to ban certain organizations to work. So here the first go to action is actually to ask for the reverse to reverse the decision and to ensure specifically passage to a certain area. So this is one example but you can go by more or more detail. Then one of the elements that this depends a lot on what you have available is to introduce this severity map so what the work you've been doing with the HNOs. Our suggestion is to maintain the focus of the protection analysis update on the update. So we have seen sometimes protection analysis update published in November with the severity map of December of the previous year. So in 11 months you know that many things can happen so it doesn't support strongly the analysis. So what we suggest that either you update the map so if you have a protection analysis update published in July you try to re-update it and present a new map or if you present the oldest one try to qualify how the situation changed a bit. And below there is a table also to show variation possibly in people in need that you could also use. If you're not able from an IM perspective so from the calculation side to calculate the severity because we know that in many operations sometimes you don't have the capacity we introduce at the end of the executive summary a table that you could develop even just by having a joint analysis exercise with partners again in the U.R. where we try to show whether there are specific regions or provinces depending on the administrative name that you use in your country. There has been an increase or a reduction or on the severity or where it's been stable. So it's good it's a way to keep the attention so compared to what we presented back in December January or in HNO please be aware that the situation in these areas we are seeing that actually is actually getting worse or it's improving but there are still these situations. So as you can see the goal even from the executive summary itself is to maintain a constant focus on the update because they can catch the attention and then you can use it as an entry door to present other analysis other elements or other messages that you would like to share with both the mental coordinator, the country team, the other cluster or the donors themselves. I stopped there on the executive summary before moving to the context if there is any question or doubts or something you don't agree that you should be different. Thank you Kimberly. Sorry so I move on. I'm actually I want to be overwhelming you with information. Ah please Douglas come in. Hi I just had a question so it's only a recommendation or a suggestion that we use the severity map. Ah I thought you were asked. I see that it says include if relevant but I'm just wondering per the new format if we're required or if we'll have that discussion with our GPC focal points and so on and so forth over. Yeah yeah so the recommendation is to include it after discussing the geographic focal point so try to take a decision at least now that we're rolling it out take a decision at HPAU meaning that what we would like to do is to start having an updated severity map so by the time in November and December you are to the HNO really during the year maybe already updated so the PAU can also serve every last work in November and December but we know that for some operation they might don't have the same IM capacity than other so we are not being that prescriptive to say do it. Okay so there is a strong recommendation to include an updated severity map. I don't know if I answered Douglas. Let me move on. Please stop me at any time. The context so the context is quite loose so it's quite flexible the only thing is that we I think that is important change is the limited to three pages don't go beyond the three pages that the device. We have seen many documents that are very interesting context analysis of 10-15 pages but honestly those are very very difficult to share and to actually be impactful and so considering that we we suggest the protectionist update to really focus on an update you use the context to provide core trends core elements of the latest period. Okay so for the one of you that has been using more the protection analytical framework so I have a better analysis using the context side of the protection interval that gives a lot of information try to use that otherwise this can really be based on the even the expert judgment and the different exercises that you already have so there is nothing to be reinventing. The only core elements to introduce is a table at the very beginning of the context session where to include five core figures okay there can be the five core figures that you strategically decide that it's important to present so it's they're not we're not prescriptive and we don't think that we should be prescriptive so because sometimes you want you might might might be important to present protection sector data or sometimes maybe some data of other sectors so here in the in the sample as you can see we included the IDP due to droughts or the IDP due to conflict and so there might be an interest it might be important to know because the old movement situation is compounded in the protection risks that what can be one of the example. Then of course in the first protection analysis update you are not going to have an idea of variations because it's the first but then we suggest that by the time you start producing them you show the variation of the key figures that you have been using if you don't change them compared to the previous protection analysis update so we are going to have a protection analysis update now in March and one in October in the one in October showing what is the person the what has been the variation compared to the one in March in terms of not in total number but in term of percentage but also the variation compared to the same period of the year before so if representing here in March showing what is the variation compared to March 2022 this with we have seen that this is quite impactful it actually invites many of the our