Results-Based Protection Tuesday Talk

11 July 2017

1)What would need to change within your organization (culture, structure, process, capacity, funding) to ensure continuous analysis is carried out and prioritized?

  • Permissive conditions from response design stage:

Systems and Processes: Organizations need a clear framework on what datato collect and indicators to track from the beginning of the response to ease the burden on analysis.

-The terminology that we use can be misleading for colleagues who interpret monitoring as “program monitoring and evaluation” looking only at results linked to project performance instead on monitoring for changes in the threat environment and related risk patterns. We need to be mindful of our audience and use clear language when we discuss continuous analysis for protection.

Engaging other stakeholders in data collection and continuous analysis: The group probed how do organizations look at what others are collecting? Geneva Call mentioned some data collection challenges, including information gaps when relying on media coverage, as well as a lack of published information and analysis from other actors. Members agreed that most of their data requests are born out of pre-existing relationships that they have with other actors in the field.

-Example of CP Alliance AME Working Group’s Situation and Response Monitoring pilot [presentation, attached], which considers the approach from the design stage of the pilot (see step 2, in 12 step process). The project team held consultations with major mechanisms (including relevant clusters) to avoid duplication, explore opportunities for collaboration, and clarify what contributions would be needed from actors.

  • Challenges concerning data privacy:

How does the protection community balance protecting sensitive information with sharing with actors who may be able to contribute to protection outcomes? DRC mentioned the PIM meeting in NY that was held in July concerning how to ensure data is shared in an appropriate manner. The group is building a framework for sharing agreement, and will share more details as this develops.

2)Humanitarians have a tendency to monitor the vulnerability of affected persons. This analysis is often generalized based on years of experience and evidence across different contexts. While vulnerability assessments are planned for and conducted, a threat analysis is often neglected. If humanitarians analysed the threat component more effectively, would there be more incentive to ensure continuous analysis? What methods and/or approaches support doing a threat analysis?

  • Approaches:

-Geneva Call discussed their threat analysis approach includes focus on who are those who have influence on the group, responses on policy level, analysis of conflict dynamics and internal movements – all of which are constantly evolving. The group discussed how a comprehensive and continuous threat analysis is important for strategy and program adaptation, but constraints in the field often make it easier for organizations to primarily focus on vulnerabilities.

-How can the humanitarian community better coordinate to address this and leverage individual/organizational capacities? – It is important to appreciate the contribution of other actors in the space; some are better placed to engage directly with parties to conflict, for example. A point was raised that due to lack of coordination, humanitarians may be unaware of who to reach out to regarding negotiating with these actors to protect space for accessing vulnerable communities. Correlatively, those actors may be negotiating with groups needing assistance and may be unable to link with a stakeholder on the assistance provision end.

  • Monitoring mitigation measures:

Regarding monitoring threat how are we tracking the success of mitigation measures?

Approaches:

-Introduction to ACF model of embedding regional and global analysts within their organization to complement and empower the analytical capacity of staff. Their regional and global analysts research and produce reports on geopolitical and humanitarian issues, analyzing the long and short term implications for the emerging issues, and initiate “foresight analysis” – looking at scenarios to inform strategic planning and decision-making. While most of their projects forecast issues years in advance (typically over 5 years at the regional level and 15 years at global-level), a follow-up review of the 2016 South Sudan 2-year outlook is being conducted to assess the relevance and effectiveness of the scenarios in the South Sudan context.