 I will be together. The objective of today's session, this session is part of all the thematic conversation we are having this year on analysis, but today it's quite specific because I wanted to structure in a way that is more lessons learned and a sort of open forum to discuss with you very practically about protection analysis update. So I expect still from me a good 20 minutes, 25 minutes of presenting some aspect that will be very quick because I assume that many of those are familiar to the majority of the people that are in the conversation today. And then what I wanted to put more the accent on my side is sharing with you some learning that we have on supporting the operation with protection analysis update. So some best practice, some solutions that we found to come on challenge and so on. And then I will pass the baton to a colleague from South Sudan, Dorian, because we had been learning last year quite extensively on how we could use protection monitoring better for protection analysis update. So I'll ask Dorian to give us a bit, I don't have you what they've been doing in South Sudan because I know that many of you also have that question. So as you can see from the agenda, I will just go through the basics of the protection analysis update, show a bit of key takeaways from the last three years that we've been working together on those. Then I would link a bit, but very shortly the PAU with the process of analysis related to the humanitarian project cycle and then doing a refresher of the different five chapters of the PAU and more or less a small explanation on those. I will be quick because I assume that many of you already follow this. So I really ask everybody to stop me, ask clarification and so on because maybe as usually leave a good 40 minutes, one hour to listen to you. So to actually have this as an open forum, you know that I'm the person that normally is supporting you in revising protection analysis updates. So I would like to offer the opportunity to ask me directly on specific challenges and we can discuss it together. So if there is no initial burning question, I probably will start digging into the presentation of today, but let me pause for one second. Is there any question or initial comment, otherwise I will ask for a roundup of thumbs. So I know that I can continue. Thank you. Thank you, Mohammed. So let's go into it. One thing that I forgot, as usual, I will do the presentation in English, but if there is any need to ask questions or clarification in French or Spanish, please do so. And I will answer back in the same language. So let's go to the very quick. So the basics of the PAU. So the PAU, the protectionist update has been introduced three years ago in a recognition that we as a sector need to provide a protection of situation analysis to the whole community. So the goal of the protection analysis update is to call the attention specifically to protection of risks and violations and use this analysis to inform strategy planning. So from the protection strategy work that you follow up on the on the relation with partners, the engagement of the SCCG and the engagement of other actors. And I have to say that compared to three years ago when we started, we are in a much better place in having the possibility of presenting protection of risks. And this year, as you know, we are thinking that much more with humanitarian project cycle. So if the PAU is the protectionist update has been the initial goal was to present protection situation analysis beyond the HPC, this year we're working with you so to use it much more consistently in the HPC process, but we are going to see that afterwards. The other two major aspects of the protectionist update I have often this discussion with I am colleagues is it offers us the opportunity to present analysis, even in the absence of data. So oftentimes we tend not to, we tend to not report if we don't have data, we don't feel confident. But at the level of the sector as GPC as protection cluster, we agreed that the protectionist update can be based on qualitative information can be based in value judgment or in exercise is done with partner and sub national coordinator when necessary. And lastly, we are going to use them as you will see from some of the takeaways for advocacy a mid year when donors they decide the funding allocation, but we use them consistently in protection briefings in private briefing and so on. So the scope of the PAU for us has been always very important to elevate the situation of your countries. We introduce some criteria. So we have a page limitation, we don't even if we have our list of protection risks, the goal of the PAU is to show the critical one, then we will show some challenges around that, but to present consistently the top five critical protection risks for the period that the PAU covers. And then we have been working on the format to ensure that the executive summary, the response and the recommendation, they are almost consistent all the time. So with these donors and other they know what to expect from us and we live in much more space to the professional risk section and to the contact section. And we have internal publishing criteria and SOP to ensure that it's consistent. As you have seen in the entire interaction that I shared with everybody, we have been quite flexible then in going about the PAUs. But we managed last year for the first time to have all PAUs using the same format, the same process, the same language. And actually it was very appreciated at global level and by donors. There is guidance you can find in the website. So there are two formats, one long and one short. There is a guidance on the definition of protection risks. There is a guidance on how to basically structure the protection risk section in the PAUs and with a tutorial that links it with the protectional ethical framework. And also there is a guidance on how to use the entire format visually with logo and with graphs and so on. So this package is available in the website. And recently, which I did it at here, we published a human right matrix that we developed with OCHR that links the risk with human right violation. So also for use of the language. A bit of takeaways from last year, from the last three years. This is the number of protectionalists update that has been published. As you can see, 2022 was a high level production, but from the GPU, there were two specific staff that were supporting in the drafting. And last year, we have been actually taking the biggest load of drafting and we have been intervening in support. But it's still consistent across operations. The interesting thing that I wanted to show with you that in itself doesn't mean much, but it's an interesting highlight is we have seen over the year, in the last three years, through our website, that the average download of PAUs was 141 downloads, as you can see 2021. And last year, and it's increased, this is from January, we have around 800 downloads per each PAU, which is extremely interesting. It doesn't of course tell us the full outreach, but it show you that all the work and investment that we have been doing, it's paying the price because donors and external actors are going to those more and more and more. One thing that is important for 2023 is that all operation has been consistent in showcasing five protection risks and using the same approach and methodology. And I wanted to show you some practice around challenges. So this is based on specific PAUs that has been published last year. Because even if the protection analysis update is a situational update, it's quite flexible and you can adapt it to different conversation or needs in countries. So we have been adding protection analysis update publish that we're just looking at one of the specific area of responsibility analysis for all risks. So we had an HLP-1 that we're using the language of the protection risks, identify five top risks that are not naturally, for instance, HLP, but we're looking, we're doing a full analysis of HLP related issues with those five risks. So this is a possibility when you develop a PAU. So a PAU doesn't have to have been necessarily, we have to have a national one, but this is one other possibility that has been exploring in the past by operation. Another avenue followed by some operation is to actually identify five protection risks, but present one structural driver because they wanted to use it for strong advanced cases. One of the examples you see there is how the absence of rule of law in the country has an influence to all five risks. So while the analysis was focused on identifying the risks, the presentation of the PAU was based on a core aspect that the operation felt it was important to highlight in the conversation with other sectors. We have had fully qualitative PAUs, so PAUs that were not based on data, but has been based on consultation with their national partners. Here is one example of people with disability. So there has been several workshops and consultation with the national organization working with people with disability and the outcome of that workshops has been crafted in a protection analysis update. So as you can see, there is also the possibility of doing fully qualitative PAUs. There has been PAUs that focused on a thematic that was more advocacy oriented. So in the country, the protection cluster has been tried to work with the HCT to work on a durable solution. So there has been a PAU that was specifically linked to the risks that are impact or they curb durable solutions. So there's another evidence taking a big advocacy aspect in the country and building analysis that contribute to that. There has been brief PAUs, so the five pages one, so very short one on either sudden event, so an event that happened and we had to produce a very brief protection analysis in a very short time, or to raise an attention on a thematic that not necessarily falls into the priority protection risk when we discuss with partners. So as you can see, this is one example of a brief PAU developed on the LGBTQ plus population and the protection risk affecting that specific group. Lastly, the last two, there has been sensitive context. So protection analysis update has been developed with Parler and so on, but we didn't publish them. We didn't share it that widely, but we use them consistently in private briefing to donors to member states and other actors, even in countries. And then at last, there has been several PAUs that has been focusing on one region, one geographic area in the country. Some have been a brief, so five, six pages of a protection analysis update on one region. Some other, they were long protection analysis update because it was important to highlight the situation of that specific area. So the classroom in the operation decided to go to a much more geographic approach. And I stopped there. I wanted to show you possibilities that actually come from practice to actually open now for a bit the over to you for any question or any comment. Kasia? It's not a comment. I just wanted to really understand because, you know, I think for us, as we're starting to think about our PAU, we will definitely need to, I want to discuss also with our AORs this coming Monday. Can you repeat the first area of how the specific area of responsibility analysis of common protection risks? How what was the practice that so far, what do we mean after that