targets to actually read the content because one thing is to read for instance that there has been 1429 GBV incidents another one is to to to see that there has been a 20% variation compared to the last period and and there has been 50% variation compared to last year that's actually much more impactful. Then the other even I am saying for the context that is no standard structure we have seen from actually your work have last year that sometimes include these subheadings that already tells something it's brilliant so when you structure the context if you see that there is something that you really want to to show try to introduce some subheadings so here again you can see an example from the sample a steady erosion of livelihood and coping capacity so in this period what we want to show that for the context everybody may know the general things about the context but from our protection perspective what is impacting protection risks is the fact that the population or in general is actually it doesn't have much less livelihood capacity and and and coping capacity or warring impacts of poor governance and the disruption of community fabrics maybe everyone in the context know that there is inter-communal tension and inter-communal fighting but for us what is important to show that one of the effects is that the community fabric is actually being destroyed and this is having an impact of the protection risk we are presenting in the analysis so this is just a suggestion that is no need of using this title but if you want we I mean if it's one recommendation we have sometimes when you do the analysis it's something that is actually coming out strongly just put it as a title and then you can also organize the analysis better in the context and lastly there are no standard requests to introduce specific IEM elements and we have just a couple of suggestions of course you can use the people in need all the all the work you've been doing with the people in need but if it's an update we suggest that again you focus on variations you focus on maybe even if you show the number of the last pink calculation you did months before try to put something out of it that explain that might be a change or so don't just present the data itself and the second recommendation is it's good to use protection monitoring multi sector assessment of other survey and monitoring you have it's based on questionnaire but sometimes what we don't advise is to use graphs that just show the answer to one question so those graph that says percentage of male female and children are answering this this and this like we have sometimes in the protection monitoring but which you try to combine at least multiple questions or to show some trends so because then you all always can refer to a protection monitoring report or to some other analysis document you do where you actually show a record but here try not to use single data point analysis but more trends of correlation remember that what we want to show is that probably people knows about the problem try to adjust use the data very smartly so to show something else something that it's actually strongly suggesting the priority protection risk and why those are priority on our side again another pause on my end on the context there is any question thank you Kimberley so let's move to protection risks the protection risk section first of all as the context yeah of course Douglas I will share the presentation as well and the protection risk section as per the context that has an prescript structure in terms of what to present so you are very flexible to present it according to the data information you have according to what is better to present in the country on the protection risk section the only things that we introduced is of course the limitation to file protection risks and but also the fact that we would really invite you to use the 15th standard protection risk category so that means that the way you present it will always be organized according to those categories that doesn't mean that you have to use the exact same terminology we will have a session next week where we're going to explore that and I will also provide you some inputs here we don't ask to actually use the same wording but you can also discuss at the level of your operation how to adapt the wording but would be important that between you and the global protection class that we know that what you identify in a protection analysis update pertain to one of the categories we have because we're also building a global system to track and also to reduce to reduce the burden of work on your side for the global protection update and for other aspect so we are trying to systematize all the information together and also the other goal is is we really made an effort to work with the global you are to have a unique voice so if we start using these categories are now agreed with the global a us so you can discuss with your colleagues of your in country to actually present jointly the analysis as it is contributing to a core protection risks these make us stronger as a sector rather than present different voices so there's a reason that the second element you see in the power point is make sure that you engage partner and you are not just for section that they are let's call let's call it their section I mean we'll see a lot of practice last year where the protection is updated might have been divided by I don't try to protection issues or GBV and HLP and we were asking those colleagues just to contribute to that part the goal is slowly to really do a joint analysis so we might identify specific protection risk in the country and it will be good to see the contribution of all areas that we have in protection to that protection risk specifically as said the headaches is the only element that is core and it has to be based on the core definitions the 15 core definitions and we have some hints you're going to find it in the guidance and in order to maintain the language of protection risks what does that mean protection risk