 Good morning and afternoon and thank you for taking your time and being in this second webinar for the protection analysis update rollout. For the one that don't know me, I'm Francesco Michele, I'm the Strategic Analysis and Advocacy Officer in the Global Protection Cluster and I've been in the coordination of the work we've been doing on the protection analysis update and protection of risk sense and so forth. Today's session is going to be again in English. I think that all of you are English speakers, but as usual you can address me in Spanish or French and I will answer it to the best of my ability. We are going to record the session if you don't mind, so we are thinking to make it available in the Global Protection Cluster website so it can be used later for also adequate needs or if you want to share it further. As you can see today is the second webinar. We held the first one last Wednesday where we actually dig deeper into the protection analysis update new guidance so to provide a bit of basis. And today we're going to focus more on the protection risks, protection risk definitions and how to go about showcasing protection risk and identifying them in protection analysis update. So today is the second webinar and we're going to have a third one end of April where the idea is to actually have an open webinar. We are going to hold the third webinar at the end of April. The idea is that that webinar will be a wrap up, feedback, challenges, discussions, so it's going to be more practical and we actually can look together on your actually feedbacks on the guidance and the protection analysis update and so on and so forth. For today we divided the presentation in two parts. In the first one we're going to do a bit of a refresher of the session on last Wednesday for the ones of you that didn't participate and we're going to look at the process of the protection risk definition and a bit of goals, objectives and now what you're going to see in the definitions. Then in the second part we're going to look at practicalities. So we're going to concretely look into the protection analysis update and we plan to share some examples from an operation that already tested a bit of definition in the protection analysis update or in other processes. So you have time and possibility to actually stop me please to ask question or if you need clarification. I have the tendency to speak fast so stop me if I'm unclear. But then at each part we're going to have a Q&A session, we have some space or time to have a Q&A session to actually address whatever feedback you might have or question. We can give it a start but before let me pause a minute if you have any initial question or doubts before we start, otherwise I'll ask you to give me a thumbs up if you want me and I can start. Please Natasha, hang on, where's the thumbs up? Raise hand. Yeah, it's exactly sorry, wrong side. No worries. Thank you. So let's give it a go. Let's start a bit with a refresher of the session of last week then look into the new guidance. So last week, as we presented last week in the package that is now available in the website under the section of the protection analytical framework, you can find two new formats for the protection analysis updates. As we discussed last time, the two new formats are what we call the PAU standard and the PAU brief. Instead of just developing a format, this time we develop a complete sample. So a sort of protection analysis update complete that can inspire you when you're going to use it in the operations. The second element of the guidance is the protection risk explanatory note that includes the definitions and a bit of guidance on how to adapt protection risk in PAUs, together with a two-pager that provides a tutorial on how to draft narrative analysis on protection risk in PAUs. Lastly, we develop also guidance, sort of visual guidance to help you out in using the PAUs formats that guides on the use of the format itself, the content, and it provides some implication on how to go about information management graphs and other elements. Today specifically, we're going to look into the two set of guidance related to protection risks. So the protection risk explanatory note and the tutorial. Last week we delve into the first two and today we delve into the second two. A bit of a brief overview of the core changes for 2023 that we discussed last time. So we have the two formats compared to last year, so not any more one, but two. They are limited in pages and that's one of the criteria for publications. And then when it comes to protection risk, hence this session, the idea that in the protection analysis update, now we focus only on five protection risks that are priority for the period covered by the protection analysis update. And we strongly encourage, as we're going to see today, the use and adaptation of the 15 standards that we develop together with the others of responsibility. The first set of changes in relation to the format itself and the simplifications we introduced. So you're going to find standard sections, executive summary, response or recommendation, but also introduce some publishing criteria to simplify the use, but also to help us out in having a more consistency across operation. So the overall goal is that the PA you are much more effective and have a better impact for your own goals and needs. And the caveat being that as the global protection cluster, we're going to publish any analysis document you're going to share with us. Of course, what we're going to see now is whether we agree together with the cluster coordinator and co-coordinator to publish them as a protection analysis update or else. And your contact point is the regional focal point in the global protection cluster. So the idea is to have an ongoing discussion together and actually to be a bit more strategic in the publication of the protection analysis update. Lastly, one call that we made in the last webinar is try to, if you manage, to sort of have a rough plan of all the protection analysis update that you would like to actually work together with the constituencies in your operation for 2023 and coordinate with your regional focal point to see together a bit dismapping. The idea is that we would like to support you better, but also use more strategically the protection analysis update so that plan can help us out in actually organizing a bit better and also to leverage opportunities as we have a global layer. Today, we focus on the changes related to risks and so the definition and how to prioritize for the PA use. And I know so we're going to very quickly delve into a bit of the criteria specifically related to protection risks and related to this. Let me remind everyone that these are the four core criteria that we're going to use to actually decide together to publish a protection analysis update. The first one being on process. So as we say last time, we're going to chase and we're going to do a check if you did a proper consultation, but we really invited this year to be much more consultative and try to have a better buy-in of also an analysis from the areas of responsibility, the partner and the important constituencies in your operations. The second criteria again is the limitation of risk that we're going to present in the PAU and the other two are related to the minimum format and is ensuring that there is a standard executive summary. Again, looking at today, we're going to focus on, we're going to look at a bit of details on the first two criteria, so a bit about the process and a bit about the risks. So on the guidance itself, what you're going to find. So just a bit of overview after this webinar where you can find the content that we are discussing. So you have two documents, the protection risk explanatory note and the tutorial of protection risks, where you can find the list of the 15 protection risks, a short guidance for PAUs. So a bit on how to adapt the terminology as others in your protectionism date and also how to go about the categorizations of elements. Then what we try to develop is for each definition of the protection risk of one pager. So you can have the opportunity even to print out just the one page of the protection risks that you might want to use or share with partners. So the goal is that you have the full guidance, but then you can also use it separately for every need that you have. Lastly, again, to make a bit better linkages with the protection analytical framework, we're going to look at the tutorial. Today we're going to look at the details on how the protection analytical framework interrelates with the definition of protection risks. The refresher is this. Of course, we discussed more and we're going to last week and we're going to publish the recording. But before entering now in the definition of themself, let me pause a second. If there is any question from the ones that didn't participate last week, if there is any clarification needed, let me pause a second. Please raise your hand or write in chat. Otherwise, as usual, just give me a thumbs up, please. OK, thank you. So definitions. So the word from protectionist definition is not new. We've been building a bit on the word that the global protection class that has been done