bullet? Thanks. So we had, I think we had two, but one of these that is prominent is it was supported by the house land and property area responsibility. So it was a food protection analysis update developed by the house land and property area responsibility together with us. And it was looking at the risks, but from an house land and property perspective. So the analysis, I can share the example afterwards following up on the call. They were basically, so there is, were not the typical one of house land and property because we had attacked like you might have in Ukraine, but they were analyzing the driver and the effect from an house land and property perspective. And these it was actually is a conversation we are also having right now with the AOR global level that sometimes we could have our own protection analysis update where we look at the critical risks. But then if there is a need of a focus PAU on child protection on those same risks, that would be great because then we could use them complementarily. So our PAU is what it shows to all the other sector, the critical risks, but then we can dig into much better on an area of work. That's an answer. Yes. And then the second bullet point would be when, for example, we have, we have a P, we have the PAU that looks into the say this five prioritized critical protection risks and say for example, one of this is a child protection specific risk without child protection issues. But then there is this one, one, let's say specific issue that is coming all across five critical protection, protection risks identified. Is this what we mean by that? Okay. Cool. Cool. Thank you so much. On this, I will touch afterwards because I actually aggregated the most common question I received. And this is one of the questions. And now some of the solutions we applied that we can discuss together. Is there any other comment? Thank you, Kazim. Any other reflection? Any other case that we didn't explore? As usual, I can ask a thumbs up if we can continue or if there is any need of another space there for questions. It's also for me to verify that you are there. I don't see any thumbs up. Thank you, Enoch. Thank you for that. Okay. So here for the one that participated to the core session this year in that we did one month ago on the revised process of analysis for HPC. I wanted to just go back to it very quickly and showcase when would be ideal to have a protection analysis update. If you remember last year, we were saying that we will need at least two protection analysis updates per year and then the frequency can be adjusted. What we have been trying to introduce this year is a much more structured approach whereby it will be very, very, very important to have a protection analysis update by May and June for two specific reasons. One is the moment where OSHA and the intersectional process are defining the scope for the HNO. So it's the best moment to present a strong analysis. But normally June, May, June is also the moment where global donors are doing their allocation of fundings. It seems counterintuitive but they don't do the location. Many of them they don't do the location of funding when the HNO is published but they do it a mid-year. So it's extremely strategic for us to have protection analysis update that are developed in the first between now and June and then they are published in June. So this is to reiterate that we have been looking into that strategically of course each context in each country can adapt the process but that would be the most strategic approach in order to inform then the HNOs. The way that has been worked so what we propose on the way to do protection analysis actually built on the best practice from all of you. We have been introducing in March the global protection updates prioritization and admin one. So you could use that survey as a starting point of looking at the severity of the different risks. And then what you see that can work very well is an exercise of prioritization and then a second exercise of validation and update of the analysis. The process that went the smoothest when this prioritization was at a sub-national level and then at the capital level was aggregated. So I'm also sharing that as a lessons learned. Sometimes the problem when we had problem of PAUs that lasted too long or we had problem of agreement or disagreement is where we centralized this only on the capital and we didn't and we just based that on our workshop looking directly in prioritization. So these are two lessons learned as well that we've been introducing. We are in touch with many of you but the ideal process is to use a certain survey that does that prioritization before a workshop may get in the majority of partners and use those results then to inform a workshop on prioritization. Let me pause there for a bit otherwise then I now will enter a bit on the format and some of the challenges of last year. Is there any questions so far? It's all clear. Yeah many of you have been involved. I see the participants. Carmin or Carmine? I don't know if you wanted to raise the thumbs up or you wanted to ask some questions. Sorry my bad, all good. It's Carmin thank you. Thank you. Okay so let me go on this because I think it would be good to have the reflection after the audio presentation and protection monitoring. So if I look at all my past year support there has been four major questions that has been progressively that we progressively received. So here I just really link right the four questions and just give you some of the troubleshooting how we respond to those and how we adapted them to publish the PAU. So the first one is you know that we have 15 definitions. Those 15 definitions has been agreed between AER and GPC but one of the major questions is what if we need to change the definition? Why do we need to adapt it? So these are the three major troubleshooting, so the three major solutions that we came with practice. One is that it comes without saying every time you have that problem don't force it too much come back to us and we always found a solution. So we found a way to adapt the definition in a way that is consistent with the language of protection risk but it's also acceptable in the country. There has been no case on the old 22 PAUs of last year where we didn't find a solution. So let's do it. The second is we strongly advise that you use metoderminology that is common in the country that if you have dialogue or that type of terminology is used in the country as long as it captures the same situation of risks I use that terminology. Here I put an example that is coming from Mozambique where the forced return which is the way we define our risks they have been presenting the analysis but for them was important to define it as involuntary and induced returns in adverse circumstances because the language used there was this one and we recently had one with with Palestine for instance where forced displacement the language used in the country is forcible transfer so using the language in country is absolutely recommendable and we can look together in how to adapt it and help you out. The other major problem is sometimes there are these general there is this tendency of presenting general risk, child protection of risks, conflict related risks and in those cases the solution we found is always to put the highlight in one driving risks even in the title. So here you can see an example where multiple protection child protection risks were important and the solution we found is to because the analysis was given that is to actually show that forced child separation was the key driver compounded by children exposure to violent abuse and neglect included a less forced recruitment and trafficking. So if you can see in the rest of the definition there are the other risks but we clarify what drives and what are the effects. Please stop me at any time if it's not clear and then there is the of course the ongoing question because we have five in the protection sector we are so rich we have five areas of work so how do we present child protection gbv in my national and hlp issue if there is no across the privatized risk there is no a risk that is specifically related to those areas of work. So one solution that we have found across operation is include the analysis so the child protection analysis gbv analysis should be across risks because I think that we can all agree that risks are not isolated they work together so for instance in a situation where you have attacks on civilians even if the risk is attacks on civilian you have child protection consequences and effect gbv, hlp and so on so work together with the aor to look together at those risks. The second is start engaging with the police of the aor from the definition of the scope of the protection analysis updates sometimes when we have much more problematic situation it's where when we decided the scope we decided in a way we did the prioritization and then we engaged but sitting down at the very beginning what is strategic in terms of the scope when I mean the scope is what should be the message of the pu how should be structured and so on that will help us out in ensuring that the analysis from all others all other works are actually reflected across the pu. Then again this I go back with the example before if there is no agreement or sometimes we don't reach an agreement on the priority risks there is some tension there we can have a protection analysis update published as protection clustered with the most critical risks but if there is any necessity to actually dig deeper and present a stronger analysis for instance on hlp there could be another pu that is developed together with the aor colleagues that look at the same risk but it shows the old hlp consequences this actually is very output not just only to to carbon agreement to have a stronger analysis but even when we present externally to the other sectors because then we can use the critical risks as our common narrative but we can still show deeper analysis of the different areas of work and this is a fundamental question that I receive basically every time what if we have more than five critical protection risks and so one solution that we found across is that sometimes one risk is driving go the others so it's a structural risk so it happens attacks for instance when there is a bombardment and so on that when at when a risk is a clear driver of all the other you can elevate it to the context so you have one risk in the context that is explained as a structural driver of all the other risks so then gives you the space to actually focus on the one that are more the consequence and the another solution we found is that again protection risks are not acting in isolation so you might have for instance attacks presence of mine and force and family separation so assuming for instance it's in a generic context that attacks is the priority risk in the analysis we can present the other risks so the effects in term of presence of mine out is impacted the population and the compounded effect on for instance force family separation so we actually the risks are not in isolation the prioritization it's fundamental for us to understand how to strategize but then in the analysis you can actually use the other risks to explain what are the effects and then again I go back to this is another solution we found additional protection is updates so you might have one