are you know very well a form of violence coercion and deliberate deprivation so in order to be as practice expressed as such they have to maintain certain minimum language and so the hints are as you can see avoid general formulations so all forms of violence we really don't suggest you to use it first of all because we cannot touch into none of our category or too many categories but also it's not giving a clear prioritization of what we mean okay maybe everybody knows that there is all forms of violence but we can call the attention of some area specifically the same goes for housing land the property is really an encompassing category so what it is about this house land and property that is actually priority as a risk in the latest period is impediments to legal identity or to access to legal identity or access to justice or it's for sediction so you can really use the risks to be much more concrete the second aspect is whatever wording you're going to use and try to always include and elements that qualify a man-made action so force denial impediments this is to ensure the language that we are showing a form of violence coercion and deliberate deprivation and some of them are much more clearly like attack or cruel cruel actions or something like this are already showing something that is related to man-made responsibility the first suggestion is in many countries where there are complex crises specific one of the comes to mind is food security for security or malnutrition of farming those are strong crises that actually influence the overall humanitarian sector in those cases we don't suggest that as one of the protection risks use exactly for instance food security or malnutrition but you qualify what is the protection side of the problem of malnutrition so it might be that we identify core protection risk that are a driver or maybe more protection risks that are actually being exacerbated because of malnutrition so you use that so you use the protection risk language and of course in the narrative you can link it with the situation in the country this is also a way to help you in having a better role a better narrative in intercluster discussions when the intercluster discussion maybe goes beyond protection or is much more focused to another area of needs and the last which is simple and is related with the first avoid general general wording like violent like conflict or like occupation all those elements that might be in the context but on the protection risk let's try to be specific so as you can see we're going to have a specific section next week but the idea is that in the protectionist section you use the core category we try to work on the categories for tourism one to agree on unique categories with the ar because I think it might be helpful for your day-to-day work and the other try to have a consistent language across all clusters because that will really give us a unique voice instead of way of presenting differently the problems we see at different countries any question on the protectionist section before I move to response is all clear so far please Gash I hope I didn't pronounce it no thank you Francisco my question is not on the protection risk analysis but the previous topic sorry I'll take you back on on the key figures yeah on the key figures uh for our context we are going to you know we are from Syria so we have like three hubs in Syria we agreed that we are going to have three context analysis for each three hubs and for north is Syria where I am based we don't we this is the first time we are going to develop the context analysis the risk analysis so here like the the key figures we don't have that comparative previous data so what do you advise on that take out the line so I mean we know that so for the first one just present the key figures we are actually if you look at three days ago we published the protectionist update in Afghanistan and as you will see they use the table but we took out the the comparative percentage because it's so normal sometimes it's new data so when it's new data let's not include the comparison and the comparison you can include it when you have it any other doubt before we move on to response I want to wait a bit because the response is where we actually try to do we're not saying many changes but it's we had a clear ration you know so okay let me delve into that so on the response section and a bit between the consultation we had with many of you and a bit of lessons learned we are from this last year and a half is we really presented very well the account of what do we do in the country normally in the PAU so we had the dashboards made all of you have good dashboards on funding on response on four five W's you have all that even products and even good dashboards so what we we tended to do is to use that dashboard and include them in the protectionist update what we've been realizing is that we could really use the protectionist update to reinforce that other elements so you can maintain your dashboard and your presentation of the general program in general funding and use the protectionist update actually to showcase important thing that humanitarian coordinated monetary country team or whoever is going to read whoever is your target as to understand to actually qualify that other elements that you can present through four five W's funding and so so the first element is to show the progress made so we normally that's another that we also it's that common from some donors we normally start from the negative we love this we have a problem here the son so our the data that we had is that in the protectionist update let's start showing what progress we made so we managed to reach these many people we managed to do that and of course then you will see then we will present the critical gaps and so on but let's start from something that it's extremely important to show as a product so in all the difficulty in all these analysis we manage as a cluster and cluster partner to do this one example as you can see here is again from the