since spring 2021. So let me give you first a big background where they're coming from. So as said, we have a global protection risk tracker that has been established in March 2021 that, as you see in the older version, used a bit of mixed terminology that has been revised in spring 2022 after the endorsement of the protection analytical framework, that this alignment basically gave us the list of 15 that you have today. So the idea was to use the language that is in the concept metrics of the protection analytical framework, which was a concept that was developed together with also ICRC or CHR and major partners in the protection sector. What we've been doing since September of last year, we'll be starting a methodology revision that basically today we are presenting. It will not stop here, so we're going to work all years, but the definitions are the first step of the methodology revision that we've been doing. The global protection risk tracker links up with the global protection updates that we publish quarterly that you know and also contribute to them, which are the flagship documents that we use for advocacy and communication and we use for donors engagement. So we've seen that these documents, specifically the tracker, are quite interesting for donors and our targets, so that has the idea of actually working a bit better on the way we visualize and we identify protection risks. Lastly, this, you know very much, is the protection risk updates and the two just elements to add is that we did a full-fledged lessons-learn exercise covering all the protection risk updates published since April 2021 to December from 2022. We look at best practice and what actually you have been doing. So all the guidance, it's a non-new, it's we use best practice and solutions applied by operations actually and we transform that in global guidance. The idea, which is the major change for 2023, is to have a much more consistent use of protection risk terminology and language and the goal, as we will see afterwards in the next slide, is to have a much more systematic approach for advocacy and communication. The definition, so the definitions that you have in the guidance has been developed together with the all global AORs with three goals in mind. First of all, I mean we just say that, but ensure consistency in the way we use the language and the concept, but mostly primarily this is the primary objective, is to have a unique protectionality. So as a sector being able to present analysis, recommendation, messages with a unique voice, so ensure our diversity in terms of our responsibility and all the partners that we have, because protection is quite wide, but in the way we present the analysis and also with advocacy try to be much more stronger in having a unique voice. The goal of course is to have a better engagement of donors, duty barriers, but also you have leadership in your country, namely humanitarian coordinators, humanitarian country teams and so on and so forth, which is much more focused on a human rights approach and a centrality of protection principle, so it can be used to link up with the intersectional processes. They use of course the global protection update, the PA use, but also from our side at the level of the cluster, but also many of you, we use consistently, systematically the protectionist analysis for advocacy messages in brief reports, donor briefing, and external engagement. In terms of the process, without entering in the details, this I think it can help you out when you're going to explain to partners and you are in the country where the definition comes from. We add, I would say, a good systematic approach in terms of consultations, so we involve all the working groups, task teams that we have in the global protection cluster, as well as the area of responsibility from the onset, so even deciding together how the definition would look like, how should we better present that, and how we should shape them in a guidance. So even before starting drafting the definitions, and of course we had an overall process that basically included three rounds of feedbacks that we finish at the end of January. One important aspect is, as many of you know, and some of you are in the call, we try to test out every single step and every single version of the process with operations to have a sense checking from if they made sense in the field, and of course to see if they could be usable. Of course the idea of 2023 is to start using them and run a revision at the end of the year to actually adjust or change or modify better from the use in the operation, so we can be much more practical. So the first element that you're going to see in the guidance, that is basically one of the results of the exercise. As you know the definition that we have a protection risk, it comes from the protection radical framework, and protection risk is defined as the actual or potential exposure of the affected population to violence, coercion, or delivery deprivation. So as you can see we underline potential and then violence, coercion, deprivation. For two reasons, we have been realizing that those elements are a bit challenging when we go about monitoring or when we're going to go about presenting the risks. The first challenge that we identify is the fact that focusing both in the actual presence of protection risk and also the potential is a bit confusing and it's not easy to to actually have a good analysis process, but also externally I will say that we have been challenged as a sector sometimes to to clarify a bit better what do we mean when we identify protection risks. The second element is the concept of the violence, coercion, and delivery deprivation which are very broad concepts and are difficult to be translated in data, in information, or even in a standard approach to actually showcase and present them. So what we try, what we propose with the definition and the old work around the PAUs is to have an operational approach. So not to change the definition, but actually to look at the monitoring of protection risk from a sort of operational standpoint. So looking at protection risk, first of all focusing on the actual protection risk. So what we see and then of course probably in your operation you might already have systems or will be better in a sector, so then we are also able to identify the potential, but first of all focusing on the actual. So the old definition are based on the elements that you see there, so each protection risk should look into the intensity and damage of harm resulting from a human activity or a product of human activity, of course affecting an individual or group of individuals. So we divided these three elements of let's call it the operational definition because we use them to to organize the the description of each risks. So this you will see during the old webinar, but it's through our three elements that may be helpful for you to keep in mind. Of course when we look at them, there are two areas that are not easy to be identified. One is the concept of harm because from the protection perspective, when we speak about harm, we speak about physical or mental integrity, but also material safety and also violation of rights. So the concept of harm together with the concept of human activities are concepts that probably are difficult to represent only with data. And here is where it's important to start using better our knowledge or our partner and constituency knowledge of the context to quantify better the data we have. This is an already a hit to go about the narrative analysis as we discussed last Wednesday. The second concept we probably sometimes much more difficult to qualify is the human activity because human activity, even from looking at the the normative aspect of it, might be a direct measure of the policy. So perpetrator is actually purposefully doing something, a threat or a violation, but also when it comes to duty barriers or the actors that are holding responsibility, it might be a purposeful inaction or an inaction due to a willingness or to no capacity. So it's extremely important to understand the role of the either authorities or the actors that are holding responsibility. Again, it's one of those concepts where data is not helpful enough and we actually have to combine very well with the knowledge of our work consistency in the operations. And I can't see the chat, so please stop me if you have any doubts. So when you are going to see the definition, you're going to see two things. We organized each definition in three paragraphs, very short, and very simple. And then we're going to look at the detail. But then we start also working together with the colleagues of OACHR in linking up each protection risks with elements to reinforce our human rights engagement, starting from the analysis. So the idea is that there are some actors, some of them are also a partner of our of our classes in your operations, that are strong in doing human rights work. But sometimes we have difficulties in having a good communication in terms of language or concept. So the idea is to elaborate and we are working on that. And we're going to finalize in the second quarter of 2023 to have a might be an addendum or some elements more to add it to