Global Protection Cluster Visioning

Thematic Discussions Report

22-24 November 2011

2

Table of Contents A. The Global Protection Cluster Visioning exercise and outcomes ............................................................. 3

1. Background ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Summary of agreed priority actions for the Global Protection Cluster ............................................ 3

B. Summary of proceedings ......................................................................................................................... 6

1. Opening Remarks .......................................................................................................................... 6

2. Outline of the Visioning by the Global Cluster Coordinator .......................................................... 6

3. Introduction to the agenda and methodology .............................................................................. 7

4. Presentation of background papers .............................................................................................. 8

5. Working group recommendations: field support and global level engagement ........................ 10

6. Working group recommendations: Partnership, information management, accountability and

protection mainstreaming ................................................................................................................... 12

7. Next steps .................................................................................................................................... 13

ANNEX I: Agenda ......................................................................................................................................... 14

ANNEX II: List of participants ....................................................................................................................... 17

ANNEX III: Background Papers .................................................................................................................... 20

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Part I: Field support ................................................................................................................................. 23

Part II: Global level engagement ............................................................................................................. 33

Part III: Organisation and Internal Working Methods ............................................................................. 40

Annex I: Decisions Matrix ........................................................................................................................ 45

Annex II: Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................... 46

Annex III: Operations Cell ........................................................................................................................ 48

Annex IV: Implications ............................................................................................................................. 50

Annex V: Consultations ........................................................................................................................... 51

ANNEX IV: GPC Vision Desk Review ............................................................................................................. 52

ANNEX V: Report from 1st

Thematic Discussion .......................................................................................... 62

ANNEX VI: GPC Visioning Concept Note ...................................................................................................... 72

3

A. The Global Protection Cluster

Visioning exercise and outcomes

1. Background In view of the evolution of the cluster system and the challenges in ensuring that global clusters are responsive to the needs of clusters in the field, the Global Protection Clusters (GPC) Coordinator initiated a “visioning” exercise at the beginning of 2011 to re-orient the GPC towards a strengthened operational focus. This was also in line with requests from protection clusters in the field for more emphasis on operational support. The Visioning is intended to re-visit the scope and focus of the GPC to ensure that support is better targeted to the needs of the field and that this informs priority setting at the global level as well, including further clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the members, the lead and Support Cell in implementing this. The Visioning has taken the shape of two Thematic Discussions, the first of which was held in June 2011 and focused on the broad conceptual Vision for the GPC and strategic priorities.1The outcomes of this first meeting were captured in the report from the meeting and formed the basis for the second Thematic Discussions that was held from 22-24 November 2011 in Geneva. The objective of the Second Thematic Discussions was to outline the priorities and broad outputs for GPC support to the field and global level engagement, as well as to revise working methods and organisation of the GPC in view of the priorities that were identified. At the outset of the Visioning, the GPC Coordinator invited GPC members to participate in a Reference Group that helped shape the process of the Visioning and was actively involved in the preparation of key background research and documentation.2 An important aspect of the preparation involved the development of a desk review3 in preparation of the 1st Thematic Discussions and three background documents4 setting out suggestions for the work of the GPC in relation to its support function vis-à-vis field protection clusters, its global level engagement and its working methods. The suggestions contained in these papers were the result of extensive consultation within the GPC and with protection actors in the field and were used as the bases for further discussion during the meeting.5 The meeting was attended by 50 participants representing 8 UN agencies, 19 NGOs and NGO coalitions, two inter-governmental organisations, and ICRC6, including 11 field-based cluster colleagues.7 This report summarises the main outcomes and recommendations that were made during the meeting. The first part, below, provides an overview of the agreed priority actions for the work of the GPC, while the second part provides a summary of the proceedings and the discussions during these.

2. Summary of agreed priority actions for the Global Protection Cluster The main outcome of the meeting was the agreement on priority actions for the work of the GPC in relation to field support and global level engagement, as well as for adjustments to the working methods

1 Report from 1st GPC Visioning Thematic Discussion, Annex 5 2 Reference Group Concept Note, Annex 7 3 GPC Vision Desk Review, 15 June 2011, Annex 4 4 GPC Visioning Background papers: Field Support, Global Engagement, Working Methods, Annex 3 5 See individual Background papers in annex xx for a full list of consultations. 6 ICRC holds observer status in the GPC 7 See the List of Participants in Annex 2

4

and organisation of the GPC. The agreed priorities are detailed below under three themes: a) field support, b) global level engagement, and c) working methods. Field support: recommendations

� Develop and disseminate a Protection Cluster Toolbox “Protection coordination in a box”. The toolbox should include key essential tools that are needed to start up a protection cluster during the first two weeks of an emergency. This could include contingency planning and protection assessment tools among others.

� Establish a GPC help desk The help desk should consist of a team of technical experts available by phone or email to provide guidance and assistance to protection actors in the field on various aspects of protection. A mapping of expertise within the GPC membership needs to be undertaken and a focal point list developed.

� Ensure rapid deployment capacity

Whether through the help desk or as an individual team, the GPC needs to identify capacity and resources to undertake rapid deployments in support of field protection clusters when requested or needed. Such a function should build on existing capacity within the GPC Areas of Responsibility (AORs)8 and various agencies and NGOs within the GPC.

� Training

Training and capacity building for Cluster Coordinators and protection cluster members need to be prioritized. Existing trainings on cluster coordination, including those undertaken by the GPC Task Force on Learning and the AORs, need to be mapped and complementarity ensured. Training initiatives should include training modules on protection mainstreaming.

� Optimise use of ProCap and GenCap in field support

ProCap and GenCap should be brought closer to the GPC and used in more direct support functions either as part of the GPC help desk or in rapid deployment technical support missions. The GPC Operations Cell should ensure proactive and sustained engagement with the ProCap and GenCap Steering Committees to discuss ways of strengthening support to field clusters.

Global level engagement: recommendations

� Donor engagement Through the development of a concept note, the GPC needs to clarify its role in engaging with donors, as well as Member States more broadly, and map issues, outcomes and stakeholders for this engagement.

� Advocacy

Global level advocacy by the GPC has two main components: a) advocacy on emerging and recurrent themes within protection, with a focus on neglected or invisible groups9 and funding for protection, and b) context specific advocacy in support of field protection actors in raising concerns at the global level.

� Protection mainstreaming

The global level protection mainstreaming efforts need to also focus on how engagement at this level facilitates actual mainstreaming of protection concerns in field operations. Focus should therefore be placed on collaborating with other global clusters in developing tools in support of the field and a plan for implementation of any tools developed, including training.

Working methods and organisation of the GPC: recommendations

8 The GPC includes five Areas of Responsibility that each has a specific focus on a thematic area of protection.

These are: Child Protection, Housing, Land and Property Rights, Mine Action, Rule of Law and Justice. 9 Invisible groups refer to persons or groups of persons with specific needs that are frequently overlooked in

humanitarian interventions, such as persons with disabilities and older persons.

5

� Greater integration of and coordination between constituent parts of the GPC To ensure that the GPC works in a well-coordinated and complementary fashion to respond to the needs of protection actors in the field, it was underlined that the work of the different parts of the GPC, including AORs and Task Forces -including those of the AORs- should be better integrated and coordinated. Activities and capacities particularly existing within the AORs need to be more strategically used to reinforce the overall work of the GPC.

� Establish a GPC Operations Cell In order to ensure effective implementation of the priority themes identified, a GPC Operations Cell should be set up to:

� Respond to requests from the field (help desk),

� Ensure the development of tools, guidance and policy and effective dissemination to the field,

� Coordinate and undertake short-term deployments,

� Promote protection mainstreaming,

� Facilitate advocacy initiatives undertaken by the GPC Coordinator on behalf of and with input from the GPC membership,

� Manage information, ensure the secretariat function of the GPC. As well as undertaking specific tasks, the Operations Cell should serve a catalytic role by mobilising existing capacities and expertise within the GPC membership, including AORs. Staffing of the Operations Cell could be ensured through a combination of GPC member secondments, including from AORs, increased UNHCR input, and strategic use of ProCap officers.

� Revise structure of the GPC to be commensurate with tasks The existence of task forces needs to be linked to specific and time-bound actions. In this view, all existing GPC task forces10 will be the object of a review as to their deliverables. Following discussions with OHCHR and UNDP, the Rule of Law AOR will be phased out and the issue mainstreamed into the work for the GPC. UNDP and OHCHR will continue to act as focal points for rule of law within the GPC ensuring field support and advocacy and will develop a strategy outlining the methodology for integrating rule of law into the work of the GPC.