sample the first is about the the reach the population reach which is always a good number to give because normally we have the people we need but it's always to give an account of how many people we have been reaching and but here specifically I'm not going to go and read but what we are saying here is that in December 2021 for the first time we managed to have an explosive ordinance intervention in one of the rebel control area extremely important we've been trying for years so it's a message that we're going to send and so really focus on something that is important to qualify also the analysis of risk and to reinforce your recommendation because imagine that here we in this example for instance we managed for the first time to have an explosive ordinance intervention in one region controlled by the rebel the recommendation can be we really ask donors to support the the starting of this time intervention in the other two regions where there are the rebels and maybe we can present example or now we manage in one area to actually try to respond to other areas it's one example but so start from the progress made as a second element so we show the progress let's show what are the constraints so we of course access for protection because as you know we launched a campaign in December and we're going to follow all the year the the campaign on access for protection so by actually having this part in the protection on his update and we can use the protection on his update in other actions of advocacy that we are doing at global level but besides that what is important for us is that from your operation you have a space where you can actually express not the typical ocean data on access but what are the constraints you see from a protection perspective so again showing an example the numbers can be that table of the numbers it's it's not mandatory you can use it it's a suggestion again showing variation but if you don't have the numbers for instance in there in the example that you're going to find what we're saying here is that there has been running the conflict in this and in this and in this region and it's extremely fundamental for us that this has been addressed or we actually are supported in order to reach and so on and so forth so that part of the access for protection to be used to show core concrete challenges that you have that can also enforce the recommendation but also they can be reinforced by the progress made so we managed to do this progress in one area we have this challenge in the other area so we need supporting and to actually do more or less the same process to conclude the response so what are the critical gaps so we make this progress these are the challenges and what are the gaps we see the critical gaps you can present them again funding gaps operational gaps access and what we ask to consider is to not present a general overview so maybe just a graph of the funding gaps but try just to present core aspects that are important for the risks so if the priority protection risk I am going to customize is force marriage for instance and that's one of the areas where we still in a mesh for good programming just focus on that gap so let's focus on something that is extremely important then you can have your dashboard with the 45w with the funding they can actually back up what you put in the protection analysis updates again here is an example but here is exactly the example again in where we are saying that in December in two areas where that are covered that the protection of risk or presence of ordinance is really high the two are the two actors that were intervening they stopped funding so we have a gap and considering that it's a priority list that we identified in this last period is a very very concerning gap and so I suppose so try to use the critical gaps to show something that is at your heart and it's extremely important to show in order to so you can really use it flexibly so as you can see the response section the goal is it should be part of your own joint analysis with partner your saga not just to identify the priority protection risk but to identify the three core aspects we want to show in terms of how the response is going so both the progress the challenges and the gaps I will pause for a moment again if you have any question on this section or doubts thank you Kimberly so let me move to recommendations so then maybe we can have a bit of open space or a question otherwise we can stop earlier the recommendations section here also we're trying to really focus on updates make it simpler and be much more impactful when you present recommendations so the first element is focus the protection is update should not include all the recommendation possible that we have so sometimes of course we have many recommendations from the operational part from the planning part from the advocacy coming from different constituency so from all the aos from all the members of the south from the local national national actors from international actors in the the protection cluster network is so wide so the level of recommendation we have is really really really wide what we suggest in the protection analysis update that we just introduced the core recommendation that are important for the period as you can see I always go back to the period so we know that this this this needs to be addressed in the country and we know that since years but in this latest period this is extremely fundamental so try to use that as a conversation so you might also think help help in uh thank you Andrea this might also help in uh actually having a joint discuss strategic discussion with partners on mid-cost agency so as you can see our goal was to try to to develop the PR protectionize update for you as an instrument to have actually joint strategy discussion with partners the second element is to organize the recommendation by protection risks so for two global reason one is showing a unique voice so as a protection cluster these are the protection risks we identify and these are all the set