the definitions that can really guide us in what to do in terms of human rights engagement how to share information with whom and which mechanisms when we identify our protection risk and we have the analysis. But focusing now on what you have in the guidance, the definitions include first a description of which acts and that's a situation that constitute the presence of the risks. Of course it builds on language, a normative language or legal language, but we try to make a definition very simple and really qualify what are the acts or the events of the situations. This second paragraph provides a bit of an illustration of what factors might be interesting to look at when we monitor those protection risks. So of course we have the acts of the events and when we have data and when they are manifest are much easier to be looked upon. But then there are elements like as you can see in the brackets lack of proportionality, distinction, legitimate purpose and so on and so forth which actually require us to look a bit broader and other factors in order to actually be able to say that there is a protection risk in the country. The latest paragraph is not a NIM specific guidance but it provides initial elements on what type of information or data can be identified to illustrate the presence of the risks. So we did this paragraph and it's the overall goal of the whole guidance to maybe help you out who have a joint work between our IAM colleagues and the colleagues that are actually drafting the analysis because we've seen that sometimes that might be a challenge. So this last paragraph might be helpful to actually have a dialogue with the colleagues in the class that are also with the partners that actually focus on IAM. The definitions dating we purposefully not use specifically in legal language or of course we have to sometimes but not too technically not too legal so they can be much more understood even if we want to share them or discuss them with our local colleagues or local partners and of course we're going to work as at the beginning as you can see on the insipid of this slide on all the human right and IHL part. What does this mean concretely and now I'll show you a bit an example without reading all of it but at least to give you a sense of what you can see when you're going to look at the guidance. So the first paragraph it really is focus so that this protection risk includes acts that the private people to rightful access to economic resources outside livelihood opportunities etc etc so it provides first of all an overview what the risk is about. Then since the category is sometimes include more than one type of violations and if these happens those are described very specifically so as you can see here this discrimination includes and then you're going to have a definition stigma includes and you have a definition as well as denial of equal opportunity and denial when it has access. So you can have a general sense of what the risk is about but also you can have a sense of the different components of the risk so you can use them in your dialogue on the joint analysis work that you're going to do with partners. When it comes to monitoring we it's it's quite a general and illustrative paragraph sometimes but basically as you can see it just says that the monitoring of these risk or the risk requires and then it provides you some elements so in this case speaking about denial of resources of opportunity and discrimination so it says it requires an attentive understanding of every situation where people are excluded from the use of enjoyment of resources facility access is right. This includes and then there is specific details. Across all the definition you will see that specifically for certain risk we're trying to make a distinction on what to look at in situation of armed conflict and what to look at in situation of either natural hazard or protracted or complex crisis because sometimes what we need to identify change specifically when it comes to armed conflict because there is all the Geneva Convention as some principle that applies. And the idea is to explore this better also from new user but at least we try to give an initial general sense. Lastly when it comes to the sort of ideas of what data information can be helpful we try to give a sense of what is also needed beyond the protection set. I think that all of you have demonstrated the last year and a half and even before that we are very good in using our data and all information and but in order to be stronger in a narrative but also to qualify better protection risks sometimes it's good to have other sector or other type of information so here also we provide that type of clarity where it will be very much interesting to have other sector data. So in this case specifically when we look at denial of resources or opportunities one of the example that you can see at the beginning of the paragraph say factors to be observed can include data on food security and so on and so forth and also disruption of livelihood and markets. So these paragraphs sometimes can help you better in having a focus approach also in engaging other sectors because sometimes it's difficult to identify which sector will be good to to engage in our joint analysis so here we try to give you some elements in term of maybe looking at what type of information that is needed can help you out in rationalizing the approach with other sectors. So then all definitions all the 15 are structured exactly the same with these three paragraphs in mind and again you have the one page in the protection risks explanatory note. For reading this part and then we can pose a bit for your initial reflections this is the final list many of you have seen it already because it's been used in the past what you can see I like it in red are the changing in terminology that resulted after the consultation with the AORs and all departments and those changes I was saying that what they do is that they may better use of specific AOR language that sometimes in the former definition were not there one example is force recruitment where the language used in child protection is association of children in our forces and group and not recruitment specifically because it might be other four of association that are also violation but are not recruitment itself and also try to to have a better linkages with legal or human right language also to reinforce the human right engagement afterwards so I would say that during the results of the all consultation we did is to ensure that this 15 list first of all capture everything that we do in protection more or less or everything that we are allies also the other responsibility specificity so as you can see even if they're not represented clearly but all the what the other responsibility analyze it's in there and we have been making sure to have a huge consultation with them to ensure that and secondly also in terms of language should be it's much more current with existing language so those two elements might be helpful in your day-to-day work now on analysis also engaging with partner constituency and AOS I will leave this like that and I will pose a bit if I would like to hear from you if there is any question doubt and in any case a bit of a pause because the next part is going to be a bit also heavy in terms of practicalities please do come in even if some of you already used them if you want to share any challenge or any feedback please Arjun Hi Francis Koy only one point we had kind of counter argument is that the GBB the gender-based violence I think team on the ground says that it has to be in build into all different the protection risk and it is not stand-alone risk to be highlighted and just a thought from the field or thank you Arjun no actually that's a great point because it gave me the space to actually share what we've been doing with the GBB colleagues we had that exact question with the colleagues of the GBB you are for two months on all December and all January we actually reflected specifically on that part the gender-based violence colleague they decided to do an internal consultation in December because our proposal was to actually change the terminology of the risk and upgrade so the gender-based violence one to focus on specific or violations GBB violation and streamline the rest also because the number which one is now the number five discrimination discrimination denial of resources you will see thank you Claudio so I will repeat the last sentence also because in the exercise the definition of the risk number five the denial of resources builds on the GBB definition so the agreement that we had with the colleague of GBB is in this now not to change it so to keep it as a stand-alone but in the guidance clarified very well that the GBB analysis should go across all risks and we're going to discuss today how and then look at what is the practice from operation and maybe doing a revision at the end of the year so thank you Arson for that and it's good to see that the reflection that we had a global level also is something that you have seen in the film so at the moment I will share that's the message that we can share what is important is that even if you just stand alone it would be important to