� Improve coordination through strategy, workplan, communication and meetings The GPC needs to develop a multiyear strategy that sets out the broad framework under which the GPC should operate and highlights the overarching objectives of its work. Likewise and based on the strategy, the GPC should develop a workplan with time bound concrete tasks and outcomes that clearly show how the priority actions translate into practice. Communication and information flow within the GPC needs to be improved to ensure transparency and lay a stronger foundation for coordination. This includes more strategic use of meetings and electronic communication, including a well-functioning website.

10 GPC task forces include: learning, protection mainstreaming, good practices, information management, and

natural disasters.

6

B. Summary of proceedings Tuesday 22 November

1. Opening Remarks Volker Türk, Director of Division of International Protection, UNHCR The meeting was opened by Volker Türk who highlighted the importance of the GPC as a coordination platform for protection, particularly in view of the continuing challenges in the sector. He underlined that a number of advancements have been made in the field over the past two decades, but also said that both old and new challenges persist. Among several examples of global protection challenges Mr Türk expounded on internal displacement. Despite internal displacement being firmly placed on the agenda of the humanitarian community, interventions in this area are increasingly being met by states with arguments of national sovereignty and non-interference in national affairs by the international community. Mr Türk underlined the strong legal basis that has emerged over recent years, including the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the Kampala Convention and a number of other international and regional initiatives to develop standards. He underlined however that the legal basis should not be taken for granted and pointed to the developments in the political dimensions of displacement where humanitarian space is increasingly constrained and displacement is often part of the political strategy behind violence. Similarly, protracted situations of displacement are often linked to political motivations. We should be cognisant of the challenges this places on us as a coordinated community, particularly as this relates to advocacy. Strong programmatic interventions have been made to promote a comprehensive approach to protection response, yet we continue to be faced with a number of significant issues that need addressing, such as displacement outside camp situations, impunity for perpetrators of SGBV, natural disasters, displacement caused by organised crime, and the impact of climate change. The GPC needs a stronger profile for advocacy to deal with these operational issues. Mr Türk encouraged participants to look at achievements, lessons learned and how we can address the challenges of the future. We should recognize that most of these dilemmas are beyond any agency mandate and need to be included in an inter-agency discourse. The GPC has had a positive impact on some field operations during the past year, including Libya, Pakistan and Cote d’Ivoire, and we need to strengthen our catalytic role at the global level to better support the field.

2. Outline of the Visioning by the Global Cluster Coordinator Louise Aubin, Global Protection Cluster Coordinator The GPC Coordinator, Louise Aubin, provided an outline of the Visioning process and the objectives that she hoped would be achieved through it. As the GPC embarks on defining priorities and working methods, it is important to keep the past in mind, both in terms of the basic rationale for the GPC and of the milestones achieved. Over the past few years, there has been a lack of clarity of purpose and disengagement by the members of the GPC. The desk review prepared earlier in the year recalled a long list of recommendations for improvement. In prioritising where we need to focus our efforts moving ahead, we need to be grounded in demonstrable needs and draw in the significant capacity that exists in the GPC, strategically using the variety of approaches to protection that the membership represents. At the same time we need to be realistic when establishing priorities. In 2011 capacity has limited sustained engagement of the GPC to 4-6 field protection clusters out of the existing 29.

7

The 1st Thematic Discussion in June demonstrated the potential of an active membership, able and willing to collaborate and achieve results, not despite but because of its differences. We should capitalise on being a diverse group, while ensuring a strong common voice on protection. The aspiration for the GPC is to be the recognized authority on protection and the platform of choice for the protection community. In order to achieve this, we need to recognise where our priorities converge and ensure a common articulation of this. While we certainly have varying approaches, we must recognise the strength of coordination and utilise this to reach common goals. Ms Aubin encouraged participants to use the meeting to achieve the objectives the GPC has set itself for the Thematic Discussions: agreeing our common vision and the steps to get there. In the discussion that followed the presentation, several participants raised the need to consider longer term objectives when prioritising activities in order to not only address life-saving activities, but also issues that contribute to achieving durable solutions, such as land and property rights. The role of the GPC in developing guidance on the modalities of transition between protection clusters and development actors was underlined.

3. Introduction to the agenda and methodology Laurie Wiseberg

The facilitator provided an overview of the outline of the three days and reminded participants of the objective of the meeting: to agree on priorities for field support, global level engagement, and the operationalisation of the GPC.

The meeting combined discussions in groups with plenary deliberations to arrive at a set o f agreed priorities. Further possibility to address issues arising from the discussions was provided on the last day where working groups we dedicated to develop issues around partnership and responsibility, accountability and performance management, information management, and protection mainstreaming in more detail.

The facilitator reminded the participants of the Vision Statement that was agreed at the 1st Thematic Discussion: “A world in which boys, girls, women and men affected or threatened by humanitarian crises are fully protected in accordance with their rights.” The outcome of the Visioning is a revised multiyear strategy covering 2012 and beyond. To achieve this, she highlighted the importance of maintaining a results oriented approach to the discussions and focus on concrete solutions for making the GPC relevant, effective and dynamic.

Comments to opening remarks During the subsequent discussions participants highlighted that it is important for the GPC to also engage with actors beyond the humanitarian protection community, such as DPKO, DPA, the Office of the Secretary General and development actors. While there is regular communication between the GPC and these actors, it was suggested that a more proactive approach to engaging them would be useful. The GPC Coordinator further emphasized the importance of the principles of partnership and ensuring inclusivity in the GPC pointing to the underrepresentation of national NGOs and governments at the meeting. The need to consider longer-term objectives when prioritising activities in order to not only address life-saving activities, but also issues that contribute to achieving durable solutions was also raised. It was highlighted that for some issues, such as land and property rights, there should be greater emphasis on sequencing in prioritisation to incorporate an early recovery lens with a view towards achieving durable solutions from the onset of the crisis. The role of the GPC in developing guidance on the modalities of transition between protection clusters and development actors was underlined.

In conclusion, Mr Türk underlined the importance of focusing the discussions on the impact the GPC has and the results that the membership wants to achieve.

8

4. Presentation of background papers In preparation for the Thematic Discussions meeting, three background papers outlining recommendations for the work of the GPC were developed by the members of the Reference Group after consultations with the field and at headquarters. The papers cover the work of the GPC in a) providing field support, b) engaging at the global level, and c) GPC working methods. The outcomes and main recommendations of these papers were presented by the lead drafters. Field Support Simon Bagshaw (OCHA)

The paper focuses on the seven responsibilities of field protection clusters as outlined by the IASC in 2005.11The findings of the paper are that these key responsibilities remain relevant, but that a revision of this list should be considered to include information management, emergency preparedness and contingency planning, and resource mobilization, which were not part of the original responsibilities. The paper also found that the role of the GPC in supporting the field has been uneven and in some cases not felt at all, but that the GPC has a role to play in maintaining an overview of protection responses in the field, ensuring that protection clusters adopt a comprehensive approach to respond to affected populations and provide support for specific key areas including advocacy, information management, resource mobilization and training, as well as assist in strengthening the position of field protection clusters vis-à-vis the HC. The paper also highlights concerns that the GPC Support Cell is perceived by some as a resource for UNHCR, rather than the broader GPC membership. The lead drafter highlighted the following recommendations from the paper:

� Capacity and skills protection cluster coordinators in the field within the Lead Agencies (UNHCR, OHCHR and UNICEF) should be strengthened. Agencies should ensure the availability of dedicated and skilled senior capacity to coordinate clusters.

� Systematic use of standby capacities, in particular ProCap, to ensure timely deployment and continuous commitment at the outset of a crisis and for several months thereafter, to ensure that coordination mechanisms are established, assessments undertaken, strategies developed and implemented and to ensure consistent engagement with HCs.

� Greater clarity is needed on the role of NGO protection clusters co-chairs.

� The role of the GPC vis-à-vis protection responses in non-clusterised countries should be defined.

� Guidance on phasing out and transitioning of protection clusters should be developed.

� Assessment tools and guidance, including on CAP, should be developed.

� A light weight mechanism for follow up with field protection clusters should be developed to facilitate better information flow and accountability of members at the field level.

� Guidance and tools for protection monitoring and reporting systems need to be provided to field protection clusters.

� Information management capacity of field protection clusters needs to be strengthened.

� A generic training on coordination and protection skills should be provided from the global level.