of recommendation to have an integrated approach and a collective approach to address those risks so we are not presenting the recommendation of course we might have the recommendation of coming from different out of responsibility or from different partners but here instead of showing the multitude of partners we have we show that we all agree in our strategy to address protection risks and that sometimes Donor has been telling us that they would like to see that approach a much more integrated approach so in the PR protection analysis format the idea of organizing the recommendation is all about the five protection risks of course in my recommendation that actually touch on multiple risks so either it's important to present it at least once or you can even repeat it if it's important or as you can see there is a section at the beginning where there is a part that you can introduce something and then you can say if there is a general recommendation that touch on all risks in providing recommendation link to risk try to think whether if something happened or doesn't happen will the protection risk get worse or think about the response we are providing is the response that we are providing actually having an impact or it has to be adjusted to not exacerbate existing risk or to actually mitigate specific risk or there has been a we know the response we have but there has been a strange or a new or a very concerning transit latest period so there are specific recommendations that might be new or that might be used to actually address just the specific situation a sudden eviction for instance that normally doesn't happen but in that period happens and the latest part is about targets any recommendation without targets is not very helpful in actually showing our strong our recommendation and but also when many of you ask how can we be better in engaging humanitarian coordinated humanitarian team donors and so on by trying to reflect on which are the specific target really helps them maybe even developing a road map at cluster level to actually have a follow-up recommendation on our side of the global protection cluster if you manage to organize in targets we can also know when we can use some of your recommendation for maybe the same actor that we are addressing a global level maybe you have some recommendation for a european you know member states and we're going to have a meeting with a european you know member states for some other reason so if we know that your target is simply that we can use it much more efficiently for that reason we will see the guidance that we organize the targets in four groups as you can see here so government authorities the fact that authorities parties have to do a conflict donors and member states a resident coordinator humanitarian coordinator humanitarian community partners and other clusters and then internal protection sector active partners in the u r and you can adapt the wording of course and so instead of government you would like to to to mention a specific ministry or a specific governorate of course it's it's a government as a body to a global body so please you can adapt them the only thing we suggest that you maintain the four categories separated so you don't put for instance donors and protection partners and if that try to divide them these also because as i was telling you at the global level we are trying to develop a a system to organize the information to present it better also for advocacy and we will probably the website the database that show all your work in the protection analysis updates so this is going to help us out in having more consistency so this is the way it's going to be shaped in the protection analysis update but if we look from another angle these are the six recommendation that we have and you will find it in the guidance to actually develop the recommendations always link them to protection risk and try always to our targets and the most precise they are the better it's for you to actually ensure that the partner and under the all the constituency have a monitoring of what's happening on those recommendations try to only write an action so not a general recommendation that says we should address the generalized gender bias violence in the country but let's propose something by doing these these and these or these should be done by as a priority now and so on but try always to suggest an action try always to attach a specific timeline meaning even if it's not specific in terms of a date in the next quarter in the next six months in the next year in the next week so we can be stronger if this recommendation is not enacted or this is not taking up on in the next two months this situation that we qualified is going to get worse and this might happen so let's try to also link the recommendation more to the analysis and that's sometimes you might have recommendations that are general that are known but you can make them more specific by focusing in one region or one province or any admin unit you think it's best so we should address the evictions that are happening specifically in these these and this region because specifically in those regions you know that there is a probably a bigger threats of those happening or maybe there is not a bigger threat but if those evictions happen the situation might get much worse because the population doesn't have epic capacity so they can trigger other situation and then the latest is trying to always balance recommendation for the external the all actors outside the protection sector with recommendation inside the protection sector because that can show really how strategic we are in our analysis we are not just providing recommendation to tell others what to do but we want really to enforce that collective strategy so from our side we have to adjust this and this but we need the don't also the matter coordinator or this other target to do this if these two actions doesn't happen together and we are not able to achieve this impact so this you find in the guidance but it's a bit of