involve the GBB colleagues when we identify other risks I don't know if I answer actually yes thanks very much any other comment from practice or something that is not clear so far yeah well for instance is me again clear section the number 15 and yes and number 12 sort of practically overlapping for us and then we also having some discussion we have to actually put this first division over thank you so let's do like let's that's a very good element a very good point we're going to have in the next part the discussion how to link up certain risks so maybe let's only discuss this actually we come back to you after that part to reflect if whether some of the proposal might help or if we have to adjust thank you please learn Aron thank you so for the protection risk number 15 when we were looking those in Ethiopia with the sub-national clusters we identified that could be difficult for us to classify the 15 because we have some issue that we see related to freedom of movement we have also some displacement that are not particularly voluntary let's put it like that but we don't have cases of siege so the colleagues from the field were like how do we classify that or how we establish the severity about this since there are basically three things that are slightly different complementary if you want but we don't see all of them thank you Lenora to other very important point and I think that some of that will also be addressed in the second part because we understand that since these definitions are overall and compassing so sometimes it's difficult to actually understand what you're actually saying you know if we have just one element of it how do we identify so the first point is that we will you can adapt them so the idea is that these categories are good categories that we can use between the cluster in operation and the global protection cluster to know what you're talking about so because we're also building a system to simplify the way you present the analysis to us and then we use it globally so it's just a matter of organizing internally then the action used in the operation that is full flexibility even to adapt the terminology with some caveats so that's something that can help the second element is related to severity that's another parallel exercise that we identified so at the moment what I can share is that we developed we started developing criteria for the severity of the five level of severity for each risk which we are going to test out in this month global protection update so in this month's global protection update in the form that you usually use for the global protection update you're going to see already the initial criteria the idea is that the criteria we develop are absolutely not perfect and we can test that with you because of course criteria are wider and exercise they have to be coherent and so on one of the things that I can tell you is I think that the way we develop the criteria will allow you to identify better out to even if you don't have all components so we really focus on even if you have just one component of what the risk entails you can actually identify the severity so as a summary yeah the criteria we're working on them we are going to actually have the possibility of testing them this month and coming back with feedback so we can really work together and having an operational perspective on the criteria so not a top line one and the second let's maybe look at the second part Leonardo and then I can come back to your point on a number 15 if it's okay sure thank you thank you any other reflection give me a thumbs up if it's okay if you're still fresh and you're okay to continue Claudia I guess it was a thumbs up no sorry actually yes it was but also I have something and I apologize because it's a bit the connection is not very good here in terms of HRP related issues right I mean you can as you said each of these 15 protection risks actually will feed into and will be complemented by the AORs and the way that the risk also affects other correlated aspect I just wonder based on previous experiences in other operation have you envisioned something specific to HRP which goes beyond the nine which is legal identity especially when it comes to proving ownership housing etc etc just a curiosity thank you Collette so with the HRP colleagues because we asked the AORs the very beginning of the process which risks they wanted to develop with us that actually reflect what did they do the HRP colleagues came back and we worked together the number nine but also the number 12 so the number 12 it's developed specifically with them so he captured the whole rest of area that they work on but then we realized from practice that's something that I realized recently when a couple of PAUs that I received that there is an elements of land and all the entitlement on lands and lands issue conflict on lands that might not be well in those two categories so for instance in one PAU what we've been doing is to link that up with the part of the denial of resources and opportunity so then I know the all impediments that the unlawful impediments to actually access to land and all the conflict related to that it was actually used in that one so to conclude yes those two at the moment but I think that HRP is one of those areas where we will have to explore and we have to see what we come about because we have seen that sometimes are related to conflict but sometimes are not thank you Claudia for the reflection any other burning reflection otherwise let's center in practicalities so beside the definition what you have to review what you will have to do is to actually do the work and engage partners engage constituency engage actors identify and privatize and we know all the challenges related to that so what I wanted to delve into now is how to use the PAU tactically and strategically in order to navigate all that process and then provide you a couple of example that you maybe you can use in your operation again stop me at any time let's look at the PAU so the first slide is the replica of what we saw last Wednesday so apology for the one that participated so the protection is the PAUs include one section of protection risks limited in pages I think it's I made a mistake it's not maximum three I think it's maximum six but anyways limited in pages the goal of limiting it in pages is the format already asks to be very focused on the last period so not to add this long narrative try to include everything but we need to include what is the focus on and the second element of course is the prioritization of five risks for the period we will see later that there is no need to prioritize only five but at least for the PAU try to come out with just the five so we can really have a strong minority and they can be that link up together but also try now with the definition it's also forced to have a better engagement of AUR and also the constituency when we develop the PAU so not just because we've seen in some operation the exercise where for instance the AUR colleagues were asked only to feed in their area the goal is that because I think that it's coming from variation is that we try to have every AUR feeding in all the risks because all risks are interconnected they are not just impacting the population autonomously so try to have a better engagement on that side as we were discussing as we were mentioning before Eleonora just because I think this answer a bit to your question when you use the potential risk in the PAUs there is no need of using the exact terminology so we provide we provided in the guidance a bit of guidance so a bit of hints they're actually coming from operation again but let me have a bit of an overview here so the first suggest the first hint is not a suggestion is to avoid the general terminology so these are actually example that we have seen in certain operations so when we describe as number one and we put the title of the risk avoid all forms of violence because maybe they might be present but that's really not helpful in engaging given the HCT in the monitoring country team and other actors so really try to avoid the general formulation when it comes to Auslan and properties we made the example because we've seen that sometimes but it really doesn't tell what is the issue so there might be outside the property issues but what is the concrete risk that we want to visualize for the period and then maybe the other elements of the Auslan property are interrelated the second guidance is to protection of risk are a form of violence coercion of illegal interpretation so they are strictly related with human activities so perpetrators action or inaction of duty bearers and ontologists as we have been seeing at the beginning so always try to when you adapt the terminology try always to quantify it with wording that help in showing the human elements of it so here there are some examples use force, use denial, use impediments and there are some that are quite evident like a dark cruel and so on so forth the third area to think about when you adapt the potential risks is what happens in those crises an issue beyond protection is the core issue in the country I'm thinking about food security or malnutrition which is some crises are the crises so