that is our main protection is updated shows the five top risk in the country but then we can have a brief one that dedicates only to one risks and enters in more detail into that analysis or one risk that has not been included in the five risk so you can use also those flexible this is the simpler what if we have to write more than 15 pages my my always comment is don't do it because it's not read and I've seen it and proven all last year but sometimes it's necessary so the major solution we found is there is many information sometimes they can be presented as annex so I'm next to the PAU it's also a good way to use the document strategically because the PAU can help you out in for instance organizing a meeting with a donor with the HCT and so on and during that meeting you can use the additional information that you have developed to present it and to present much more deeper information has been the case for instance for the response section which many of you I mean having one page to show the response it's a bit limited but as we see because in the PAU we want to be very precise so the whole detailed dashboard of what do we do and so on we have been using those as annexes most of the time and all specific thematic consideration we wanted to include in PAU we include it as annexes let me pause there let me give a pause one second and does I have a question do you do any of this solution maybe I already answered some of the challenges you had I will ask you about challenges afterwards but there is any reaction or comment or question Yes Francesco, it's Julian for the Afghanistan Protection Cluster on the 15 pages have a question for annex for example we have five risks too much information on for example two or three risks can it be an annex by protection risk or not really thank you ah that's interesting my initial reaction would say yes meaning that in the PAU a less one risk you really want to show and put an accent to one specific risk then it can be in terms of space much bigger than the others so require more analysis my general comment it would be that in the PAU they should be balanced okay so if there is any additional much deeper analysis surely you can go in an annex I will say yes and it can be presented as you know the deeper analysis or much more evidence with much more resources so I will say yes okay thank you and the annex could have several risks detailed or not but if it becomes pay attention or to have it as another PAU meaning that my question is yeah maybe we can look at that bilaterally together I will still structure it in a way that it doesn't become longer than than than the PAU but it can be strategically structured so ideally yes but we have to look into that okay yeah you don't have to risk to add two documents with speaking about different risks or even the same risk with different information that that will be my to be cautious on that okay thanks a lot any other reflection alexanderos please nice to see you here hi francisco um uh joining from from greece that have finished with the afghanian celebration maybe I have a question that could support colleagues that are still working on the PAU in afghanistan do you think that like you know that in the last period we were working on softening the language that we are using when it comes to the protection activities and response um so that we can make it more if I can say friendly to be using meetings that we have with with dfa and be like more approachable to them do you uh do you see any kind of implication because we know that for instance the aor not sure if colleagues from the gbv or connected to the meeting today but we know that they have expressed again and again some you know reservation some concerns about the issues raised and the language use so that this would not provoke the dfa like in the future or whomever would read that report that wouldn't be donors or other like let's say protection um uh stakeholders um do you see a necessity or an added value in using the same softened let's say protection language in the pa u or do you think that this is something that is totally separate and colleagues should reflect exactly in the undiscipted if I can say protection language the risks that we have identified and we see um as priority for the first p a u for 2024 thank you and over uh thank you lexandro um let me uh and there is a baby uh baby sorry for mispronouncing let me add an initial reaction and then I just share it back for reflection also for my colleagues um I think that if we have to soften too much the language on a pa u um we have to look at actually the details so it would not be a pa u anymore so because it's we're gonna reduce the the actual objective of showing the violation and the protection of is related to that solution we had in the past is to do it with a good language and work and share it privately so that's one solution um other solution that we had for instance in mozambique or in other countries that is less political than afghanistan is yes we soften the language to not use strong human right related language but we still define it as a professional risks so there is a work there to do in uh uh on the language but we can work on it otherwise if it's really watering down a lot the language my suggestion is we either do it as a private pa u and then we share it privately instead of public or we find alternatives but I don't know if I understood well the question uh uh but over back for reflection and others uh but before we do that uh baby am I pronouncing that properly thank you very much francisco I mean you pronounce very well uh this is Yana from Ethiopia uh I have one question regarding to prioritization of five critical protection risks um yeah uh how to measure I mean the likelihood and impact of I mean specific protection risk to compare other risks maybe some protection risk have I mean a huge impact but less frequently happen thank you and over thank you for that baby um I don't think I can answer fully but maybe we can follow up bilaterally uh two three things that we've been introduced again building on lessons learned is one we have been introducing criteria uh that we have been working together with the area of responsibility for each of the 15 risks for a better comparability and the second aspect is um we are looking less at probability likelihood but we are more we are looking much more into uh the direct consequence that we observe to data um as our preliminary analysis for prioritization so the prioritization exercise is not based on what is the likelihood of protection is to happen but is what is the risk that has been impacting the people so far so it's less forecasting analysis is more of descriptive one uh but maybe I leave it there and we can follow up bilaterally if it's okay for you unless uh you would like to to to to have a partner conversation thank you but that's a great great question any other comments about uh Alec Sandro Gillian I don't know if my answer my reflection on your comment was okay or if you want to to think better more please Alec Sandro no I am fully fully agree we're on the same page I'm just wondering because we did the whole kind of an attempt an exercise to make sure before going to a meeting with the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs that we soften the language to the extent that the the activities that are implemented under the protection classes are welcomed in a way by the by the DFA and even softening the language when we speak about GBB speaking about women and their families which doesn't necessarily reflect um the the risk per se the protection risk per se so I'm just wondering whether uh it would make sense to keep them like separate or as you rightfully said have an internal version or an external version of the EAU that wouldn't like say put at a necessary risk what the operation or the protection class has done already has achieved already very um you know in very challenging circumstances in in in Afghanistan that would only be my my concern I think the office but I totally leave it with the colleagues that will will go on and finalize the PAU in Afghanistan to to decide on what's the best way forward over thank you fantastic thank you thank you Alec Sandro I mean one thing is we did it sometimes in terminal and external PAU so that's doable but you say something that I actually made a mistake one thing is the language the PAU the other is the language when we present the PAU to authorities and other actors in the presentation we are absolutely flexible to use the best language possible so that's also we are actually working uh the second part of the year to improve and support you on how to present it because the presentation does have to adapt to the context so that those are other considerations but I forgot to say when I was referring to not being a PAU it's on the document so the document yeah we can do those different solution private internal external one private or maintain the language but then the presentation is understood thank you any other burden question otherwise I still have now I'm going to go through the five chapters again to do a very quick overview many of you heard me a lot but I might be to do it quickly so then our colleague Dorian can give us a bit of input some professional monitoring and open a bit on questions then any other comments so so the I will go very quickly on this there is another webinar on this so but again I'm going chapter by chapter so because we actually had a strategic approach when we thought about the format so I want to go through again very quickly executive summary one page absolutely not beyond of one page even if it's one paragraph going beyond our suggestion is to bring it back to one page because honestly that is the page most read and it's a page that you can use it very easily sometimes you can share only just that so structurally well the executive summary it's extremely important because sometimes it's the only page that specifically high level actors they look at when we include the context update there is no need of giving the history is the background on anything on the country but really focus from the first paragraph of the most important update for the period what happened in the last period that is extremely essential to read through so don't be concerned or present in the context present in the country and some this will be somewhere else and we can actually share another document that gives the history here really the first two paragraph they can they should drive on the attention or what happened that is extremely important to focus the protection of the attention to in the last period and this is an example that you can find in the template but I will not go there but showing for instance what is that the last part then presenting the five risks no need to add description and highlighted they are there so they are very visible and then two three top most urgent action needed sometimes in the last two years these are confused with recommendation and sometimes since these are confused with recommendation there is a need of putting 10 or 15 but here the reality is of sort of the two top three asks for that period they can be some of them in the recommendation but normally they can be coming from the recommendation this can be drafted as advocacy message and they can be precise on one specific region but really really what are you trying to to ask to