Minutes

Protection Cluster Meeting ISLAMABAD

Date: 4 October 2012

Location: IRC

Participants: NDMA,UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UN Women, WFP, IRC, Save the Children, World Vision, CDO, CSA, SHARP, ECHO

Chair by: UNHCRNotes taken by: IRC / UNHCR

Discussion / Action Points /responsibility
  • Given the agenda topics, largely devoted to the Monsoon HOP, several Child Protection agencies regularly participating to the CP sub-cluster were invited
  • Adoption of minutes and of the agenda
  • Revision by the Chair of main action points from the previous meeting:
NDMA focal point to share the list of NDMA/ PDMA focal points in the districts(UNDP project) to enhance coordination with protection actors: list shared and the cluster disseminate it through the googlegrop mailing list
Coordinators to keep the cluster informed on the finalization of the MIRA: dedicated agenda point # 2
Coordinators to share the secondary data analysis and cluster members to provide comments: hard copies were distributed, comments mainly received from the sub-clusters coordinators. The coordinators further produced two version of the secondary data analysis, by issue and by Province to facilitate consultation. The version “by Province” will be distributed through the googlegroup and Child Protection mailing lists and has already formed a body of data that the cluster is using to deepen the analysis in the MIRA report.
Cluster to prepare a presentation for the 24 September Donor meeting: a comprehensive presentation on the achievement and the gaps – including funding – in both the Early Recover Framework and the Complex Emergency HOP was prepared, resented to the donors and shared through googlegroup list.
  1. Updates on the monsoon situation / General

  1. Update from the Chair on the recent Policy and Coordination Meeting
  • NDMA presented the figure of affected population at 4.7 million; the Government reiterated that there is no plan to request for international assistance through an international appeal; the Government recommended close coordination withDistrict authorities; the MIRA report was conducted together with Government representatives, but the final findings and report need still to be endorsed by the Government at all levels (national, provincial, districts).
  1. Update from the Government:
NDMA co-chair reaffirmed that the GoP is ensuring that distributions are conducted equitably and indicated that NDMA is setting up various mechanism to improve coordination in the field and with the provinces.The Gender and Child Cell (GCC) is one of these mechanisms. NDMA indicated that its manager is under endorsement by the Chairman, while provincial consultants have just come on board (in KP t will remain as a “women desk”). In Sindh, Balochistan and Punjab, GCC members are reportedly looking after social protection issues and protection of the most vulnerable in the disaster response. GCC focal points are based in the Provincial Capitals but are conducting missions to the field.
The GoP representative also affirmed that the District Social Welfare Department (SWD) has been requested to ensure the inclusion of women and children in the relief distribution. They should be in charge for monitoring and should be gathering sex and age disaggregated data, as well as Persons with Disabilities, at a minimum in the relief “centres”
  1. Discussion
Protection cluster actors who are in the field would like to be able to count on the GCC and the NDMA/PDMA District Focal Points to bring to their attention and refer issues and cases identified in the field monitoring missions and other field activities. The cluster counts in the cooperation with these Governmental institutions to mobilise assistance and direct the assistance to the most vulnerable segments of the population, including Government assistance. The Government representative confirmed that this should be the way to operate. / Cluster to discuss with respective Provincial representatives on the opportunity to nominate Focal Points at District level.
  1. MIRA Findings (Protection)