on our side let's always make the efforts to link up what is the protection of this perspective on that issue so when it comes to food security what is the protection of risk that acts as the driver or what the co-driver that we see and or what is the protection of risk that actually is exacerbated and it's created a circle by which people falls back into food security that can really make our narrative stronger and I'm making that specific example because we did a recent exercise with our colleague in Somalia to actually look at stigmatization of specific ethnic groups as the core elements that is exacerbating the food security malnutrition situation lastly again this is a link to the first one but also generalized terminologies like conflict ongoing violence let's avoid them all those elements should be either in the context or in the narrative analysis but when we come to the title let's try not to be so generic or so generalized so you will see a bit more of detail in the guidance but as you will see what we try to give are not too prescriptive guidance so our goal is that we are very strong in using the language of potential risk but you have wide flexibility in actually adapting the language to your own situation like some of the example that you just expressed and now we're entering a bit now to use the path so let me pause a second if there is anything of this that addresses some of your challenges or there is something that you don't agree with or if there is any question otherwise give me please thumbs up as usual thank you Stuart so one of the things that we try to a bit address is how the protectional ethical framework interrelates with the protection of these updates so in the form of guidance of course it was all built on the protectional ethical framework but indeed in the new in the revised one we try to link better some elements so the core elements are the path logic so not all the information not all the data not all the structure but the logic so threads the effects of the trend and the capacity it should be the underlying logic when you're going to draft the narrative so in your brain in your mind always or the colleagues mine when they draft always to try to reuse that sequence because I think it's simplified first the way we present consistently in your operation and across operation but also it's simplified the way of presenting a narrative then this is my go a bit beyond just the path itself but it's extremely important to use the protectional ethical framework questions to understand what concretely we might need from other sectors because that really brings reinforces our narrative so of course organize our data also try to pinpoint well what other sectors information might be needed for analysis so when it comes to the path these three sections the context the protection risk and the response is if you're using the path actively or if you use the path of inspiration that should be the basis and the foundational aspects of our analysis those are three sections where you can actually include all the analysis coming from the use of the protectional ethical framework when it comes to context in the context since the idea is to focus much more on update for the period or really use the context to highlight past occurrences or trends and protection threats not a generalized context analysis but very concrete trends or past occurrences that are linked with the protectional risk that you're going to present in the PAO then very detailed specifically political and socioeconomic situation enablers of drivers not just a national level actually it's much stronger sometimes if you do a zoom in specific geographic area so I think that generalized context analysis are present in almost all the crisis we are so here you can really focus on specific area and specific geographic situations and then look at the current the what is in the laws in the policies but also in the cultural and research unknowns that actually have a strong influence on the protectional risk that actually have been identified you know I mean I might come to the top of my mind forced marriage that sometimes it's just a coping strategy but when it happens in context which provides forced marriage is actually culturally present like say systemic then that risk is much stronger so the context where you can really focus to provide those elements the protectional risk section and it comes without saying is where we have the core analysis so where we present the threats and effect on the capacity but then there is an element of capacity that now with the new format you can also use that to to qualify well the response section so of course what is available in terms of protectional response capacity and as we have seen last Wednesday the idea is not to present here the full dashboard for 5W and funding and so on but we need to use just those elements that are that can show the challenges as you can see in the second that are limiting our response so we have the protectional risk analysis we're saying this is happening and these are the challenges either in access or some of the elements and the members have an effect of how the protection risk is impacting the population either negative or negatively or positively now we look at a bit of an example which is exactly the example you're going to find in the protectional risk tutorial the two pages that is part of the guidance I extract some parts but just to show you what is a bit the logic so the logic is even in that tutorial is to present you the narrative analysis so the way we eventually are going to draft the PAU but I mean the linkages with the category of the protectional integral frame so the goal here is that this guidance can help you out in establishing a good communication with the IAEA colleagues so the way you want to present it so the colleagues know the way you want to present it but also you know what the IAEA colleagues can give you in those different categories the protectional integral frame so in the tutorial and here's some extraction you see the paragraph so this is coming from the sample of the PAU so they are all interrelated so the example you're going to see it's the exact sample you're going to find in the guide so as you can see here starting from a thread so I will not read the full paragraph but here it's according to the system we have in this scenario to get the data so the ceremony national police in this case we have these numbers for this period and we also present a trend it's a variation compared to the full mass period simple straight to the boil we know non-paragraphs with many information but very concrete what we've seen then we can have of course I choose one but you can have different part of the paragraph that actually qualify the situation of the the population that is affected by the risk either in terms of how and why they are vulnerable to the risk or general composition showing the locations the movements they have the exposure they have and so on so in this paragraph for instance you can see a good I think a good this aggregated outlook for type of populations so men, women and so on but also where sometimes it's very interesting to do is to focus on geographic areas so not all the countries are good at the area but since we want to provide an update if you don't have the whole data for the country but you have both quantitative or qualitative information from your partners or sub-coordinators on specific area let's qualify that then threats effects capacity capacity we have seen that generally we of course we focus on the protection response capacity so we provide information about the type of response we have the service we have and so on and so forth but the path invites and I think it's interesting to provide some insights that go more on the data so because the data can be showed without the products you are in the cluster so the PAU is where really you can say what you're going to say you can show what you really want to show not use specifically about what the whole protection was interested in the country want to show so here you can see an example to for instance first start with local mechanisms that we have seen that are either working or not working that are addressing that risk here the risk it's about attacks so here you can see it's a very qualitative information so to mitigate the violence so the driver of the attacks in these specific governance and the governors have been trying something so in this case they've been trying to deploy peaceful quick system committee so it's been a capacity that's been put in place but also what we say it's unsuccessful so we're not providing the whole detail why because it's a top line analysis then you might have other information that can back this up when you're going to present it so we focus on what is the existing local mechanism what has been trying where and a bit of highlights if it was successful or not successful it addresses some situation of the risks then following up on the tutorial I just jumped on the section we in the sample of the protectionizing update you will see that we presented that trend so here we are focusing on some elements of the protection response on international response but looking at one specific