the external people that look at the analysis then they will look at the detailed recommendation but what are the two top things that you are asking and really focus on that and then on the severity one thing that we suggest not to do is to add the severity table of the HNO specifically for now for instance we are in March already not to add that table by itself because it's already far in time but try to ask the IAM colleagues to show variation to show what changed even if we add the table that we use in the last HNO if a long time pass showing some additional layer of other information so that table should of course be linked on that severity but should be a better structure and one of the things that we do knowing that you can't redo all the severity calculation over and over and over adding at the end a table where even by value judgment even by internal meeting with partner you can look into the severity even if it's just a workshop with partner at some national level where we have seen like in December in November that we put that the severity was three or four but we feel the situation actually got worse and it's a pure qualitative table the idea of it is to drive the attention not to you know and then open for the conversation so the point being whatever you include in terms of severity in the et cetera is somebody really focus on having an update and sometimes even focus on qualitative update we don't need strong data to show that because then we're going to have our analysis that is actually sustaining why in specific region or in specific state this we feel the situation changes when please stop me at any time when we go to context we have a standard table at the very top and there is no need of putting only protection data but then we we suggest the most important figures that you think we should show to explain our analysis so if it's a trend of displacement is a trend of displacement if it's a full security data it's a full security data so really what are the top most significant figures that really in a visual aspect they gave even already the attention on the driver of the list that we've been putting into our analysis and sometimes we just put the numbers but when you look at the numbers by themselves is you can't get what does the number mean unless you have huge numbers so we always suggest to make an effort to show variation so variation compared to the last PAU or variation compared to the previous year so and also if you have other ideas better but try always not to show absolute number but to show something that is relevant some variation some trend that shows why that figure is important then the structure of the context this is a very editorial suggestion don't do long context we have maximum three pages so divided in section and think strategically the title of the section the title of the section I always say should be an analysis itself so here for instance steady erosion of livelihood and coping capacity worrying impacts of poor government and disruption of community fabrics so a title that already give a highlight that is sort of an analytical conclusion this is very helpful for the people that just screened documents and not add very long long long long text without this heading and and also cause add some graphs on the graphs and information needed we have seen the tendency sometimes to use our approach of representative protection monitoring data brought to the PAU so sometimes we have a question and we have percentage of people that answer these percentage of people that the answer that in a PAU our suggestion is always to either bring trends or correlation or to at least overlay different answers so so something that brings together two pieces of data as a minimum that you can use to justify your analysis so when I've seen you have seen in me but when in the past we had just the graphs for instance on how many percentage of people was answering to specific question we will always suggest to replace those those type of information because that is good for a protection monitoring report but when we bring it to the analysis if we put something visual or some graph issues show some correlation or something that actually sustained the narrative analysis on the protection of this session you all know the five risks and then for the formulation of the risks I will not go into details because there is a tutorial so the structure of the narrative should be based on the protection analytical framework so logically threats consequences and capacity then there are different ways but then for the head things and this goes back to my previous actually lesson learned from last year avoid general formulation we can't have outstanding the property as a risk or violation or all forms of violence that doesn't tell what is critical so that might be in our messaging and so on but not as a title of a risk include always I mean a man made factors a man made factors means because we're speaking about violations so when we speak about risk force denial impediments one of the things that happened at most most of my work last year is lack of and the suggestion is to avoid lack of because lack of is not in itself a risk because it's not related to the action behind that oh thank you leech can you hear me now I'm back yes I can hear you but you were it was frozen for a second not if it's us or if it was you so sorry for that so moving forward and sometimes there is a important issues in the country is the example for instance of food insecurity malnutrition in our PA use is never the title of a risk because that is another sector situation but we could frame one of our risks to be linked to that so it happened in I remember I think it was also done two years ago where there is a food food insecurity situation and our risk were related to discrimination and denial of resources leading to food insecurity so it's extremely important not to be driven by one of the most important crises in the in the country but link our language with risk with that situation and and then at last the general contextual events are not risky themselves so conflict ongoing violence occupation so this means just when we define what the risk is and it links to the first one so always avoid generalization try to be a bit more precise on what is the driving risks and defining the densities and on the response the response sense this has been to be honest with all of you has been the most critical section in all of the work we did last year because of course we had a tendency to present the response monitoring for 5W show everything we do we did across the area of responsibility if we show one area we have to show the other I we know all of that situation but as I say before this section should be very very analytical in a sense we are presenting the risks we are telling these are the critical risks so the response section should be what are we doing as protection actor that is positively contributed to the risk identified so what progress and can be strategic and can be tactic so for instance there has been one area of the country where we have been increasing community-based approaches and it's actually been effective and we want to actually advocate for that community-based approach to be extending another area of the country so these I will focus the progress into that so in this area in this area we have been implementing community-based approach with this methodology and it contributed to mitigated risk in this and the other way so really progress not a response monitoring but important progress is in relation to the risk so these I'll pass out in presenting in the second part okay we are doing progress but we have this problem in terms of accessing population so it can be physically it can be related even to funding but this is even if we are doing our best as a sector our partner are doing their best yeah you are doing the best we still have these challenges and and these Alps in presenting the last part which are the critical gaps which I always say the critical gaps should not just be financial donors they hear you on financial gaps all the time so they can be financial but what is really critical so for instance with the example of community approaches yeah we would like to extend that but community approaches are not prioritized in a surfunding for instance or in a pool fund so that is so what is that has to be changed that it's a critical gaps in order for us to be much more effective in addressing and mitigating the risks so I stopped there on the response I just posed one second I know that this is the more the less intuitive for the way we work but the bottom line is anything that is a response monitoring can be presented as an annex and can be presented as an additional aspect to this section in this section really doing an effort with also the AOR colleagues and the partner to really focus and see what progress we want to show what barrier we still have what gaps we still need to address that also can help us out in funding you can help us out in expanding type of activities and I will let me stop there the last part of recommendation here recommendation I always suggest that for each list we can't have a list of 25 recommendations for the same logic they have to be critical they have to be important if there are more recommendations again an annex so here we can include the important one what we think are the most critical one and then we can have a much more detailed document of recommendation that always my suggestion organize them against the risks these in 2020 seconds seems to be problematic but all last year all of you didn't find all operation didn't find any problem linking them to the list so that's I think that we can skip that but there is still something on recommendation that I always suggest we should advance on sometimes the crisis are not changing so we always have the same recommendation and sometimes we tend to do general recommendation many general recommendation even when they are general our suggestion is to do two things to do an effort to link very well the target so these maybe it's a combination that should be taking place by the whole humanitarian community but really include the target because that allows us allow the extended reader to show that we understand where the problem what the issue should be addressed the second is to add a time bound period so this should be done by the next six months by the next quarter by the next year because otherwise we will face this consequence so it's not any more a general recommendation but we are actually putting forward what when we think this should be done and it doesn't stay as a recommendation that is never implemented the second is even if it's a general recommendation for that specific period where in the country is more important so we need to improve these or to ensure this specifically in this region this region in this region that doesn't mean that we are excluded in the other region that shows that in the last period we have a good analysis of what happened in the last period so on recommendation these are just the improvement we see that we are still we have still to work together localizing it give me time bound and linking well with the target I stopped there and sorry for that it took long but I thought it was good to have a refresher on this is there any comment or question before I pass to micro leap for a bit of reflection on