The Chair presented an update on the initial MIRA findings on Protection. The Chair noted that the presentation represents merely a few findings, and that a more detailed report would be issued, based on the ongoing analysis and compilation of data, including secondary analysis. The cluster will provide inputs to OCHA for the finalisation of this Multi-cluster Initial Rapid Assessment.
  • The MIRA remains a rapid assessment through Key Informants (KI). WIth attention to gender mainstreaming, the protection cluster had advocated for the inclusion of female enumerators, which represented some 30% of the enumerators, with difference across districts. Seemingly, the cluster advocated for the inclusion of women as KI. As a result, part of the MIRA questionnaire questions should have been posed to female KI. Out of the 822 KI, 523 were males, 299 female, with disparity amongst locations.
  • MIRA’s population data was retrieved on the basis of KI and satellite imagery. Female HoH and Child HoH, are in line with secondary data, although not always available at district level. Women without effective male or community supportalso appear as a very small percentage of the total households. The number ofPersons with Disabilities (physical and mental) appears to be very low if compared to the Census 1998 and WHO figures. The ADTF at present does not object these findings, given the challenge in identifying PWD and for PWD in admitting/acknowledging their disability. The figures for the elderly (60+) persons appear very close to the census data, MICSS data and development statistics of the individual provinces (GoP data). It seems to be higher in Rajanpur and indeed the percentage in Punjab has traditionally been higher as per secondary data.
  • The chair emphasised the importance to properly portray the MIRA data, which does not represent % of population/ households, but rather the % of KI or location where a certain issue has been reported by the KI or observed by the enumerators. This distinction is crucial in interpreting correctly the MIRA data.
  • Data on “Problems Access to assistance” were examined in their relative balance between male and female respondents. Fighting between recipients at distribution points was seen as the main issue, followed by the lack of documentation and by political interference in the distribution. The KI data on documentation triggered a discussion on whether a CNIC was required at this stage by the Head of the Family to receive humanitarian assistance. From a protection perspective, the cluster agreed that this requirement shall be avoided in the first stages of the distribution of relief assistance, where humanitarian principles should prevail.NDMA reconfirmed during the meeting, also with direct consultations with the respective HQ,that no CNIC would be required in the initial relief distribution.
  • On the difficulty in accessing assistance by women HoH, identified by some 10% of the KI, NDMA and the participants agreed on the need for separate female distribution points and agreed to reiterate with Government actors and clusters the importance of a proper lay-out in the distribution points.
  • As for security issues and incidents, theft/robbery was the most frequently–cited security concern (80% or more of KI in average). As for the other concerns, they were largely in line with secondary data on crime occurrence.
  • Analogously consistent with secondary data were the findings on the actors on whom the communities rely on for security, with the prevalence of customary forms of dispute resolutions and security mechanisms. However, the reliance on the Police was reportedly higher according to KI than inprevious surveys (e.g. UNDP Governance 2012).
  • The relative low incidence of existence of family separation in the community was highlighted as in line with observed trends, and with the caveat that the MIRA data does not represent the % of children who are separated. Separation however remains one of the key issues in child protection, when signalled.
  • The cluster expressed concern on the relative high % of KI reporting the existence of PWD and elderly facing neglect, marginalisation, or abandonment and urged dedicated activities in support of these categories of persons with specific needs.
  • The low presence of separate bathing/toilet facilities for women and girls as well as for elderly and PWDs (reported by 15% of KI and __ of KI respectively) was seen as a point of advocacy of the protection cluster with the WASH cluster.
  • NDMA reiterated that the MIRA results have not yet been endorsed by the national, provincial and district authorities and consultation are ongoing.
/ Action point: Cluster coordinators to send MIRA presentation through mailing list and further circulate the overall MIRA report (compiled by OCHA) when ready
Protection cluster to continue to advocate through provincial levels for the non-consideration of the possession of identity documents as a pre-requisite to obtain immediate relief assistance. Monitoring at district level recommended (by authorities and protection actors)
Protection cluster to continue to advocate for dedicated WASH interventions for women/ girls and PWD
  1. HOP for 2012 Flooding: strategy, priorities, process and timelines