trend that we identified so in this case this new trend now I remember the example together with something that happened globally so a decision of the security constant to renovate the mandate of a UN mission this is a fake one but might have positive effects so also we qualify what's happening to the situation we see lastly it's interesting sometimes to show we hear the category that is cool that is in the path code because the current but what element are you seeing that that are actually having an effect on the professional risk so in this case looking at example again we have been presenting an improvements in the example so this improvement is not expected now for the next semester since the departmental leaders of the art groups have a high level autonomy so the improvement is a new low so good that there's been a new low there's been change in this situation but now we don't see the effects so we might expect the effects in the next period but not now so this also is important even to counter arguments when we present the analysis ah but now there is this new thing there is new low yes there is but we didn't see these there's not having an impact yet on the operation so I will stop here for a moment so the idea of this is really the protection of this section is where you have full flexibility because you have to adapt to all your processes but we provide a bit of inspiration you know to go about it you know organizing between threats effects and capacity and also try to to link it up on how to balance both quantitative and qualitative information so more the knowledge and the understanding that you have as a protection sector overall in the country rather than just focusing on a reporting of simple data because as you very well know oftentimes we don't have the data that we would like to have so if we just rely on the quantitative data it's difficult to showcase well the risks let me pause I will look now into the interaction with the all the section of the PA use because this is just what goes into the protection of this section but let me pause a second if you have any initial reaction or comments Hi Francis question is that you again please actually a quick yeah a quick reflection from the field is that particularly from the donor community they do not understand the shift in the in the analysis and I have also had a couple of discussions and also through various meeting we learned that we need more analysis we need detailed analysis you know so these are some of the things that quite often you know we are receiving and I think the GPCS takes sort of not sure the briefing or whatsoever so the people also understand this is how it works and then of course I think that they're just looking for more data contest analysis with the percentage graphs and so on and they're also putting on some sort of pressure or thank you Archie for that I don't have a straightforward answer but I have some reflections on that I mean the first one is let's look together so Archie maybe we can follow up as well to see how to also maybe engage donor on our side okay so because now the guidance was really focused to support you but then we can if you think it's important we can have a specific step at the global protection class to level to show the way we're doing analysis I think that's can be something that we can follow up there are two situations sometimes because also it's related to your example donor ask us for what is reporting more than analysis okay so I think it's important to start clarifying what is analyzing what is reporting so you have very good information so for instance in Afghanistan you have a very good protection monitoring system so I think it's good to maintain protection monitoring report situation of update based on data and so on that can give an account of what the data says but when it comes to the protection analysis update those are specific focus so one of the things that happened in the last year is that it seems that the protection analysis update should replace everything we do the simplification we introduced for 2020 2020 to actually a guide it was simplified for you the use of one or the other so sometimes you will need to provide reports with data but then the protection analysis update should help you out in being much more the advocacy oriented one when we actually say things even if we don't update one thing that was happening in the past is that it was a cumbersome process so the goal to have it a bit more less cumbersome is actually so then you can really focus and have time for presenting the rest that would be my initial reaction I don't know if it has answered but I think that's an ongoing reflection we should also have with the data on that side I don't know actually if it's okay thank you any other comment I mean based on actual reflection do you have a similar situation in other operation let me ask just to pose a bit before I move on you're going to have probably more reflection when you're going to start here was it done should I continue a bit of thumbs up is it okay so we now looked into the potential risk section which were made of the core analysis but the overall goal of the PAU is to actually interrelate the different sections so here are a bit of what is in the guidance but then of course you have a huge degree of flexibility so you can maybe devise better better ways the first part is of course the executive summary where we provide a list of the risks the idea is just to provide a list so the idea is that the executive summary being the first page is where we're also telling basically who's going to read the analysis what to expect in the analysis section so and they and they all you know but most probably not to put it and so they're going to look at the potential risk analysis then the context the context of course is what we include what we discussed drivers and all the contextual elements are very important to understand the risks so last time we also discussed on the initial table of core data so present just the data that is important from the standard risk you're outlining for the period but then from practice what we realize is that sometimes in operation you have a need of identify more than the five risks so as the contextual the context can be also you can include another risk or a past occurrences of risk that's actually maybe acting as a driver of what you're going to present in the research section I can make very shallow example one is if there is there is a risk of attacks because there is ongoing violence maybe since you already say many times there are attacks and it's no there is no need of writing attacks in the protection of restriction that can be part of the context so in the context the attacks with this data this information and this frequency is what actually is impacting or is actually causing the presence of different risks and then you have the risk section where you actually dig in but then maybe also that interrelates with the sequence sometimes of risk when for instance attacks in forced displacement maybe you want to put an accent on forced displacement then you could put the the risk side into the context maybe you want to put a focus on another risk which is attacks because it's much more relevant for the period and the conversation you're having in the country so you can showcase the generalized situation of displacement in the context so again the idea is that you really can use flexible all parts to let you present what you comes out from at your level in the operation the response even though as we discussed last week he showcased the progress we made the challenges that we had in terms of access and and and operate and then getting a gaps the idea is that what you try to do is to link up a bit in order to showcase capacity as we saw before for the past so there is a lot more of narrative or qualitative part that can be introduced even to focus on geographical area so there is no need specifically that you refers to the risk but you can just showcase what is important to understand the risks and lastly on recommendations and the recommendation are strictly and concretely organized by risks the goal is eventually we you might be supported to develop a roadmap of recommendation that can actually be followed upon because sometimes when we develop recommendation it's difficult to follow up with partners constituency and you are but if we work well identify core risks so we could think we could be able to develop an integrative response based on many recommendations and those can be also used for strong engagement with humanitarian countries and humanitarian coordinators specifically when the humanitarian coordinator has a responsibility in terms of centrality of protection so focusing on risk and device strategies so all in all the idea of all the analysis that you provide is to use flexibly the protection analysis update to provide the analysis though so don't be don't get just lost in the format so context is where we present a general context responses when provide response but really use all the different part to bring together the voice and the data and information that you are from the partners for the video let's use it very strongly then all the other analysis products