11 Generic Terms of Reference for Clusters Leads at the Country Level, IASC, 2005

The 7 responsibilities are:

1. Establishment and maintenance of protection cluster mechanism(s)

2. Assessment, strategy development and implementation

3. Standard setting and compliance

4. Performance monitoring and evaluation

5. Protection monitoring and reporting system

6. Advocacy

7. Training and local capacity strengthening

9

� Guidance should be developed for the development of advocacy strategies in the field.

� Need for guidance on phasing out and transitioning from protection clusters to development actors. Global level engagement Nina Birkeland (IDMC)

The paper and its recommendations focus on two areas: a) advocacy and b) the role of the GPC in the protection discourse, with a greater emphasis on the former of these two. The following key points from the paper was highlighted: Advocacy:

� A common understanding of GPC advocacy should be developed

� Any advocacy undertaken by the GPC should compliment that undertaken by individual member organisations.

� 2 criteria for GPC advocacy: 1) When an issue actually or potentially impacts field based clusters and their ability to serve affected populations; and 2) In the initial stages of a major complex emergency or natural disaster, when a collective voice on protection is necessary to ensure inclusion in operational strategies and donor response.

� The GPC Coordinator should conduct high-level advocacy, calling on the expertise of its members. GPC should act as a platform for global advocacy.

� There is a need to develop common core protection messages, report, advocate for compliance to fill gaps.

� Advocacy should be accompanied by technical support for the targeted stakeholders. � External communication tools, including the GPC newsletter and website, should be utilised for

advocacy purposes.

� The GPC membership should be more actively solicited for advocacy purposes.

� Priority issues for advocacy should include funding for protection and protection mainstreaming in the humanitarian response.

The role of the GPC in the protection policy discourse:

� More effective use of tools and guidance to strengthen implementation of protection policy and standards needs to be explored.

� The role of the GPC as a collective entity in the protection policy discourse at the international level needs to be clarified as well as the mechanisms for arriving at common positions.

� The GPC should take leadership on setting the protection agenda with a focus on an analysis of gaps.

Organization Simon Russell (ProCap)

The paper addresses the organisation and working methods of the GPC and provide recommendations for strengthening these aspects to better equip the GPC to carry out its functions. The lead drafter highlighted the following observations outlined in the paper:

� The GPC needs to develop a strategy that sets out priorities and objectives. � Basic working structure, such as a website, effective information sharing, reporting, and holding of

regular coordination meetings focusing on action points, must be put in place.

� Creative approaches to meetings should be employed, including rotating the chairing of meetings and varying conference calls with face-to-face meetings.

� Less focus on consensus building and greater use of work through committees held to time bound tasks through the strategy should be adopted.

� A mechanism, such as the proposed Operations Cell, to ensure greater involvement of GPC members in the work and less reliance on the Support Cell for implementation of the workplan.

10

� A relaxed approach to the work of the AORs with an emphasis on complementarity should be adopted.

Comments to background papers

Following the presentations of the lead drafters the floor was opened for discussion. To better support the field, it was suggested that communication with field protection clusters should be improved and that these should be included in GPC meetings more frequently. To make dissemination of documents and guidance more accessible to actors in the field, more systematic translation of documents –particularly into Spanish and French- was requested. It was also noted that it is necessary to examine why guidance from the global level is not being consistently used in the field. Some participants voiced concern that guidance was not presented in user-friendly formats and that dissemination is not done well enough. It was noted that guidance should be closely linked to training opportunities. It was underlined that protection should happen across sectors and that advocacy can play a major role in ensuring that protection is mainstreamed. The provision of advice for the field in this area was underlined as critical. Some concern was raised that the cross cutting issues, such as age and gender, had not be addressed in the papers. It was felt by some that the agenda of the GPC had been taken over by the issues covered by the AORs leaving little space for the protection concerns associated with issues such as age and gender. It was underlined that the AORs should be more closely aligned with the priorities and work of the GPC. Areas of common interest, such as protection mainstreaming, should be better utilized and an overall more coherent response to both field support and at the global level should be created. Representatives of the AORs underlined the importance of maintaining flexibility with respect to roles and responsibilities of the AORs and that some level of autonomy should be allowed and encouraged to ensure that the work of the AORs can move smoothly forward. Overall, the need to strengthen collaboration within the GPC, particularly with and between AORs, and the importance of working as a team was highlighted. It was likewise underlined that close collaboration at the global level is important to better provide support to the field. It was noted that one of the major challenges for both field support and global level engagement is to ensure transparency and clear communication within the GPC. Particularly, clarity of the role of the Coordinator was highlighted as important, as well as the processes by which decisions are made and resources allocated. Also better utilisation of member resources was encouraged to ensure the functioning of the GPC. It was suggested that the GPC might benefit from a strategic advisory group to help ensure continued membership engagement and support. More information on the functioning of the Operations Cell was requested. Specifically what role this would play vis-à-vis the existing Support Cell and how it links with the AORs. While support for the establishment of an Operations Cell was expressed, some participants voiced concern that the Operations Cell might have a negative impact on the collective involvement of the GPC membership and create few opportunities and incentives for members to engage.

Wednesday 23 November

5. Working group recommendations: field support and global level engagement

The discussion of priority activities for the GPC were initiated in working groups and further elaborated in plenary where the outcomes of the working group discussions were presented. Based on this initial brainstorming, the GPC Visioning Reference Group was tasked with extracting the priorities for the global level engagement. Priority activities for field level support were outlined by a smaller group of field level participants based on the preceding discussions. The final priority activities are outlined on the initial pages of this report. The below summarises the outcomes of the working group and plenary discussions. Field support

11

Tools and guidance: � Develop a decision tree or flow chart for protection cluster activation and transitioning/cluster de–

activation in coordination with UNDP and the sub-working group on the cluster approach.

� Undertake an inventory of existing guidance and ensure quality control.

� Establish a GPC website as a repository for all tools and contact details.

� Develop a “cluster in a box” toolkit containing contingency planning, best practices, forms, contact lists, ToRs, an overview of standard protection activities, and tools for M&E, fundraising, contingency planning and protection mainstreaming (UNHCR Cote d’Ivoire, NRC Colombia expressed interest in assisting with this).

� Assist with contingency planning even in countries without a cluster.

� Strengthen communication and dissemination practices.

Training:

� Undertake a mapping of training needs and existing tools to make better use of existing trainings.

� Development and delivery of training materials with a focus on technical skills, including information management, and thematic issues (e.g. SGBV and HLP) and soft skills (e.g. coordination, advocacy). These should be based on a mapping of the specific needs of protection actors in the field and based on existing materials that have been developed by GPC members, including the Task Force on Learning and by the AORs.

� Ensure availability of GPC training materials in the relevant languages.

� Provide capacity to deliver protection training (planning, information management, monitoring, general protection, protection mainstreaming).

� Input to and training for HC/RCs.

� Provide a coaching and mentoring function that is adapted to the specific needs of the field.

� Develop and undertake training on protection mainstreaming for protection cluster members, other clusters and HCs.

� Develop and undertake training on advocacy.

� Accountability.

Technical support:

� Improve technical support for the field, including a roving protection cluster advisor/coach, through rapid deployment schemes, which could be identified form within the GPC membership.

� Establish a GPC help desk consisting of an expert panel (drawing from ProCaps and existing capacity within the GPC. GPC focal points for the help desk will be identified by undertaking a mapping of membership resources and expertise) that field clusters can call or write to for advice and guidance.

� Implement a reviewing function in the GPC Operations Cell or help desk to receive reports from field clusters, and ensure follow up.

� Establish an internet based community of practice or discussion forum.

� Establish and maintain a feedback and complaints mechanism for field protection clusters.

� Diversification of ProCap arrangements to support mainstreaming protection.

� Identify technical support required on monitoring and evaluation.

Advocacy:

� Undertake an in-depth study of the causes for under funding of protection that would follow up on the study done by the Child Protection AoR.

� Facilitate HC/ERC involvement in protection issues. Global level engagement

� Sustained donor dialogue to raise issues of particularly funding.

12

� Develop and implement concrete advocacy strategies with three components: a) donor dialogue, b) greater awareness of the so-called “invisible issues” and crises, and c) developing a GPC identity (branding) for advocacy purposes.

� Develop SOPs to guide the advocacy process at the global level. � Ensure that advocacy messages from the field are relayed promoted with appropriate actors at the

global level. � Identify key advocacy messages and map key opportunities, including major global events, to

convey these messages (advocacy calendar).