protection monitoring can you raise your hand if we can continue also to see if you're still there hold clear thank you very much Stephen please what you wanted to give thumbs up sorry it should have been a thumbs up thank you very much then so we will have some space ah Cassia please I don't know if I mean I will ask my two questions and tell me if it's better to ask them at the end of the to clarify at the end of the session one when you spoke at the beginning of the period of the power should we count from the last power or really focus on the I don't know the developments in the last month what's what's best that's really strategic meaning that it depends on the time passing from the last pay you so what I say that would be interesting is just in the figure in the context that you could put something from the last pay you or and then another that may be the last period so you can show some trend but any term of the coverage is really strategic so if you think now that the one that you are publishing in the next couple of months should focus in 2024 focus into 2024 no need to cover all the events from the last one and then the second one is like thinking you know how we will organize the process in Ukraine just to make it clear when in the one of the previous workshops you wish and also with the GPU we shared this table like with the subnational analysis quantitative to which there could be some qualitative analysis also added in how we prioritize risk just to confirm because that's something I'm planning to share with subnational coordinators and this is something you would also support right and help us out in case we need to train a subnational coordinators on the risks etc a little bit right absolutely because that actually didn't what we introduced with the GPU admin one was a lessons learned from the PAU of last year many of you told us that prioritizing risk is extremely difficult because you have AORs you have partners you have different opinions and so on and in those two three countries where we actually did that a subnational level using some sort of quantitative survey helped because then the conversation at capital level was starting from something so so the introduction of the GPU is exactly for that objective this year and that's a suggestion that we had for everybody use the GPU we did to start the PAU process even a subnational level so we could start from something we can have a better prioritization on some national level we can bring a national level so absolutely and then we are not we are not discussing this now but we are you know that we are revising also the action no methodology and one of the things that we are going to introduce is to use the GPU admin one plus the prioritization for the severity at the end of the year so you don't have to redo the exercises so and much very much happy to support on the tools for the training a subnational level everything I'll get back to you bilateral because that will need to happen pretty soon and I'll be in Geneva as well so we can yeah discuss thank you guys any other question so if it's okay then Dorian over to you let me introduce a bit this subject many operations have been discussing with us on and many of you have been reflecting on how to revise protection monitoring last year we had Nigeria Somalia there Afghanistan recently I think we discussed in this with Venezuela so many many operations we are in the same process of thinking how to reuse the protection monitoring more and more and we have two lessons learned that I wanted to share yeah thank you Celia coming to you two lessons learned that I wanted to share from last year is one is that we have to find a way to categorize the question and information in the protection monitoring to be more usable for the PAU so that's a big lesson learned sometimes very difficult to use the protection monitoring information for the PAU simply because the PAU use the path categories and the risk while the protection monitoring sometimes it doesn't so that is a fundamental lesson learned that we had and the second is that the process of the PAU can help us out in rationalizing what we ask so we don't need sometimes to have these long questionnaires but we may might need a reduced questionnaire because it's what we need to understand and then the rest can be on observation and other methodology so sharing that as the two big lessons learned and then I now I pass to Dorian so he can present a bit the work in South Sudan but before I see there is a question Asaidi if I pronounce it well yeah Francisco good afternoon everyone may I open audibly enough now yes oh great good afternoon everyone this is Asaidi at Lofari Yusuf calling from the north eastern region of Nigeria just want to appreciate your effort to say thanks so much because this is an opportunity for us to have this kind of global interaction which regards to the protection intervention in in our communities and in our countries of intervention just to appreciate the effort and also to to a kind of advocate for many more of this kind of interaction because of course we're trying we being in this call is actually exposing us to the realities out there it gives us the opportunity to know what's actually happening globally and also it's an avenue for us to share ideas here we are no more in the emergency we we are this is we are in post-emergency and for Bernoucet the government here is actually committed to returning IDPs to their ancestral homes at least I think I mean I can't close you also I I want to say thank you and also want to extend my regards to every partner out there in the protection sector globally thank you and over thank you very much that's very much appreciated we are trying to do this effort actually to have more exchange like this so it's good to hear that they are helpful somehow because otherwise sometimes we are too detached at our level like global level so it's good to hear that thank you um Dorian are you still there um if you are there I will pass it over to you I'm here thank you so over to you and I can move this slide for you yes thank you so um I'm not sure if this now the slide uh yes please please put on the first slide uh is this automated because I don't see the text in the in yeah okay all right thank you so just to give very very brief uh background in South Sudan we have developed and deployed a protection monitoring system a key informant non-incident based system which looks into uh 11 uh protection risks violations groups of of of violations which is done with intention to have an understanding a high level understanding of what is happening in the country on monthly basis and to be able to measure trends and also to be able to advocate not so much at the time on the yearly planning but on monthly or seasonal uh prioritizations due to conflicts due to floods so the yearly system just did not work for us to be able to be precise um there was a big buying from the partners on the ground from the donors so happy to report that today this system is embedded in the HNO HRP it's embedded in the needs assessment working group is taken by the HCE as the the main source of information for protection of course much more needs to be done and I will go go to it next what I just wanted to show on this first slide um and comparing it to uh uh an example of uh one of the risks is uh basically the structure of the information needs that we have put together so the first one is about prevalence is it happening the second one is what groups are uh is it happening and then if it's happening how much of it is happening um next question uh uh who what are the groups that are particularly affected main reasons for uh for that particular violations uh contributors to those uh violations what are in this in particularly important for because we are talking about access to human interior access um what services are being denied and what are the actions so raising situation including negative coping mechanisms by uh by this community so when when analyzing the information uh that is being collected uh and uh when uh creating and not only power we also have a monthly system to inform about uh this uh protection risk trends uh we look into the scale of course we look into the vulnerable groups because that might or might not imply some sort of a targeting uh we need to understand the reasons or contributors that can be addressed by humanitarian actors political or peace stakeholders or development actors not every single risk or the cause of every single risk is something that we can do something about it so when analyzing these are kind of let's say the questions that we are asking ourselves what are the data telling us uh links to other clusters not so not only links within our own risks or a or rs but also links to other clusters um and then looking at coping mechanisms then that might increase other risks or usually negative coping mechanisms um then because this is a key informant interview level very high level uh data collection we want also to uh for that the results of this analysis triggers or might trigger or or provide some proof for further investment into uh deep dives like focal focal group discussions so it's not fdg but mgd uh intersectoral rapid needs assessments where uh and some of the triggers when we look at the data uh this and this is still primary data sources uh late-scale occurrences particularly affected groups uh with links to negative coping mechanisms such as for example gbb and also urgent need for protection mainstreaming activities among other clusters in for this particular uh for this particular risk can we go on the next slide please Francesco can we go to the next slide please ah thank you sorry so now um for secondary data sources this and now um we have used secondary data sources before but not at the level of risk assessment but we have mostly used it at the level of hno hrp analysis so the big the big thing now we are moving towards uh including secondary uh data sources and this time as you can see already now in a path structured way um for example uh uh various various uh type of areas from various uh different sources to feed into our analysis sometimes this can be done in a quantitative way sometimes it can be done in a qualitative uh uh uh way but it is very important to be able to map your secondary data sources of course um look into um into uh their credibility their shelf life it is often a problem that we have encountered here that maybe um some NGO will publish a report about something that they have assessed four months ago um the relevance of that information might or but probably is not relevant anymore um but also to be uh to be then talking to uh to other uh whether a sectorial or or an organization we lost to Dorian your mic uh yeah so yeah so i'm just going to uh go back in a nutshell so now we are looking into structuring our secondary data so some of them already existing some of them is in the pipeline some of them is uh uh is fully functional but we haven't looked at it from the perspective of the path structure you know the threads the characteristics the consequences and the capacities um and in in some we are negotiating with some of the prime uh some of the owners of the data to improve their own data collection or increase their own data collection to uh to feature some of the needs that we might also have for example we are now in talks with cccm for site