that you have for five W's funding gaps protection monitoring reports or other situational reports then they can be much better used because and you can develop them with the system you are and use the PAU to actually give a sort of rationality of why you are all of them those things in place and what all those data is saying okay that's the message so on the PAU use it flexibly to collect connect the parts and and I think as it is now it's a bit more at least for my my point of view is a bit simpler in the way to go about it let me pause again I want to show you a bit two or three examples before we come to an end from operation from the analysis process but let me pause a bit if you have any question again looking at the chart thank you Claudia so some practice on the way to go internal processes system and so on we purposefully are not working in developing and we wanted to start with the guidance because we really believe that you in the operation know how to go about things and actually a couple of examples that I'm presenting are example from operation so operation that either already tested and tried the protection risk and the new formats or operation that use already in protection in an integral framework can there is to work about them so I provided three examples but there are many others and we are now working on with Vincent and the colleague of the IM team to try to map out all the best practice we have with the idea of having also a community of practice that can showcase good examples from different operations but the example today are just an initial hint on how to identify protection risk how to use information to use data and the last one how to prioritize so on the first one how to identify again is an example from operation to go about it so take them as a grain of salt what we realize is that even if we introduce definition of protection risk and we want to be more focused on protection risk in your operation you are already have a white and a great deal of information and analysis and it's very clear to many of you and partners what are the protection robots sometimes what you have is defined differently sometimes a cool protection concern issue needs violation objective so each operation has a bit of different approaches that is very much related to the type of even language that you use in the crisis so one way to go about it is don't reinvent anything so don't just use the risk and change everything that you have to start from what you have look at the 15 definition reflect what you have the most data problems that you've been in if I can fit in those risks so do that exercise a bit even collectively look at the things interrelated together some of the reflection you had before and then of course work on revise the language okay so don't use don't use the category specifically unless the category is useful for you but just go about very simply look at what you have revise the risk together with collectively and then revise the language to fit for purpose okay the comments we have is that the narrative analysis that you're using in PAYA PAU is what can explain those correlations so these are reflection exercise is what actually can inspire inspire then the way we're going to develop the narrative analysis in the PAYA use but let's look at an example this is coming from an operation so in that operation is already identified and very concretely presented by the by the by our colleagues on the protection cluster that there is a widespread there are widespread attacks and general violation of human rights and these are on a general situation of safety and security all over the country one specific aspect is that there has been systematic violation of the civilian and humanitarian character of sites of IDPs and other type of sites that are more informal there is so many areas specifically related where there are attacks that there is a contamination explosive in order and there are many child protection issues so this might be some familiar so this is the way you might have mark things out in that operation they look at the different risks and then they realize that the cool risk for the period was the attacks on civilian and other lawful killing and attacks on civilian objects broadly that's the risk that is important to show in the period then they look back the four elements that you saw before and they did a reflection how do they do inter interrelate looking the logic threads effect and capacity so the example there they realize that attacks and these regards of human rights are the major threat so is the threat that is causing and it's impacting the population in terms of effects so the threats is the attacks the effects of all the attacks and all the situation of attacks it's creating explosive or not contamination then all respect of the sites in civilia and of course the injuries deaths and so on and so forth so in the narrative and as we present in these other attacks this is causing contamination which is also a compound in the effect of the risks of the attacks but it's specific in this at this area no state armed groups and sometimes authority are violating the sites of civilia and everything is related to the attacks other elements related to child protection looking at more of the digital child protection some of that has been presented as effects and some as capacity so here an example the rising of child recruitment so an increased association of children with armed groups has been a specific a specific effect why for instance increased child separation has been much more a sort of coping capacity of certain families in certain areas they decided of course to send away the children to relatives and to because they have a tribal tribal network in order to ensure the children are not impacted by the attacks so as you can see but of course we presented data on increased family separation on the recruit when we had it but as you can see even if the risk is attacks we were able to present everything we were presenting before but in a more logic way between what is actually the main driver and what are the other situation we're losing the potential integral frame once this exercise has been done they realized that the wording of the initial definition was not conducive to what they wanted to express and what was important to express in the country so they revised the language so the language being attacks on a similar object this regarding the monetary character side because it's a specific situation and it's happening there so the risk is the attacks but there is this specific situation so this is really one way of going about it probably one of the simplest but as you can see the goal is that the risk categories you don't feel that as prescriptive but you feel them as a useful tool to reflect together with partner constituency AERs and maybe other sector or now the things interrelate together and they are having a protection impact on the population let me pause there before I move to the next example is this clear this example might apply in your operations do you see any challenge should I move on with the next example how to use existing data so one of the goals that we this is a message that is not new the idea is not to reinvent or recollect new information but really to make better use on information data and analysis you already have again this is another example of another operation one of the exercise they did with the partners they did an exercise together to assess the information landscape they take each protection risk and then they structure the available sources of data information with the information needed using the protection analytical framework category and subpoenas so the risk of attacks which information we have in threads what is the source and which is the actor who does the information which information we have on effect which is the actor and which is the source and thank you no man I will finish and come back to your point thank you so the things that they've been doing first to do the assessment information escape then they revise the way the data is presented to partners so instead of presenting it using I know the AOR the visual or specific situation vision they use specifically the path category subcategory and the path risks so all partners will think together on the data in the same logic and so on and so forth and of course then they presented the the analysis in the protection on this update with the logic of threats threats effect and capacities here are one specific example of this exercise so they've been looking at protection monitoring so it's where it's one of the sources that they were using when they were assessing information escape and they look at the difference section that they have or questions and they basically mapped out whether those questionnaire information could provide huge good data on either threats effect on capacities or the context generally so as you can see here the numbers 2.1, 2.3 is the way they organized the subcategory but so that helps the IAM colleagues to organize the presentation of the data already in a logic of threats effect and capacity so when the colleagues went and draft the protection on this update they can really look at the data in