Thursday 24 November

6. Working group recommendations: Partnership, information management,

accountability and protection mainstreaming

The last day provided an opportunity to discuss specific aspects of the work of the GPC that had arisen during the previous deliberations. The below summarises the outcomes of these discussions. Partnership, responsibility sharing, relationship with other clusters and AoRs, task forces The working group discussion focused on partnership in the context of the GPC. Emphasis was placed on working methods, including communication and transparency as well as the need for clarity on commitments, responsibilities and leadership. The following recommendations were made:

� There should be a dedicated coordinator at leadership level with appropriate seniority. � There should be greater clarity on expectations, commitment and responsibilities of GPC members

and its leadership, including agencies with leadership responsibilities at the field level. � Working methods need to be clearer, creating an enabling environment and forging trust. � Need for further discussion of the role of the AORs vis-à-vis the GPC

Accountability and performance management, complaints mechanism The working group focused on performance management of protection clusters in the field and the role of the GPC in ensuring this. It was noted that there is no consensus within the GPC on its role in monitoring the performance of protection clusters in the field. There is lack of clarity in terms of what benchmarks for performance monitoring are being used as well as channels for evaluation for both protection clusters and sub-clusters and their coordinators. Similarly, it is not clear whether monitoring should focus on coordination performance or impact. It was moreover noted that measures of accountability for NGO co-leads are not clear. The below recommendations were made:

� Better defining the monitoring and evaluation component of GPC and AOR missions and strengthen follow up on recommendations.

� Information flow from field protection clusters to the GPC should be strengthened without creating a reporting line or additional reporting requirements.

� Regular sharing of significant reports or documents with the Operations Cell for circulation to the GPC should be considered. Mission reports and de-briefings should be consistently done, including for ProCaps, and stronger links should be made between ProCap and the GPC.

Information management The working group focused on monitoring of protection, IDP profiling and needs assessment activities, including how this may support advocacy efforts, and concrete tools that should be developed in support of field protection clusters. With reference to these activities the group agreed on the importance of well-managed interagency input to ensure the information collected is widely disseminated and used appropriately. The group also discussed the possibility of developing common monitoring indicators, but no consensus was reached. GPC support to the field

13

� Collect and map existing tools that have been developed for information management. � Develop standard job descriptions for information managers. � Use protection monitoring data more consistently with donors for advocacy and reporting. � Reinforce information management capacity in the Operations Cell with dedicated information

management support for creating tools, providing advice to the field, and undertake deployments. � Consider use of existing standby rosters to support information management in field protection

clusters. � Develop standardized reporting formats. � Develop a training module on needs assessment, planning and reporting. � Develop a two-pager providing guidance on which information management tools are needed for

each situation (profiling, needs assessment, monitoring) Global level engagement on information management

� Ensure participation of Operation Cell information management focal point in broader inter-agency discussions around information management.

Protection mainstreaming The working group discussed the current status of the GPC protection mainstreaming initiative and agreed recommendations for moving forward.

� A dedicated resource should be identified to work on protection mainstreaming to ensure continuity and the maintenance of relationships with the other clusters.

� Focus should be on developing tools for the field based on existing resources and with an emphasis on filling gaps. These should be developed in cooperation with other global clusters and in consultation with field clusters. An implementation strategy should be developed to ensure effective use in the field, including inclusion in trainings, assessments, and monitoring and evaluation tools.

� An incremental approach should be adopted with an initial focus on 1-2 clusters, building on the work that has been initiated in this regard and with an emphasis on responding to demands by other clusters.

� The IASC should be used to underscore the responsibility of other clusters to mainstream protection and make them accountable for the commitment.

� A framework for minimum engagement on protection mainstreaming should be developed in cooperation with other clusters to ensure their ownership of the commitments.

� Capacity on mainstreaming protection of protection staff in the field should be built with a focus on soft-skills and approaches to engaging other clusters. To this end protection mainstreaming should be included in the GPC coordination trainings and tools to mainstream protection for use by field protection clusters should be included in the Protection Cluster Toolbox.

� Protection mainstreaming should be a collaborative effort involving all parts of the GPC, including AORs and cross-cutting issues.

� Building on existing training tools available, a training module on protection mainstreaming should be developed for other clusters.

7. Next steps The immediate follow up to the Thematic Discussions meeting will be the development of a multiyear strategy document that should inform the direction and orientation of the GPC over the next few years and that sets out the priorities that have been agreed. Flowing from this, a one-year workplan will be derived that sets out the activities that will be undertaken under the priorities that have been agreed. The endorsement of these documents will take place in February 2012 where they will be presented to donors during the GPC annual Retreat. To carry through the recommendations of the GPC Visioning and to ensure timely coordination for ongoing work, the GPC Visioning Reference Group will continue to provide advice and support to the work of the GPC going forward. A revised TOR for this group will be elaborated to outline specific tasks and participation.

14

ANNEX I: Agenda

15

Thematic Discussions

22-24 November 2011

Draft Agenda

Meeting objectives:

� Outline priorities and broad outputs for GPC support to the field and global level

engagement.

� Define working methods and organisation to be commensurate to priority tasks.

Tuesday 22 November

Day 1 objectives: Presentation of background papers and discussion of priorities and broad outputs

8.45-9.00 Registration and welcome coffee

9.00-9.30 Welcome Laurie Wiseberg

9.30-9.45 Opening Remarks Volker Turk

9.45-10.00 Introduction to agenda and meeting objectives Laurie Wiseberg

10.00-10.45 Outline of the Visioning by the Global Cluster Coordinator Louise Aubin

10.45-11.00 Coffee

11.00-12.30 Panel presentations: Background papers

Field Support– Simon Bagshaw, OCHA (20 min)

Global level engagement – Nina Birkeland, IDMC (20 min)

Organisation - Simon Russell, ProCap (20 min)

Q&A with lead drafters (30 min)

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-15.45 Working group discussions: Field level support and global level engagement

15.45-16.00 Coffee

16.00-17.00 Working group agreements: Recommendations

17.00-18.00 Welcome drinks and snacks Drinks and snacks will be available in the foyer outside the room.

16

Wednesday 23 November

Day 2 objectives: Development and consolidation of priorities and broad outputs

8.45-9.00 Registration and welcome coffee

9.00-9.15 Recap and introduction to day and objectives Laurie Wiseberg

9.15-10.15 Working Group presentations: Field level support and global level engagement Laurie Wiseberg

10.15-10.30 Coffee break

10.30-11.30 Field level support consolidation Laurie Wiseberg/Jenny McAvoy

11.30-12.45 Global level engagement consolidation Laurie Wiseberg/Katy Barnett

12.45-13.45 Lunch

13.45- 15.30 Organisation: Operationalising the Global Protection Cluster Laurie Wiseberg/Janey Lawry-White

15.50-16.15 Coffee

16.15-17.45 Organisation: Global Protection Cluster Structure Laurie Wiseberg/Janey Lawry-White

Thursday 24 November

Day 3 objectives: Presentation of outcomes of the discussions and elaboration of criteria and actions

points for critical aspects of GPC work.

8.45-9.00 Registration and welcome coffee

9.00-9.15 Recap and introduction to the day and objectives Laurie Wiseberg

9.15-10.00 Feedback from the Reference Group

10.15-11.15 Working Groups: Criteria and action points

� Benchmarks for AORs and TFs and mainstreaming of themes

� Advocacy and resource mobilisation

� Partnerships/responsibility sharing

� Performance management/collective accountability for results

� Information management

11.15-12.30 Outcomes from working groups

12.30-13.00 Closing remarks Louise Aubin

13.00-14.00 Lunch

ANNEX II: List of

participants

18

Name Organisation Location

1. Adriani Wahjanto Protection Cluster Coordinator/UNHCR DRC

2. Aimee Ansari Oxfam GB Geneva

3. Anne-Marie Linde OCHA Geneva

4. Atle Solberg Protection Cluster Co-chair/NRC Colombia

5. Barbara McCallin HLP AOR/IDMC Geneva

6. Charlotte Sarr OFADEC Senegal

7. David Murphy OHCHR Geneva

8. Delphine Brun

GenCap Inter-Agency Advisor to Global

Clusters Geneva

9. Dina Abou Samra OCHA Geneva

10. Erica Harper Natural Disasters Task Force/IDLO Geneva

11. Erin Kenny UNFPA New York

12. Gustavo Laurie UNMAS Geneva

13. Helene Ruud Mine Action AOR Coordinator/UNMAS Geneva

14.