population profiling um in in principle uh what i was wanted to say here is that the the current protection monitoring system that we have is very much close to the way path works protection of the framework but it's not there yet we are now in the process of of looking at the secondary data sources and mapping it in a way that it feeds uh and and it's and it's collated in a way that path can uh can can uh it can be it can be analyzed by using five um we can go to the next slide please can you see it already not yet range yeah so uh with with the um protection monitoring system that is already in place um we have established another important thing uh which we call the promo the protection monitoring working group which is uh which consists of uh at the moment of about 40 protection partners that are engaged in data collection and data analysis and we are working closely together with them to uh to serve and as you can if you would uh to serve as both a data collecting but also data and information analyzing hub uh which also then uh partially serves also as a group which creates a power so very quickly a protection cluster member is asked to a collect quantitative data through what we will now call prms this in the next couple of months together with the support from the global protection cluster we are revising our protection monitoring system to be fully um uh fully uh harmonized with the 15 protection risk and the analytical framework for every single of the one of those uh risks and and apart from having the key informant uh data collection tool we will also be creating focus group discussion rapid need assessment observation methodology harmonized tools that every single protection cluster member will eventually hopefully use and all the data quantitative data will be analyzed through the prms and provide of course visualized through a dashboard provided as a data source to the needs assessment working group which then collates it with other clusters to prioritize uh at the geographical level we will provide it to promo in parallel at this particular moment and i'm sure this is also happening in some other countries as well uh together with the global protection cluster and drc we uh there is a deep project that is uh providing a new another useful tool which is uh which is fully aligned with the path where quantitative information are being stored and tagged uh today this morning we had the first training of our partners in the field and they also this will happen in in the months to come so what do we want to achieve we want to achieve that the promo which is here at the center of the cloud this group of people receives quantitative data of course analyzed data with suggestions and will receive qualitative data and be and and by having both in a single let's say on on on a single editorial desk is able to not only create the pause but create something that we call spotlight it's a monthly it's a small it's a mini power which gives us even more freedom of selection so we can look at the information and data horizontally vertically geographically thematically we don't even need always to bring to the front the highest risks we can gives us this flexibility to say okay this month we want to talk maybe of some smaller risks but we will dedicate this document uh uh uh to that um feed other reporting and activities feed the hn rp narrative because uh if you have um info if you are following trends then you also you you you pretty much have uh 90 80 percent of your hn rp ready to go before the hn rp even starts um it helps us of course with the global advocacy making making sure that all our dashboards and the documents are published on the global website every dog every piece of information or data can be filtered down to national and subnational coordinator level even we at admin level three so so so field coordination level can basically filter down and look only at their geographical areas a or rs can only look at certain thematic areas but filtering through um of course we are looking into um ways how in the future we might do some comparisons with five w's which might give indications of impact yet to be seen uh and of course it will help us by either identifying hrp needs and targeting from the thematic points of view what areas and not only from a geographical point of view but also thematic point of view uh we we will be able to uh to support uh the best so it's quite complex it's quite large but it so far has uh we are on the way uh we haven't reached this what you can see here but we are confident that this year we will we will have that and be able to support uh the promos meaning this this group uh assessment group with both qualitative and quantitative data which is structured and this is very important in a way that it can be uh assessed uh uh by using uh uh the the framework uh that the global protection cluster is uh pushing here so um also just for one final world before any uh uh questions um the importance of it is that we are trying to make it light and fast as light as possible and as fast as possible so far this uh uh gave us a lot of credibility second parenthesis last year when doing hno uh uh we the uh protection monitoring system was our source of information for probably about 70 percent of of uh of all our assessments and it took away a huge cost for household level assessments across the country in protracted situations this is not needed maybe every couple of years but it really is not needed to be done uh every year so took a big load of of the the general humanitarian uh uh let's say efforts in collect collecting data and yes as machesco said before we also do rely occasionally whether thematically or geographically on uh rapid desk reviews with key people uh uh uh on the ground not everything can always be quantified there are issues uh of various sources but as long as the quantification and the desk review is done in accordance with the framework uh we so far have not experienced any problem and troubles or or have received any pushback by people from the feed by saying that we are misrepresenting the situation thank you over to you thank you very much Dorian amazing um i want to open for questions but before um that just one comment that i think is an important one for everybody uh such that doesn't have huge iam resources so it's just Dorian so one other thing that i wanted to highlight is uh one other thing that i found interesting is that these organizing of information against the framework and the lightening of the process and focusing more the protection monitoring to the framework on how to contribute to analysis was very supporting and was doable even if not having a full team of iams so just a just an example of why for me was important to share but uh before any comment or question i know i don't want to call out some colleagues but uh i know the colleagues from afghanistan they were doing a similar exercise on their thinking about it the colleagues of venezuela so it would be great to share a bit i don't know your reflection on this if you see the possibility of working together on the protection monitoring as guiding the support on the pa u uh but over to you colleagues alicia thank uh i well thank you dorian this was super interesting i mean of course uh it's a lot of work and we're just starting with it uh but i think it's interesting because well in our case it's a special case because we also have relationship with the protection sector of the response for venezuela platform so it's not a protection cluster but still we're trying to see how we can standardize protection analysis inside of venezuela and then also in the region so having this as an example it gives me a deal because we will do we will have a workshop next month exactly on this and inside of venezuela we're having talks with other NGOs who are already doing protection analysis with different tools but i mean it's it's a lot of digest but we wanted to understand uh basically what i'm trying to do we have a new sag and have like a subgroup in our sag of organization that can support this especially those that are already implementing um protection analysis so i don't know if it's something that you do with specific organization in such then or just as a coordination team of the cluster and what the role of the arab responsibilities are because what my perception has been here in venezuela they have not been involved a lot in all this protection analysis not sure if because of the global a or what reason is but we basically are trying to engage everybody but it's quite new because at the beginning was just done as a um from the coordination team so i'm just trying to burden it so i just wanted to understand with whom you're working with and how that is going in in south sudan saying thank you thank you lisha dorian over to you yeah so um well of course uh like everything that when you want to create something you need to start with a small group and this was first of all this was put in the protection strategy so the at the coordinator at the time decided that needs to that needs to be done and a ors uh supported that protection monitoring system needs to be in place so uh how long it took them to make that decision before i came here i don't know but uh the so first of all you had the decision uh yes it took probably about eight months to convince everybody to uh talk to a ors to talk to some of the key protection players to talk to orcha to talk to um some organizations like rich which quite honestly felt threatened by the that you know they are not the sole um source of information in the country and of course talk to cluster members so that the buying part was quite long uh but uh once uh we we we did get quite a good strong support from unit ci even some small little funding from echo so you know once you start distributing a little bit of tablets start start doing a little bit of trainings the momentum the momentum is there so then we realized that this is going to be much bigger than you know that a two or three member team can do here so we basically established promo the pro protection monitoring working group the working group consists of 40 members so just to give you the scale the protection cluster is also done has 267 members of which 120 are reasonably active so about third of active members are involved in the protection monitoring working group so that gives that gives uh gives takes a lot of effort in managing and and you know organizing monthly meetings but then it takes a lot of responsibility and buying um you know it kind of spreads spreads the responsibility of what we have won at the end of the day we want to say so there is a much stronger um support to our our results uh so the very very few questions are then being asked once 40 organizations stand behind it uh of course um most that 80 percent of the documentation and the and the the maps and the data and the draft of the of the advocacy they need to be done they need to be done by us and then they are being reviewed and new things pop up but yeah so there is a lot of manual work but as I said how however the the fact that those products when they go out to the donor community to the people nobody questions them they are taken and they're taken as granted so it has it has value to invest a little bit so that is our experience thank you Dorian and I know I speak for Dorian but Alicja maybe we also organized in the past