combination with the logic we're discussing today looking at it the same exercise but with a different visualization so again in the middle column you have the protection the protection monitoring questions so with the numbers and the question so if this place what was the cause of your displacement if the house only that's to move why does your house wants to move and so on and so forth and the exercise that we're trying to do is to look at whether those questions and those data was providing something related to the protectionist definition that we've seen generally so it was giving elements in terms of the intensity and damage of harm to understand better the perpetrators and the role of actors always affecting and on the right side is the exercise you've seen before then they organized those questions against the path so that they can represent that logic into the protection on this update again is one example a simple one because they just did a couple of joint analysis session with partners and they just looked together how to use the data and then of course that simplifies systematically the way they're doing the professional analysis update let me pause there before I go to the next and Loren the main challenges are the availability of data for a recent period of time and cost to construct the narrative do you want to come in Loren? Yes I just wanted to say that I mean it's complicated to produce this kind of PAU with you know in the beginning you said for the period January to March for example because yeah just to give an example in the RC we do not have the data for 2023 so it's always complicated to to be relevant with quite old data and to argue in the narrative with yeah that's the main issue I think in the for us in the development of these PAUs Yeah yeah thank you Loren no no but that's that's absolutely I totally agree with that there are two elements that we change in the process of the PAU one being the decision when to do a PAU is on you so we stop the quarterly production as a systematic approach because we realize exactly what you're saying so that's one of the goal of you having the space to decide when it's better to produce a protection or something and that can be informed by certain situations when you want to have it I don't know the humanitarian coordination coordinator is changing the strategy in June and you would like to have a PAU before or it might be related to data so let's have a PAU in April or in May because then we're going to have better data to present things so that's that's what I'm saying that try to use flexibly and discuss well when it's good to present a PAU the second element maybe you can use in this situation is the difference between the standard and the brief so what we realize that it was cumbersome is to produce any time a PAU that is long because not all the time we have the data so sometimes the brief PAU that is just six pages can be just focused on just comparing maybe previous data and a much more qualitative update from our from our operation that's another way of going about it and the third is the general comment that we realize in that as a global protection cluster as a protection cluster in general we are moving into let's present the analysis even if we don't have strong strong strong data but we know the situation I mean I want to call in Archoo or Afghanistan but Afghanistan is one of the countries where it's difficult to add data even if they are very good protection monitoring system and we actually add that reflection our some cluster coordinator they have a lot of knowledge of what's happening so let's try to bring that into the PAU sometimes if we don't have the data so to compensate a lot of data again there are many way of going about it and we can discuss further the approach so our idea is that you are not left alone try to look at the guidance try to see if the way we approach it or we are proposing to approaching 2020 simplifies some of the processes and then we can come in and support and so forth that will be my reflection Lorena I don't know if I didn't want to address it but just to keep the discussion I don't know if there is counter reflection on your side so let me go with the last example if you don't mind it's about prioritization here an example is very simple so probably we will not address the challenges that you might find in prioritization from an from experience of the last year and a half there are many challenges when it comes to prioritization but here is one way of going about it so again from this operation what they did they look at existing existing analysis then more group so cluster coordinator co-coordinator a very small group they did the first internal exercise on doing an initial broad list of protesters using the categories and starting doing this exercise with related so before starting the the overall consultation sometimes is where things are difficult then they involve a very small group of partners and actors that are actually strong in the analysis so they are really contributing to our analysis as a protection cluster to revise this initial distribution so we identified the seven nine ten risks and we realized that what we were presenting before in this this way we could present it in this other way under this risk or the other risk they had an initial reflection with a small group of partners that have been strongly involved in the US and then they decided to actually have a joint session of analysis where much broader of an entire day and then think of having the regular they had small sessions of national level and then one of national level we look at the prioritization of that broad list I don't remember but I think they identified nine ten and looking together with a sort of workshop type of exercise or now to prioritize those lists those lists so the first thing that might be interesting for the PAUs but also others that can be used in the PAU as we've been discussing today and then when they went to the PAU instead of dividing the section by partners so this section to this part and this section to the UR there was an initial draft by the classic coordinator coordinator internal using the exercise of the joint session so distributing the five reads presenting some other elements that are important to present for the URs even in the contest and so on and so forth and that would have been a process of short consultation to three weeks with co-partner for feedbacks and inputs and the process was a bit more streamlined that past processes in the same operation again your caveat is that you could if there are more risks that the partner wants to prioritize or in your in your discussion there is a need to prioritize those can be presented in contest or they can be presented in one risk because maybe they might be very related in terms of what's its effect in what it is closing what and so on so the idea is of course the five headaches should be five but inside another thing you can really be able to present much more again this was one example let me stop there we're almost at the hour on my side this is the content I wanted to present today I have just one slide that we already discussed so it's nothing new but I prefer to pause if there is any last reflection comment or question or any challenge there is anyone that sees that you're going to find challenge with this approach okay thank you Claudia again the idea is of this webinar is exactly to do it now so you can really enter into the process see start using them and learn and then in April we're going to have a joint session together and to reflect so the idea is not to do it perfectly since the beginning but to actually have a based approach we are there for mentoring and support both on my side and both from Vicenza and the colleague of IEM for anything you need I will drop my email in the chat and please start using them my suggestion is try to get in touch with your regional focus point maybe to start map out the processes you have and if you have a specific request of additional session if you like to ask to support you in a session to partners to a session to maybe with the AORs we've been doing that in the last six seven months where we've been supporting maybe internal processes at least at the beginning so very much happy to support and completely at your disposal for anything on my side that's all I wish I had also the link with the materials that is the same of last time and if there is no any question or another doubts and so on thank you very much for coming thank you much for the timing and I hope that at least it was a bit clear to set in the basis I mean we didn't pretend to have a strong capacity building in this webinar but just to give you the elements to be feel more confident so on my side thank you very much if you don't have any last burning point Archu you are the point I don't know if we address it I just remember that not really 215 but I think we can also chat by that really do the next one yeah let's okay yeah thank you Archu thank you so thank you very much have a great day we will fix a bit of recording and probably publish so if you want to share it with other colleagues later that will be available so thank you very much have a great rest of the day and week