Helene Villeneuve

Child Protection AOR Rapid Response

Team/UNICEF/DRC Geneva

15. Jackie Keegan Protection Cluster Coordinator/UNHCR Cote d'Ivoire

16. Jahal De Meritens UNDP Geneva

17. Janey Lawry-White GBV AOR Coordinator/UNICEF Geneva

18. Jenny McAvoy InterAction Washington DC

19.

Josep Zapater

GPC Information Management Task

Force/UNHCR Geneva

20. Kathrine Starup DRC Copenhagen

21. Katy Barnett Child Protection AOR Coordinator/UNICEF Geneva

22. Laurie Wiseberg Facilitator/ProCap Canada

23. Leonard Zulu GPC Support Cell/UNHCR Geneva

24. Louise Aubin Global Cluster Coordinator/UNHCR Geneva

25. Manisha Thomas ICVA Geneva

26. Marie-Francoise

Sitnam WVI Haiti

27. Melanie Murphy FAR Sudan

19

28. Melanie Teff Refugees International/IA GBV WG Washington DC

29. Mendy Marsh UNICEF New York

30. Merethe Nedrebo ProCap/NRC Oslo

31. Misty Buswell Save the Children Geneva

32. Natialia Baal JIPS Geneva

33. Nina Birkeland Lead Drafter/IDMC Geneva

34. Pamela Cramer OCHA/ProCap Geneva

35. Patrick Sooma World Vision Nairobi

36. Paul-Henri Morard CCO Chad

37. Peter Kozelets Protection Cluster Coordinator/UNHCR formerly Kyrgyzstan

38. Pia Skjeldstad WFP Rome

39. Piero Calvi-

Parisetti HelpAge Geneva

40. Rachel Reilly WRC Geneva

41. Rebecca Skovbye GPC Support Cell/UNHCR Geneva

42. Roberto Ricci OHCHR Geneva

43. Sebastiaan Der

Kinderen IRC Bangkok

44. Simon Bagshaw Lead Drafter/OCHA Geneva

45. Simon Russell GPC/ProCap Geneva

46. Susanne Ringgaard

Pedersen NRC Oslo

47. Suzanna Tkalec CRS Kenya

48. Takeshi Komino CWS Asia-Pacific

49. Valentina

Stivanello InterSos

formerly Sudan, now

HQ Rome

50. Veronika Talviste ICRC Geneva

51. David Derthick IOM Geneva

20

ANNEX III: Background

Papers

21

A

Global Protection Cluster “visioning” Background Reference Papers Introduction Part I: Field Support Part II: Global Engagement Part III: Organisation and Internal Working Methods Annex I: Decisions matrix Annex II: Summary of recommendations Annex III: Operations Cell Annex IV: Implications Annex V: Consultations

Introduction At the beginning of 2011, with the arrival of the new Coordinator for the Global Protection Cluster (GPC), UNHCR initiated a series of consultations with members of the GPC to discuss planned activities for 2011 and the future direction of the GPC. Based on these consultations, it became evident that 5 years after the establishment of the Global Protection Cluster it was necessary to re-visit the focus and direction of the GPC and strengthen support to field protection clusters, thus fostering a more coherent approach among GPC members and stimulate increased engagement of its participants. This “Visioning” process takes the form of thematic discussions addressing key issues relating to the objectives and structure of the GPC. The outcome of the Visioning will be a revised strategy and work plan for the GPC for 2012 and beyond. GPC Vision Statement

“A world in which boys, girls, women and men affected or threatened by humanitarian crises are fully protected in accordance with their rights.”

The re-“visioning” of the Global Protection Cluster takes place at the same time as a re-orientation of the cluster approach in general. The IASC Directors Task Team on clusters 12 has made a number of recommendations, including:

• A return to the original purpose of the clusters, refocusing them on strategic and operational gaps analysis, planning, assessment and results.

• A review and simplification of cluster guidance to make it less proscriptive and more empowering, taking into account the local operational situation.

• A more strategic and time limited activation of clusters. • The development of clearly defined, agreed and supported sharing of cluster

leadership by NGOs. • An annual review of clusters in every country operation to ensure continuing

relevance.

12 Recommendations of the IASC Directors Task Team, Montreux, 28 September 2011

22

These general recommendations are relevant in answering the question of what we need the Global Protection Cluster to do and what changes we want to make in the GPC to get us where we want to be. Three papers have been prepared on how the GPC can better support the field and engage on protection issues globally and on organisation. A summary of the recommendations made and the decisions to be made are set out in annexes, along with an outline option for an operations cell, the implications of the changes proposed and the consultations which have preceded the November visioning meeting. These documents represent only a basis for thought and discussion at the November meeting - the authors, therefore, ask for indulgence of inchoate suggestions and imperfect drafting. The GPC needs to define how it helps shape a comprehensive response to protection needs in complex emergencies, natural disasters and protracted situations. Common features of of these different types of humanitarian crisis are the presence of –

• sexual and gender-based violence, • children at risk, and • displacement.

Protection issues related to e.g. mine action, housing, land and property and rule of law are often but not always relevant, according to the context, and could be actioned depending on an assessment of the needs of the situation; the point is always to aim for a comprehensive protection response. In discussing the future direction of the GPC it goes without saying that the GPC cannot do everything and it will need to rigorously prioritise the issues it takes up for action: the recommendations set out in the background papers below need to be seen in that light. What this means is that the strategic orientation of the GPC and the structure enabling it to be operational needs to be consistent with field priorities. It also means that the plural nature of the GPC needs to cohere better and it means that resources need to be used to impact agreed priorities. The objectives of the visioning can be summarized therefore as bringing CLARITY , COHERENCE and EFFECTIVENESS to the Global Protection Cluster. A key tool in achieving these objectives will be the development of a strategy for the GPC, from which a work plan and advocacy plan will flow. In addition, the GPC will use benchmarks throughout its work to define the establishment and phasing out of AORs, task forces across the GPC and tasks. One of the benchmarks will be the OPERATIONAL relevance of any initiative. In pursuit of this focus on operational relevance, the GPC will have to set out what is meant by effective participation of agencies in the cluster and build on the current GPC Support Cell to create an Operations Cell, drawing on complementary efforts of all partners in the GPC.

23

Part I: Field support Field protection clusters and coordinators have certain key responsibilities, as defined and agreed in 2005, namely: 1. Establishment and maintenance of protection cluster mechanism(s) 2. Assessment, strategy development and implementation 3. Standard setting and compliance 4. Performance monitoring and evaluation 5. Protection monitoring and reporting system 6. Advocacy 7. Training and local capacity strengthening It is the GPC’s role to ensure that the field has the necessary support and capacity to implement those responsibilities in a timely and comprehensive manner. This part is, therefore, structured around those “key responsibilities”. A. Overview of main findings of consultations 1. The key responsibilities of 2005 remain relevant today. There is broad consensus that the

key responsibilities of cluster coordinators as defined in 2005 remain relevant today, though some were prioritised over others, depending on capacity and human resources on the ground, the specific point in time in a humanitarian crisis and the nature of the context. Some revision of these responsibilities may be necessary, bearing in mind also the recent agreement of the IASC Principals to simplify existing cluster guidance with a view to refocusing clusters on their core coordination responsibilities - assessment, planning, resource mobilization, monitoring, programme revision and preparedness.

2. The GPC’s role in supporting field protection clusters has been uneven and, in some

contexts, minimal or not felt at all. The consultations did not ascertain perceptions of the level of global support from the AoRs. Protection clusters in the field by and large develop and work without reference to the GPC and their success or failure today is independent of whatever support the GPC does or does not provide. There is a wide gap between the GPC and field clusters in terms of performance, organization and concerns. The operational focus of the GPC needs to move away from its predominant mode of development of guidance and towards the live concerns of field clusters, which revolve around programming protection, such as resource mobilisation, physical response capacity on the ground, innovation in project design, outputs etc.

3. The GPC should ensure it has a comprehensive overview of the work of individual

protection clusters. A lack of awareness (and efficient communication lines) between the field and headquarters, and vice versa, has contributed to a lack of meaningful support from the global level (elaborated further below in Performance and Monitoring). This is seen most clearly in a cottage industry of developing standards, guidance and tools in Geneva, which are rarely disseminated effectively to the field13; the validity of this approach, which reinforces the disconnexion of the GPC from the field and a circularity in

13 An example of this would be the creation of TORs for protection cluster co-ordinators,

presented to the IASC in 2005, but not disseminated to the field. These are currently being re-

created. However, cluster co-ordinators already have TORs to follow: the Generic TORs for cluster

leads at the country level.