having peer-to-peer and bilaterals maybe across operation I think it's a good uh we can follow up on that um any other comment or question uh from Dorian's or in the user protection monitoring just uh so thank you Dorian for this uh thank you very much we can share also some of the material of the work Dorian already put a link in the chat what we can follow up and just to tell you that we're going to have a pilot exercise in South Sudan in the next month and a help that is going to also inform the revision we are doing the the overall HNO process uh we have two things in mind that we found as general challenges one is not having to rely all the time to announce all data so find a better approach uh and the other um trying to find a way where the protection I think a framework or whatever framework we have can really help you and organize the information there's the main problem that we have seen is the organizing part um so uh very much happy just to open there for other operations that would like to to to to have a conversation of this uh we already have some and uh so I think that now we have a good quorum even to have a joint grouping group uh joint group across operations where we can look into this much more prominently uh thank you very much Dorian for that so we are almost sorry apologies I need to leave because here we if you don't make it to the bus you get stuck in the office thank you very much Dorian have a great day have a great day bye bye so um we still have half an hour uh I think you are it's a long day so you're tired so I want you to suggest uh if you can take five minutes uh I'm gonna or want to have your usual conversation at the end uh so can you just go to the slide as usual you just go in the slider you put the code and I basically suggesting a word cloud as usual coming from you or what is your biggest challenge so you can be more building as challenges I think that I know most of them but it will be good to put it there so then we can open maybe for a 15 20 minutes of reflection and then uh just uh we can close up and then go to the next steps and action points on my side I will post two minutes just to give you time to enter in the slider and contribute to it someone put the code let me show how does it work what is it once you enter oh I made a mistake so once you enter you just you could be able to add a word or more than one answer and then this will give us the word cloud to just let a flag together uh what is it here you have okay so we have four colleagues time prioritization lack of big I love the way that came out very big selected priority risks agreement when you are relationship with your access to data yes lack of secondary data that have a children at risk amazing we have around lack of data since big issue coordination with your R okay became big as well sadly lack of secondary data that is also getting where you are give you another minute and then can you can you still hear me it's some problem with the computer can someone give me a thumbs up if you can hear me yeah thank you okay so let's let's start digging into that someone would like to jump in and feel brave to maybe add some comment on coordination with your lack of data and prioritization the three main one of the three main things someone feel it's our moment of exchange and it's open house so any colleague some of the things we discussed today helped Kimberly please hi Francesco yeah uh basically on on our end base I I feel like um they have the dispossess the the ORs have like the willingness to collaborate and and provide data but then in the process actually discuss discussing and actually like engaging and developing or drafting it's way more difficult to be able to coordinate with them see what um um responsibilities to divide it seems like they give the data and at some point like they can review what's written but I think that would be nicer like to make it the process where we can write together draft discuss with their partners our partners and make it more like a joint effort um in that sense make them feel more involved I feel like it's not a lack of interest but maybe the continuous involvement on understanding the role and the importance of developing a PAU so um that's on my end thank you thank you Kimberly um anyone else would like to add on this and I know that we have some of your colleague registered into the session so if there is any also your colleague that would like to the video will be amazing Stephen please so for me and the coordination is the level of responsiveness so even when you draft uh you share it and ask specific questions uh you derive the response rate is low you take time to get even a response even uh when you split it to the lowest point and say okay out of these issues what do you select can you give me some notes can you give this the responsiveness becomes extremely difficult uh we first this uh very seriously and we are trying to navigate it perhaps the next PAU but uh for now it's been quite challenging yeah anyone else thank you Stephen I was actually taking notes just I don't want to influence the conversation so I want to hear from you anyone else on uh not just go maybe sorry I'm jumping in I I I wrote something in the chat and it's just to under to talk about this on AORs and I was thinking is our PAUs also also promoted by the global AORs because if it comes only from the Protection Cluster then it's always asking them to do something more yeah well if it's also promoted from their global level then maybe there is a support in involving everybody and that they feel that PAUs can be even helpful for the work that AORs are doing in the country because I what I also feel now it's even always more like AORs acting at least it's it's like this in Venezuela acting like another cluster no and this I mean I have a really good relationship with the coordinators but when it comes like we are asking you something it's like okay it's like another cluster asking us to for support clear I will answer in a minute to that I don't want to influence the conversation the exchange is there any AOR in the call or colleagues from other sectors it's this is a very we have so let me let me start with the we are having a very very constructive and useful conversation with the AOR global level and PAUs and protection analysis and compared to previous year we are arriving to very good joint agreement so we are really have an opportunity in a space to work better together and we did that on purpose because we know some of the challenges so just to say that it is any of our please feel free to come in because we are very transparent in all the conversation um any other colleagues on that aspect what would be what would you need what would you think would be useful Alicia yeah your question is probably going that direction um but also would be great to hear from you since we are at the end of the session what will you suggest what would you need from us from the AOR so two things that I can comment is so we we also have to be self-critical sometimes with on our side we don't anticipate too much the PAU we don't inform at the very beginning why the PAU is going to use for so and also from the global level we may be having still a bit the idea of a bit the PAU bit threatening because it's our prioritization of risks but honestly we are beyond that so we can anticipate we can inform better we can inform in advance and I was mentioning at a certain point I felt the last year sometimes we were involving AOR a bit later on the stage for the challenges we know that some of you actually Steve and Steve I mentioned the responsiveness um but these years feel try doing that more and we're discussing with them more even at a global level and one of the things that is happening that we're discussing at our level is that now the the PAU are promoted and we have the idea also from the AOR to promote the PAU more than before so that's one aspect the second is the PAU were a bit disjoint in our methodology from the views we're going to have with the HNO and you know that we're also working on that so there is much more interest on working together but those are the things I can share on our side but over to you Stefan let's be just one one small example is if for instance the CPAOR gave you space to make a presentation on the PAU its value and usefulness during their global AOR meeting where they have all the AOR coordinators participating and you have this discussion and hear from them actually they also give feedback to you saying look how best can you be involved what do you want these protection people to do so that you can feel your own process thank you doing that yeah amazing and not to just go more and on just on the coordination with the AOR on the other aspects someone else will like to jump in on the lack of data lack of data or prioritization is that any of the things we discussed in the last couple of months that you see my help there is anything else we should do in that front I know that then bilaterally we're going to discuss but there is any also suggesting let me occupy the space and time but then I would like to hear from some of you a couple of things that we realize as you know is that the process that we had and also the process we were promoting on our side on PAU and HNO were separated so one of the efforts that we've been and even the GPU so we had the GPU the protection is update and the HNO so one of the things that we're working very very day in and day on is as we presented last month is the linkages so where the GPU survey that you do in March in June and in September that we will use the severity that it's coming out from that both for the prioritization of risk for the PAU but also for the severity in the HNO so we are figuring out on the IM side so please come back to us we can discuss in the next month how to do it but that we thought that when it comes to priorities that challenge this might help because that is going to be a wider conversation we have some information and so and then on the lack of data we are doing some other work then maybe I comment on afterwards because I see Kimberly raising her hand please Kimberly come in. Yeah Francesco thank you I think a few comments where my comments were on the lack of data would be nice also sometimes to understand how to use secondary data let's say I don't know in the case of the protection cluster we have the protection monitoring tool but then how do you make use of other monitoring tools reliable information how you integrate without making it seem that there's a lack of data or there's an overload of data so maybe a bit of guidance on how you analyze something and where to include or where not to include sometimes this data and this information throughout the PAU honestly could be in the context or the protection and sometimes where to look how to look at data I feel like sometimes would be interesting to get like some recommendations or guidance like okay now you have this type of information how you take it and actually implement it in the draft of the PAU without making it seem it's a lot or maybe not as reliable as you think it is in terms of like you know like the source where it's coming from the timing sometimes where you only find information regarding specific months so that's a bit limiting and if it's okay to use that or not or rely on something else so I think that would be on my end thank you thank you