a suggestion now to go about the recommendation here an example that you also will find in the in the guidance advocate with the ministry of education so the risk is the denial of access to services is linked to the risk advocate with the ministry of education so the target to allow children who are missing some valid identity and civil documents to enroll in schools and participate in public exam so we are telling exactly the action so not just to allow children to have safe access to school so we're selling telling much more concretely there is an element related to the documentation and the other one is the participation in the exam before september 2022 this maybe in the analysis we would have written that if by september 2022 this doesn't happen then we're going to have data that is going to show that there might be a worsening of the situation so that also can help us out in reflecting better on recommendations and I will say that the step by step on the on the format it's finished on my end so as you can see on all chapters the idea is they all link together these are the core messages they all link together if they really focus on update so this should help you out in actually have a less cumbersome process and maybe just having more regular joint analysis with partner you are inside that that can be easily be reflected in a document the limitation on page is so so that can help you out in guiding the joint collective efforts so not anymore try to put everything in a document but try to be rational on that side and and also to there is an element of flexibility that you can really adapt it to what you see is best and I can post here on my side I just have another couple of slides on what do we do at the level of the cluster but I can even park them and I would like to hear from some reaction if you have some do you see that it's rational again same question there is any challenge that you think you might have or you had please the floor it's open for any question or thoughts. Hi Francesco thank you so much on our end all is clear I guess the only challenge we experienced while developing the protection analysis update this time was realizing that we were identifying almost the same protection of risks and kind of like the same recommendations prevailed like for the same protection risks again so that made me a bit like maybe not frustrated by worried about the fact that sometimes maybe I don't know if you guys are expecting new ideas new recommendations but at the same time it's very difficult already to follow up with let's say the recommendations you make at the beginning of the year you reach the end of the year and feel like well I guess the same one applies so I don't know what are your thoughts on that. Thank you Kimberly my first reaction is that there is no there is no science about it meaning that we don't we don't have specific expectation you know that you have to be creative if the things are always the same and what we suggest is I mean some of the things that are suggested there is you might have the same recommendation but you have a worsening in one area is compared to another area so it's the same recommendation and then you can put the accent on a specific care of the country on some other country or in the new protection analysis update you might have additional information so you can actually tweak the recommendation and actually reinforce so and sometimes the condition is going to be longer then one of the interesting things that we can look together along the year is try to maybe use this if we get better recommendation to have a sort of roadmap to follow up with partners so no expectation there I think that we have to also learn by as we go and but let's also maybe I will maybe I will maintain part of this a part of the last webinar specifically on those area because on the advocacy side we're also thinking about that sorry that I don't have a specific answer. No it's okay thanks a lot I think I was just sharing maybe a worry and I guess it's completely fine sometimes it's just a matter of adapting or kind of like re-estating that the situation kind of stayed the same I think it's as we said it's an update sometimes nothing much changed thanks a lot. One other advice and then Natasha I'll go to you might be but it's again it's strategic it's not a strong advice it really depends on the context maybe on the second protection analysis update you don't want to repeat the same recommendation of the first and you just include three new recommendations so then you just write the message and then in the in the description all the recommendation that we actually has been done in the past are still valid but for specifically for this period there is this focus so there's another way to go about it but yeah and we also learn about this. Natasha? Yes I fully understand the question Kimberley and and for other contexts where this is the case and I think if we look at the two pows per year in a short one so let's say it's an average of four months that go by and sometimes even the NGO landscape can have changed or civil society landscape can have changed and another thing I would say is is also not to just take or target the recommendations the advocacy etc to let's say the the usual suspects be donors be it elements of the government the perpetrators and so on but also to partners I'm thinking here specifically ICRC. ICRC has an escalation mechanism so they make interventions with the respective ministry be it the ministry of interior of the fence of justice and so on if the recommendations are not heated they will they will escalate they will you know it will be a stronger intervention etc or they will just go up the their own hierarchy scale respectively the country scale but yeah but also local local NGOs are to see how could actually how could the population it has anything changed for the population is there anything that they themselves could do so yes that would be my my input but I understand that it's it can be very very frustrated um frustrating um but we