  • The Chair briefed on the Humanitarian Operational Plan 2012 for the flood-affected areas. The HOP is both a strategic and a fundraising intervention, through a “Projectisation” of the document. The inclusion of projects will facilitate the reception of funding, although the lack of an international appeal remains an obstacle for several donors to provide the adequate support.
  • The extent of the involvement of the Government in the HOP process is still unclear and the HOP at this stage remains a document for the humanitarian community.
  • At inter-cluster level, the decision has been for the humanitarian community:
-to consider the 7 most-affected districts as the major focus, with the possibility for clusters to extend assistance also to other signalled flood-affected areas, based on resources and capacity.
-torely on a figure of affected population of 2.1 million in the 7 districts, based on satellite imagery and land scan. Those figures are lower than NDMA ones, as the latter cover the entire population of all given notified districts.
-to cover with the HOP a period of 6 months, starting from 19 September (to 19th March).
-to revise the HOP in principle after some three-four months, possibly after cluster detailed assessments.
-to include all clusters, including Community Restoration
  • The chair invited the cluster to agree on strategic priorities to inform the cluster HOP strategy. A hard copy basic outline of strategic priorities and main objective was circulated, based on MIRA findings. Based on the outline shared, the cluster agreed that:
-In line with presence, capacity and likelihood of fundraising success, the strategic plan of the cluster will focus on the 7 most affected districts (Rajanpur, Jacobabad, Kashmore, Jaffarabad, Nasserabad as MIRA plus Shikarpur and DG Khan). The cluster agreed that this would be already a significant accomplishment if an effective response can be delivered in these areas, given the capacity on the ground and the traditional underfunding of protection.
-The main, overall objective would be to ensure adequate attention in the disaster response to persons/groups with specific needs, in cooperation and coordination with other clusters and with key-Government institutions.
-Major sub-objectives would be (in no particular order of priority):
  • Ensuring protective presence/monitoring, especially for groups with specific needs (protection monitoring, presence, consultations, information on available assistance, referral to service providers, including authorities). The cluster may capitalise on some partners in Sindh and Punjab which were already working in this sphere since the 2010 floods.
  • Child protective services
  • Women protective services, including a survivor-centred response to possible cases of GBV
  • Referral and Specialised assistance for Elderly and PWD
  • Coordination of protection action through cluster/sub-clusters at national, provincial and district level (PWG)
-Mainstreaming protection and working with other Clusters will remain a priority, e.g.provision of comments on beneficiary selection criteria, inclusion of protection-related issues in assessment questionnaires, training events for clusters, as the one organised for the shelter cluster in Islamabad and in the field.
  • The Chair highlighted the Project sheet requirements, which will be sent as part of the Project Sheet template: full beneficiary data (gender disaggregation can be also done on the basis of the secondary data by province); geographic indication by thesil; clear outcomes/indicators; clearly definedactivities, concise project sheet.
  • The selection of HOP projects, vetting and prioritisation was further discussed. Funding overall requirement and timeframe will be considered, together with attention on the actors’ existing presence on the ground, given the implementation timeframe; staffing and reporting capacity;code of conduct;previous experience in running protection projects; cost effectiveness, as per criteria already utilised by the cluster in the past appeals.
  • It was recommended that, given the deadline for the Clusters’ projectisation fixed by OCHA(Tues 9 Oct), partners should submit their projects by Saturday, end of day.
  • On the screening procedures, it was agreed that:
-Provincial coordinators would provide an initial screening of the organisations for presence, capacity, and related areas and would provide recommendations to the National Cluster. All projects would be provided to the national level for further screening and final decisions.
-Any screening committee would require Sub-Cluster representatives as well as NGO representation, where possible, and particularly at National level. Decision: SPARC will be approached as the local NGO, while NRC will be contacted as the INGO, having already served as the laison with PHF:
  • On the indicators, the Cluster and Sub-Clusters will agree and include in the cluster HP strategy, based on the capacity to collect and report.
/ The cluster coordinator to maintain the cluster members updated on the process, though cluster meetings or ad hoc messages.
  1. Funding: Cerf and Emergency Relief Fund (ERF)

  • A summary was provided on the proposal for the Emergency Window of the CERF 2012 to support projects in the flood-affected areas. The chair recalled that the CERF is open only to UN agencies and IOM, but that UN agencies are normally working with NGO partners (national and international). Through a strong advocacy at inter-cluster level, the protection cluster managed to receive an allocation of 4% of the amount that the CERF Secretariat in New York will grant for the Pakistan flooding emergency. This corresponds roughly to 400,000 USD, with UNICEF and UNHCR as indicated recipients. In turn, the two agencies will be working with national partners.
  • At the same time, following a funding opening from DFID, a ERF Call for proposals is likely to be launched by OCHA (as the ERF Secretariat, while the fund is under the responsibility of the Humanitarian Coordinator). No indication has been made on specific allocations forthe KP/FATA complex emergency or for the flooding. The Clusters’ position is that KP/FATA should not be ruled out, given the current underfunding and the exclusion of Proection from the August allocations. The cluster will send out the call for proposal and the instructions through the Googlegroup.
/ The cluster coordinators to update the cluster members on these two process, through the cluster meetings or via common mail messages.
  1. AoB – Global FSC Accountability Mission

  • The Global Food Security Cluster’s Accountability Mission requested to address the Protection Cluster as interlocutor in their assessment and was invited to the cluster meeting. The aim was to examine what role the UN and the Clusterscan play in using/ improving accountability mechanisms towards population of concern. The mission was interested in the current practice within theprotection Cluster, ad its involvementin setting harmonised accountability systems.
  • In the discussion, many agencies reported to have accountability mechanisms towards populations of concern, and yet was evident that most of those seemed to be intra-organisational. UN Cluster members also pointed out that no information-sharing/ debate exist among UN agencies, or at inter-cluster level (ICCM).
  • As for who should be responsible for ensuring that harmonised accountability mechanism are in place, it was deemed that OCHA would presently have greater resourcesthan the protection cluster in Paksitan. An involvement of OCHA would also validate that this is a broader humanitarian commitment ad not a single-cluster issue.
  • The protection cluster emphasised some example of work undertaken in this direction, such as the drafting and promoting of protection-sensitive beneficiary selection/targeting guidelines and checklists and that with training for authorities and clusters.
  • There was a general consensus that UN agencies, Clusters, INGOs, NGOs and other actors are starting to place more emphasis on accountability and shall continue to enhance these efforts.
/ .

Protection Cluster Islamabad

1