Kimberley anyone else would like to add or on the same message of Kimberley before I react okay so let me react with two questions of things that we have in mind if then can help if those can help you can believe but also the other in this specific challenge one thing we're doing and I've been working on that for the last month and a half is mapping information needs against the risks so try to create for you guidance on when you have the risks or you identify or you prioritize the risk what is the critical information we need and also suggesting whether that information should be in a data collection or should come from secondary data or KII so in our logic in our logic is let's say that you do an exercise of prioritizing risks so you have been agreeing with partners with AUR you have your five priority risk automatically we are trying to create a tool where you can look at the data at the information the minimum information you will need moving forward that's the data landscape in order to either verify or reinforce the knowledge about the risks or to refill some gaps of information is that that could that be useful because something we're working very heavily and we're working together with the AUR and with reach and DTM so we're really doing this exercise so one of the goals we had is that any source of information that you have around it goes back to the risks so you can use that as category in order to start having a dialogue in terms of data with other operations would that work that's my one of my question and then on the secondary data there is something that I have seen that we lack sometimes is has been done for instance in Burkina I remember that has been done I remember an exercise in Myanmar maybe Stephanie was you that was on that exercise and in Afghanistan where once they prioritized the risks they had a specific workshop with partners and actors in okay we have this risk who has data what secondary data is available so they had a workshop on mapping the the data sources that I still feel that is a good exercise to be done once you prioritize the first the initial risk not on all the 15 that's undoable but after the initial prioritization our first understanding doing an effort to sit down and some of it might be qualitative so I also understanding what is quantitative equality so sharing those two ideas Kimberly and others if you think that those are interesting and helpful and then and so Kimberly over to you but then Stephen I think I don't know if you want to comment on that exercise in Myanmar I think it was there and maybe Gilean from your experience if you have any other suggestions so keep it over to you first oh sorry yeah yeah no Francesco I think I answered on the chat I think specifically the first idea would be great like to have this guidance of what is the main information and then we take it from there if then we need to organize let's say focus groups discussions whatever and have a more one-on-one conversation with specific partners but I do think the first first idea is great for us at least thank you thank you Stephen over to you sorry yes so what we did was looking at the protection monitoring data that we had we selected the top five protection risks then start with the SAG and some partners and say and protection monitoring partners so the SAG plus protection monitoring partners said okay these are the top five we have we only have quantitative data and maybe some of you could have additional data that we can use to triangulate and then so we started mapping who has this data and then also we had some filters to check for quality relevance and others other details and we also assigned partners on who is going to identify that data source then also had the issue of making sure that we reach out to the agencies that have this information to make sure that they are free and allow us to use it so when we did the mapping for the five then we started drafting and then using the same and then we kept going back to double check but we made sure we triangulate all this information yeah thank you Stephen yeah and one thing that I have a comment when those exercises are done sometimes it's helpful to get the buy-in also from your colleagues when you discuss at this stage of the information so that also might be also one good suggestion that I've seen in other operations Gilean on the secondary Stephen please sorry Francis yeah actually talking about AOR so for us the AORs were involved from the beginning so they participated they also provided additional data additional even the qualitative and were suggesting how to make sure that this is integrated amazing thank you and Gilean do you have any suggestion from your iCAPS experience on the question of Kimberley on secondary data and things thank you Francesco unfortunately I'm sorry I came in AICAPS early this year so I dived into the pow directly and fully so that I can I would say I could reach out to more let's say experienced colleagues at AICAPS to provide additional information on on how AICAPS is have some tricks and tips for secondary data thank you thank you so to tell understandable but you know what is my you know what I'm gonna do I see that another colleague Frey is in the call so maybe Frey I don't know if you heard the question but it was on how when we had lack of the lack of data how do we go about it how we understand which secondary data we can use are we sure that we have the right amount of it I don't know if you are you can hear me but maybe I think your reflection would be great I can hi sorry I I wasn't able to attend most of the session but just jumped on quickly because it was quite interesting so yes on secondary data what we're doing we were piloting a project called a path deep so I would urge you to tune into our learning session in 24th or 25th of April where we're going to share some lessons learned there as well but basically to give a quick tip what we're doing is we're using an online platform called deep data and exploration platform where we are structuring all qualitative data so any reports that we get for these countries so let's say for I don't know Ethiopia cluster we are getting you know news articles we're getting intersectional reports sectoral reports we're getting protection assessments and all these things so we're basically structuring all that data against the path on this online platform and then we can extract anything that we need if we need something from last month if we need something from last year if we need something for specific protection risk and so this is what we're using to have a qualitative data base to triangulate with whatever else is in country so for example protection monitoring system or any quantitative assessment and so that's what we're using to support the clusters to really do the qualitative data analysis and to provide basically the qualitative and secondary data as a background to any analysis product that needs to be made so I hope that answers the question partially but I'm going to jump on it so I'm going to build um one of what is interesting or what we're learning from the support that friend colleagues are giving to malinijer murkina and san sultan in Ethiopia is that um of course to do an exercise of secondary data is that big you need resources that we don't have I already know that you don't have those resources but what is interesting is the logic of having core categories try to bring all those information with those categories that help the dialogue with the us the dialogue with other partners because it's true sometimes specifically on protection that oh we need information to understand these risks but what information can be all of it can be everything and nothing so what we've seen from lessons learned and also what they are testing in in in those five countries ensuring that we have a minimum the risks and the broad view of the path to be our category to discuss these secondary data mapping so and doing this even during cluster meeting regularly it's really helpful because then is not just engaging partner that you are when you draft the pa u but it's engaging them across the year to discuss together what is missing what is not missing so those are just two lessons learned that might work in a word but um very much happy to follow up in bilateral with everyone that would like to have more support on that so is there any other direct comment or question otherwise I see that we are almost at the hour and you are tired so maybe I just do my usual wrap up with action points and next steps can I have some thumbs up from colleagues if it's okay to close or if you have any other comment amazing so just very quickly we are at the it was 25th now it's of the seven we are at the pa u session so in term of the learning program the next one will be there is going to be a switch between the one of the 20th in the 15th of April and then one of the 24th of April so the next session on the 24th of April is about the legal aid analysis framework uh very much interesting we are looking into all that framework and that's support from the legal and policy task team and RC and the other actor can support you in the pa us extremely interesting and then it's going to be the session on uh some lessons learned in five uh with five operation Mali Burkina Faso Nija uh South Sudan and Ethiopia on how to organize secondary data and then be ready for our tour de force in term of course sessions specifically for cluster coordination team um that will be uh running through May we are deeply deeply deeply revising the all methodology to HNO HPC losing the protection risk prioritization and um we have been participating in the gf workshop last week and there is going to be a revision on the manual so i'm i'm already telling you that we're working with ultra global level to include the 15 protection risk in the gf manual and also to link better in your risk prioritization that they do quarterly with the scope definition of the gf so uh we will discuss all of that in May so those are very interesting important sessions that we we can do together so we can see if we are on the right track um having said that on my end thank you very much for the timing in term of action point uh i think that we have to uh coordinate well with the aor to see where we are on the pa u so expect more from us this was already in plan but i take it as a note as one of my biggest suggestion and and the guidance on data and so on so we keep you posted on that and i take it also as as a suggestion and then who is interested we can organize exchange peer-to-peer between operations that are looking at protection monitoring so as i told you many of you are doing that we are we are working bilaterally but let us know if you want that to peer-to-peer it will work much better often that having us intervening so just reach out okay and on my side uh i really thank you to be there after two hours i hope it was useful it was uh for us an object um uh yes that was my thank you absolutely the good good that i received the question because i forgot to say it uh by friday or next monday i have to ask the communication team we are gonna create a dedicated page in the website with all the recording and all the material of the thematic sessions so we will share it with you we will send a communication so you can share it with also partner encounters and please come back to us if you want to see more information there