24

standard-setting, wherein poor performance in the field is perceived to be because of a lack of guidance14, is highly questionable.

4. The Global Cluster Coordinator/cluster lead agency should ensure that support to the

field addresses the broader dimension of protection (i.e. groups and issues beyond IDPs) by drawing on capacity within the global cluster membership and relevant surge capacity mechanisms. Suggestions for how to do this that emerged from the consultations include: an initial mapping of capacities and resources available within the cluster; putting into place a Help Desk or list of experts who can provide technical advice/support to ensure a more comprehensive expertise is at hand.

5. “Let the field lead and request support and the GPC be ready to respond to requests

when asked.” This reflection was made with regard to the methods and means of global level support, and in particular the need for timely response and technical support to the field from the GPC’s Support Cell or any other future GPC help desk function.

6. Expectations for GPC support vary greatly and it is critical that the GPC manage those

expectations by clearly defining what it can deliver, in accordance with available capacity at global level. In doing so, the GPC should consider its role in relation to different types of emergency (e.g. new complex emergency; protracted complex emergency; sudden-onset disaster). Such a statement of capacities should also define the identity of the GPC, i.e. who is the GPC? What does the GPC have to offer? To whom? What results can the GPC deliver and what are its main service lines?

7. Key areas for the GPC to focus its efforts in support of field protection clusters are:

advocacy, training, standard setting, monitoring and evaluation, information management and resource mobilisation. The last two areas – information management and resource mobilisation – are identified as high priorities for field clusters but are not adequately reflected among the 2005 key responsibilities. These areas are further elaborated below.

8. The GPC needs to ensure that it functions as a resource for the broader protection

cluster membership. There are some perceptions that the GPC (and its Support Cell) is primarily a UNHCR resource. This point relates to ensuring communication and support available from the global level does not remain only with the Cluster Coordinator.

9. The GPC should strengthen the position of field protection clusters vis-à-vis the HC/RC

and HCT. This was seen as crucial for the protection cluster by most entities consulted, although some saw this as a broader issue relating to the humanitarian reform (see below, Advocacy).

B. Recommendations regarding the key responsibilities and areas/tasks requiring global

support The key responsibilities of cluster coordinators as defined in 2005 are listed below, along with key findings and recommendations for areas where the GPC at the global level should focus. Certain recommendations are more appropriately angled to the protection cluster leads, have implications beyond the GPC and hence may be more efficiently addressed in other fora (e.g. Global Cluster Leads, Director’s Task Team, etc). Establishment and maintenance of protection cluster mechanism(s):

14 “… there is a tendency to offer more training and develop additional tools and guidance. A plea

for more creativity was made….” , PCWG Retreat Report, 15-16 November 2007

25

At country level, cluster coordinators are responsible for the establishment of an effective coordination mechanism at the national and local levels.15 This is essential for ensuring a coordinated and complementary response to protection issues by relevant humanitarian, governmental, non-governmental actors and other counterparts. Key areas for global level support: 1. Continue efforts to build agency response capacity and ensure dedicated and skilled

cluster coordinators. As highlighted in a number of recent evaluations, there are still many contexts where effective coordination mechanisms and leadership on protection do not exist. The consultations for this paper highlight the need for those organisations that will act as protection cluster leads to ensure the availability of dedicated, skilled senior capacity to run the cluster at national and sub-national levels, in particular at the height of an emergency and in large protracted emergencies. There were differing views as to the specific role of the GPC in this regard. It was recalled that the responsibility for ensuring capacity to respond to emergencies in real time remains first and foremost a global cluster lead agency responsibility. However, a number of ideas were put forward for strengthening this capacity, and a possible GPC role in advocacy in this regard including: • In lieu of such capacity being readily available, there could be greater emphasis on the

systematic and rapid deployment of ProCap Senior Protection Officers at the outset of an emergency. This would ensure the necessary experience and seniority. Moreover, if deployed for a minimal period of 6 months, it would also ensure a degree of consistency that is vital and yet often absent in the first weeks and months of an emergency. It would allow for the building of effective relationships with the HC/RC, the HCT and other key actors and ensure that the necessary coordination structures are up and running from the outset.

• Consideration for other means of deploying Coordinators, such as a setting up a central fund for deployments on a range of protection issues. Such a fund could be replenished, based on results achieved.

2. Continue efforts to build agency response capacity and ensure dedicated and skilled

AOR/sub-cluster coordinators16. The importance of ensuring dedicated AOR or sub-cluster coordinators for thematic sub-working groups addressing specific issues (child protection, GBV, etc.) was also noted. Various proposals were put forward, including ProCap to provide Coordinators for AoRs. This is happening in some cases but is not explicit in the aim of the Project. The AoRs could further develop/expand their own deployable teams of Coordinators.

3. Provide greater clarity on roles and reporting lines for NGO deputy cluster coordinators,

as well as AORs. Evaluations of the cluster approach point to the added value of international NGOs and other partners taking on leadership roles within clusters at national and sub-national levels, where they have the capacity and provide added value. As a matter of priority, the role and responsibilities, including reporting lines, of deputy coordinators should be clarified. The key recommendations of a recent report by Oxfam should be considered in this regard.17 The GPC should undertake a consultation exercise

15 The ToR should be updated to reflect that in most countries some sort of mechanism already exists, and

wherever possible, cluster coordination mechanisms should complement and aim to build on and strengthen

existing mechanisms.

16 The importance of ensuring dedicated AOR or sub-cluster coordinators for thematic sub-working groups

addressing specific issues (child protection, GBV, etc.) was also noted.

17 The Oxfam report found that the direct co-facilitation model applied in Orientale in the DRC resulted in

improved participation, information sharing, strategizing, and response of the protection cluster. Key

challenges were the wide geographical responsibility, competing expectations of the post, and difficulty of

having a real influence on the cluster mechanisms as a staff member of an NGO without an officially clarified

26

with all NGO Deputy Coordinators to better understand the extent of co-leadership within the protection cluster and the capacity needs to fulfil this role at field level.18 The GPC should also clarify the responsibilities of AORs at country level vis-à-vis the broader protection cluster, and articulate their roles. More broadly, the consultations raised the question of the necessity to automatically create pre-decided AoRs/sub-clusters in every response, and caution against overly formulaic activation of AoRs/sub-clusters.

4. Ensure that protection cluster members, HCTs and HC/RCs effectively take up their

respective responsibilities in terms of protection. The GPC could advocate for and safeguard the principles of humanitarian reform, and react in those contexts where these principles are no longer respected. The consultations reveal different views on whether there is a role for the GPC - or other parts of the humanitarian apparatus - to help ensure that protection considerations inform the overall assessment of humanitarian needs and the response strategy.

5. Clarify the relationship to the national authorities and other key players. Guidance and

lessons learned are sought with regard to the relationships between protection clusters and national and local authorities (including the police and military) and other key external players, such as peacekeepers.19

6. Guidance on the phasing out and transitioning of the protection cluster (and the

relationship with UNDP and the Early Recovery cluster).20 This issue sits within broader IASC discussions on transition, and efforts to move towards more strategic and timely activation and deactivation of clusters.21 However, the GPC should develop protection cluster-specific criteria and triggers for the activation and phasing out of the protection cluster. Beyond such criteria, how to ensure that protection is “mainstreamed” across the transition was seen as critical.

7. Clearly elaborate and define the role of the GPC in supporting protection coordination

mechanisms and response in non-cluster countries. The Director’s Task Team is recommending the activation of clusters on a more strategic basis. This does not, however, mean that the need for protection coordination mechanisms will be reduced. The GPC will need to more clearly elaborate and define its role in relation to non-cluster contexts (the 2007 GPC TOR clearly note that the GPC’s support extends beyond cluster contexts). The issue of how and what capacity is available for this should be addressed.

Assessment, strategy development and implementation: The key responsibilities of cluster coordinators include implementation of a protection needs assessment and gaps analysis, involving cluster members and in conjunction with other clusters and relevant authorities; the development of a comprehensive protection strategy and cluster implementation plan with cluster members and other relevant actors; and ensuring protection is incorporated into general humanitarian needs assessments and overall country planning strategies and response. role in cluster leadership. See “Protection Cluster Co-Facilitation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Lessons Learned for Oxfam’s Protection Cluster Support Project”, June 2011, Vance Culbert

18 Within the Child Protection AoR, the extent of co-leadership is limited (around 4-5 co-leadership

arrangements in total).