need to we need to keep on going that's the only that's the only opportunity we have in a sector over yeah you're right thank you for that yeah these are me in telling you one of the reason why we try to work a lot on the definition of protection risks and I want to tell you that we are now coordinating with OCHR to link the human right engagement body mechanism for each protection risks so and it's something that if we now today we're focusing on how to be consistent in the protection analysis update but one of the goal in the future even in the medium to long term is that we want to support in having clear steps that we do when we have those recommendations so maybe now you don't have the capacity to extend those recommendations be formed beyond the internal mechanisms so we want to be stronger in actually say when Natasha is is saying sharing specific recommendation about very well defined against risks because the fact that they are defined against risks it helps us out in linking with IHL with OCHR so actually to engage other mechanisms that maybe sometimes are not within the humanitarian programming mechanisms and and they have responsibility so actually to trigger specifically attachment responsibility they have on a specific situation that's also one of the goals now so thank you Natasha for that any other reflection on this or anything else that we discussed during the webinar so let me dedicate please come in but let me get the two slides I wanted to just to show you probably already know but I wanted to show you a bit what do we do with the protection analysis update also to to understand why there has been these changes well most of you know that we produce the global protection updates at quarterly level and we're still doing that and we have been changing and we are still changing the global protection update in two with two goals one is simplify your support for the global protection updates so use as much as we can the protection analysis updates so you can just focus on that and then we can build our update on the protection analysis update probably to be able to do that fully we need the only year because we need a bit of regularity but what we already introduced is that we now provide an overview of all protection analysis update on one side but also we start using the your information and protection analysis update for the global tracking of protection risks and now we are in a phase in which we are developing criterias and so on and so forth to show them better so we start showing better the security by country we provide key country highlights we do specific briefing to donors and and we are using we're trying to use much more the protection analysis update information across the whole global protection cluster so in the last four months we developed an entire database we were looking to having it online so also it's accessible so the idea is that in the medium to long term you the colleagues can go online click on a risk and it's gonna be an overview of all your countries all your rights and all your recommendations okay so we can really expand the level so people doesn't have just to read the document but we're gonna have a section that actually show all the cumulative and a specific detail from all protection analysis updates and the more we are consistent with some of the elements of the guidance the stronger we are gonna go we are gonna be with with it and then these are the the usual steps that we do so in the moment that we have it as we say before we publish in the website and it goes directly to relief web and we have a direct mailing to donors and partners if there is specific dissemination strategies or specific target you want us to reach out to you can just pick with the geographic focal point they will come discuss with us on the advocacy side and then we can do targeted exercise these are some of the examples that actually we do starting from protection analysis update so we've been doing briefings we even wrote some private letters to member states so this one from Norway another one to the to the Swiss government building on the protection analysis update of course we have social media with the mailing and then we sometimes we develop statements and positioning these are aspects that we've been doing of course in coordination with with you in the operation but this was fully work of the global protection cluster thanks to the protection analysis update so this is to show you that if we manage to be consistent then we can also escalate the support and we can be triggered for additional support on advocacy and dissemination based on information you're going to put in the protection analysis update and I stopped there on my end I really hope I'm not speaking too quickly because normally I have that habit and I don't know if there is any last question or doubts otherwise just reminding that we're going to have a webinar next week I'm going to send the invitation today and we're going to focus specifically on protection risks we're going to go through the definition how to actually use them in the PAU how to do protection risk analysis this is going to be next Wednesday and then we're going to have a last session around third four week of April to do a refresher and actually listen from you okay how do you see it how challenges that you found and some other elements we can take into consideration Elizabeth please forgive me I was actually going to do a thumbs up and I did a raise instead so it was excellent thank you thank you everyone's no and any question doubts I'm going to put my email in the chat so please don't be afraid to reach out but as we discuss and our colleagues that each one of us point out at your disposal for any question and any follow-up and we are on their backup and support so as of now I mean we are on the time thank you very much and I hope it was really useful we wanted just to provide an overall overview thank you thank you thank you very much have a great rest of the week evening indeed thank you thank you so much thank you