19 Guidance on interaction with peacekeeping mission is currently being developed by the GPC.

20 A revision of the protection-cluster specific cluster coordinator TORs would need to reflect responsibilities

in this regard (e.g. design appropriate transition strategies for the cluster).

21 A guidance note on transition is currently being developed.

27

Key areas for global level support: 1. Provide practical protection assessment tools and Standard Operating Procedures. The

absence of planning tools and guidance is a major gap (this also links to Monitoring and Evaluation, see below). To date, assessments are an area where field clusters have reinvented the wheel, and moved faster than the global level in the development of tools and guidance. The simplification of protection needs assessment tools (that are currently under development within the GPC), along with Standing Operating Procedures and appropriate training are a priority. The GPC could look at joint assessments tools that have been developed by projects such as the Emergency Capacity Building Project which are already being field tested.

2. Provide guidance on the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP). While OCHA provides

overall coordination support, protection clusters are left to compile the protection projects for the CAP and have requested specific guidance on this. A simple GPC CAP guidance note on types of projects relevant to the Protection Cluster (as well as guidance on how protection concerns should be addressed in other sector projects) would be helpful.

3. Hold international partners accountable at the global level for implementing

responsibilities at the field level. In a number of contexts, cluster coordinators face the challenge of partners that fail to deliver on responsibilities they have agreed to undertake in the context of the protection cluster. Assuming they are informed accordingly, the GPC and AOR leads could do more at the global level to make their members accountable for implementing their field responsibilities (see Performance monitoring and evaluation, below). This is of course, practically challenging, and more discussion is needed to identify concrete steps as to what role the GPC could potentially play in this regard.

Standard setting and compliance: Clusters coordinators are responsible for ensuring protection cluster activities are carried out in a manner that respects and promotes adherence to humanitarian principles and supports compliance with international law, in particular human rights, international humanitarian law and, as well as appropriate technical standards. � Key areas for global level support with regard to standard setting and compliance are

addressed in Part II: the Global Protection Cluster’s global engagement, paras 10 and 12.

Performance monitoring and evaluation: At the field level, Cluster Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that appropriate performance monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are in place to review impact of the protection cluster, and progress against implementation plans, and ensure accountability to the HC/RC. Key areas for global level support: 1. Provide field clusters with monitoring and evaluation tools and support. It would be

useful to have external support for monitoring and evaluation – including providing guidance on application of appropriate tools. The GPC should consider developing basic benchmarks/guidance (potentially using the ICRC-led “Professional Standards for Protection Work” as a starting point along with cluster-wide standards) through which field clusters can measure performance (all the while avoiding that this become an overly burdensome process).22 Additionally, a number of examples of accountability and impact

22 For example, in the DRC, the cluster reinforcement project has encouraged clusters to reflect on how they

function against certain objectives and indicators.

28

measurement good practices are available within the GPC membership.23 Adequate reporting against the objectives of humanitarian planning documents is in place in a number of contexts but not monitoring and evaluation of performance or cluster impact vis-à-vis affected communities (see below). Field clusters are primarily focused on measuring impact of cluster activities against humanitarian planning documents (CAP, etc.).

2. Strengthen role of field clusters in improving accountability to affected populations. At

the outset of 2011, the IASC Principals and the ad hoc Directors Task Team identified improved accountability for performance, including to affected populations, as a priority for efforts to improve the international humanitarian response system.24 The 2005 key responsibilities tend to view accountability in terms of accountability of the cluster lead agency. Some protection clusters have begun looking at developing tools for monitoring and evaluating the performance and impact of the cluster on communities however this has proved challenging.25 The Accountability and Impact Measurement initiative of the Emergency Capacity Building Project may offer useful ideas for use by the protection cluster. However, there were differing views as to the extent to which this is the role of the protection cluster, and not other parts of the humanitarian apparatus (e.g. the UNCT, all clusters etc.).

3. Establish a light-weight mechanism for effective follow-up and field support. The GPC

currently plays no sustained or systematic role in following the progress and understanding and responding to the needs (human, financial, and institutional) of field protection clusters. On the contrary, there is an assumption at the global level that field protection clusters, once established, are doing what is expected of them in the terms of the 2005 key responsibilities. However, there is no certainty that this is the case. Moreover, if there are problems that are impeding the effective functioning of the cluster – including such fundamentals as the relationship with the HC/RC – the GPC may only become aware of these and be in a position to provide support if such problems are proactively communicated upwards. There is support for some form of light-weight mechanism that would facilitate global-level involvement in the work of field protection clusters. This is also advantageous in terms of providing cluster coordinators with an avenue through which to encourage improved performance by individual cluster members who might be failing to fulfil their responsibilities. A more detailed proposal is needed as to what this mechanism would look like. The Child Protection AoR notes there are challenges in establishing and maintaining a closer working relationship with field-based coordination mechanisms given the sheer number of them; the limited time available at global level; the fact that some may perceive they are operating well, when in fact they are not and may require extensive support which needs to be readily available. Finally, the importance of not adding a further layer of reporting to already overstretched field mechanisms was noted. In order to develop a community of practice and, more immediately, to discuss and

23 At field level, many NGOs who are engaged in protection already have M&E plans in place which can be

referenced.

24 The IASC Principals agreed to establish a performance framework for humanitarian action, with

measurable indicators, through which the progressive achievement of collective results can be monitored

and reported. The framework will provide indicators for the contributions of the HC, HCT, OCHA and the

clusters to the overall response. (IASC Principals Retreat, 15 March 2011)

25 The report highlights the particular challenge for the protection cluster to measure the impact of cluster

activities on communities, which would require assessment of direct activities carried out by the cluster

(such as advocacy). The project developed impact indicators which the GPC should review as a starting tool

for this. See: Protection Cluster Co-Facilitation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lessons Learned for

Oxfam’s Protection Cluster Support Project”, June 2011, Vance Culbert

29

solve problems, a monthly field cluster co-ordinators teleconference should take place with the GPC at the same time as GPC regular meetings.

4. More strategic use of ProCap in support of the field. An Operations Cell should participate better in ProCap Steering Committee meetings and use ProCap more dynamically as a resource to fulfil tasks currently undertaken by the Support Cell and task forces. For example, a Procap Senior Protection Officer (or combinations) could rotate every month for 12 months, to give advice to field colleagues, immediately boost mainstreaming efforts, support strategy development and collect good practices from an operation. Such a use of ProCap conforms to the strategic objectives of the project and would do away with the need for expensive GPC missions and fruitless requests to field colleagues for information. GPC missions are seen as too cumbersome and not fast enough in delivery of recommendations to provide the sort of light and fast support which field clusters need. In addition, such missions add to the mission visit load for hard-pressed field staff.

Protection monitoring and reporting system: Cluster coordinators are responsible for ensuring the establishment of a protection monitoring and reporting system that will identify key protection concerns, trends and patterns based on international human rights and humanitarian law standards, as well as relevant national standards. Key areas for global level support: 1. Clarify the key responsibilities of field clusters with regard to protection monitoring and

reporting. A clarification of the 2005 key responsibilities is that field clusters do not have to establish a monitoring system as a cluster. Rather, the cluster needs to prioritize monitoring and reporting and ensure that it is directly linked to action (often it is not). The 2005 key responsibilities also do not reflect the role of the field cluster in providing input and contributions to other monitoring mechanisms (such as under Security Council resolution 1612).

2. Strengthen existing protection monitoring and reporting systems. Improving

coordination between the different monitoring and reporting and case management systems of various actors remains a challenge. When organizations work on protection incidents in isolation from one another this leads to an incomplete picture of the protection landscape and the breakdown of referral pathways. Where the Protection Cluster lead agency runs the monitoring and reporting system, the management of data and reporting is easier. Field clusters would like to see a semi-standard protection incident monitoring database, which would support reporting, advocacy, and fundraising, although there are questions as to whether this could accommodate all information needs. Some field clusters have developed systems at the country-level, but emphasized that a globally produced generic version that can be adapted would make establishing such mechanisms easier. The GPC should take forward the good practices and recommendations identified in a recent workshop on the issue.26 Important lessons can also be learned from the GBV Information Management System model. There is also a need to ensure that referral systems are in place to refer pertinent information that is collected or heard by humanitarian and other actors that are not directly involved in protection activities but who are in regular contact with the affected populations and who may possess useful and important information relating to protection.

26 The workshop recommended setting up smaller systems at the local level rather than attempt at

harmonisation at the global level. It also highlighted the need to ensure the rights of survivors with regard to

privacy and the potential use of information related to their case (GPC Protection Incident Monitoring and

Case Management Workshop, 24-25 May 2011).

30

Advocacy: Advocacy is an important function of the protection cluster. It is often what sets it apart from other clusters. Field protection clusters are responsible for keeping the HC/RC and HCT regularly informed and advised on key protection concerns, calling for and ensuring high-level advocacy and interventions are undertaken to respond to those concerns and to prevent their recurrence. Field protection clusters are also responsible for broader advocacy initiatives with the authorities, other clusters, donors, and the humanitarian community on improving respect for international humanitarian law and human rights law and steps required to address any protection gaps in the overall humanitarian response. � Key areas for global level support on advocacy are addressed in Part II: the Global

Protection Cluster’s global engagement. Training and local capacity strengthening: Cluster coordinators are responsible for implementation of efforts to build local protection capacity (governmental and non-governmental) to maximize the longer-term impact and sustainability of protection efforts. They are also responsible for ensuring access by cluster members and other relevant actors to training and resource materials relevant to their functions and planned projects. Key areas for global level support: 1. The GPC’s role in supporting training is a priority (closely linked to standard-setting).

Training was also identified as the single biggest request from field-based child protection coordination mechanisms in 2010. In a number of contexts, field clusters have developed training tools themselves (in absence of materials from the global level). The experience of clusters in the field is that the protection capacity of local actors is frequently low. Capacity-building at this level and training on established standards can become a major role of the cluster coordinator. It is important that field clusters are supported by the global level to reduce this burden. A basic expectation is that the GPC devise a simple quality Protection Cluster generic training package for field clusters on both soft skills (such as coordination, leadership, etc.) and programmatic aspects of cluster work (funding processes, etc.) to adapt at the field level and roll-out. Ideally, this would also be available in key languages.27 Emphasis is also put on ensuring regular training opportunities on soft skills for all cluster coordinators; as well as on building capacity for training support where resources are not available in-country – either by having a team of deployable trainers or by having one global level training person available to support training events as required at field level (as has been put into place by the Child Protection AoR).

2. Prioritise the development of a protection mainstreaming training module and tools to

build the capacity of other clusters to ensure a more protection-sensitive approach (see also above, Advocacy).

Additional responsibilities (not covered in the 2005 key responsibilities) Information management: Information management has emerged as crucial to ensuring the effective functioning and operational impact of protection clusters. Key tasks include facilitating reporting and information sharing, both within the cluster and with other clusters and ensuring that up-to-date and relevant cluster specific information is systematically included in general inter-cluster reporting platforms (sitreps and other reporting mechanisms).

27 Other training needs were identified in the consultations undertaken for this paper, including requests for

training specifically for peacekeeping troops, and simple visual and auditory training tools to be adapted at

community level.

31

Key areas for global level support: 1. Identify steps to strengthen information management capacity within the protection

cluster. Information management capacity within the protection cluster at field level is often overlooked. 28 The loss of institutional memory in the cluster lead agencies and among cluster members was also flagged as problematic for Cluster Coordinators. In many contexts it is an additional responsibility Cluster Coordinators are regularly required to fulfil (data management, communication and reporting). In many contexts information management requires a dedicated position, in addition to the Coordinator). The GPC should ascertain where this capacity should sit, and who should provide it. Consideration should be given to avenues to reduce the information management burden on Coordinators, such as extending the Tier II ProCap Standby Roster to include Information Management Officers and ensuring funding for such positions is included within the CAP and Flash Appeal.29 In addition, the consultations note that in a complex emergency, it is likely that addition to an IM person, a Monitoring and Reporting Advisor, and Assessment Officer/s may also be needed. See Section Protection Monitoring and Reporting above.

2. Develop generic protection matrices and information sharing documents and tools. On

the one hand the need for protection needs assessment, incident reporting tools, protection cluster reporting templates, key indicators and SOPs that go along with them was noted. On the other hand, the consultations also suggest that such tools exist but are not being consistently utilised.

Resource mobilization: A significant amount of time is devoted by clusters to the funding process, often at the expense of other priorities. Key areas for global level support: 1. Develop appropriate guidance and tools on the CAP and other appeals processes (Flash

Appeals, CERF, ERF, etc.) including simple guidelines, templates, indicators (see above, Section B. Assessment, strategy development and implementation).30

� Further key areas for global level support on resource mobilization are included in Part

II: the Global Protection Cluster’s global engagement, para. 30. Emergency Preparedness: Various recent evaluations of humanitarian responses indicate that varying levels of preparedness of humanitarian actors and the absence of integrated and updated contingency plans have affected the capacity to respond effectively in humanitarian crises.31 The consultations for this paper underlined the role of the cluster in strengthening its link to and the capacity of national actors, as well as building links to longer-term development projects (See recommendations under Point A above)

28 The Cluster 2 Evaluation highlighted information management as a key area inadequately addressed in all

six country cases reviewed.

29 Also bearing in mind any steps taken at the level of the IASC Principals as more broadly affecting all

clusters. A key recommendation from the IASC Directors Task Team is that OCHA reconsider the re-

establishment of Humanitarian Information Centres (HICs) at country level, which would reduce the burden

on individual clusters, and ensure common information management resources are pooled.

30 The Child Protection AoR has planned this activity for 2012.

31 See OCHA Evaluations Synthesis Report, 2010 (OCHA, February 2011).

32

Key areas for global level support: 1. Revision of the 2005 key responsibilities to reflect the key role cluster coordinators play

in leading contingency planning and emergency preparedness efforts, including undertaking capacity mapping and gap identification exercises.

C. Further possible areas for GPC/Global Cluster lead support 1. There should be a stronger investment at the global level within the GPC in building

expertise and capacity with regard to specific technical areas, and making that expertise available to field protection clusters.32

2. A specific recommendation to UNHCR is for guidance on the role of the cluster and its

relationship with UNHCR, also addressing potential challenges (for example, when there is a difference between the agency and cluster position; standard reporting formats and SOPs for sharing UNHCR information with the cluster, etc.). Also noted are concerns regarding the mixing of roles between UNHCR and GPC vis-à-vis funding. Can UNHCR as global cluster lead objectively play the role of overall resource coordinator while still acting as the principal agency establishing implementing relationships with partners at programme level? Is there a stake for the GPC in relation to contexts that are not clusterised?

32 Land and statelessness were flagged in the consultations for this paper.

33

Part II: Global level engagement

1.0 draft after input33 from GPC Reference Group

GPC Visioning Process Background thematic paper on global level engagement

ver. 08 November 2011 1 Introduction The aim of the thematic background papers is to inform November’s thematic discussions by making proposals and recommendations for the areas they address. This thematic paper34 is focused on the GPC’s global level engagement, and addresses two issues35:

A. Advocacy B. The GPC’s role in the protection policy discourse

For these two areas, recommendations for the GPC’s future priorities are presented, based on the suggestions put forward in the consultations and feedback received on zero draft. It should be noted that the recommendations and rationale for this paper have been developed on the basis of initial consultations with and feedback on zero version of this paper from members of the reference group and drafting group. The starting point for this paper is that the GPC, as a collective entity comprised of its members and cluster chair, has defined responsibilities at the global level as agreed in 200536. Since 2005, it has made efforts to strengthen its engagement on global advocacy, and in support of the country-based clusters’ advocacy. The GPC has initiated a number of activities such as developing and implementing the PCWG Advocacy Action Plan and supporting the elaboration and implementation of advocacy action plans at the field level.37 Based on consultations for this paper, advocacy is viewed as an issue where a lot more discussion among GPC members is needed and therefore is an important priority for the visioning process. A. Advocacy Advocacy is an identified responsibility of global cluster lead agencies and clusters, and this should be a priority for the GPC in the future.38 Advocacy is among the activities recently identified by the IASC Principals as critical to improving the humanitarian system as a whole. There is a need to agree with the GPC on a common understanding of advocacy.

33 Feedback on the zero version of this paper received from Interaction, Mine Action AOR, CP AOR, DRC, NRC/IDMC and UNHCR is included. Feedback was considered and included to the extent possible within the timelines. 34 IDMC is the lead drafter of this paper. Initial consultations (via a teleconference and meetings were conducted with OXFAM, Women’s Refugee Commission, DRC, NRC, IDMC, HealthNetTPO, ICVA and OCHA. 35 These issues were identified by the Reference group as the focus of this background paper. 36 Protection Cluster Working Group, December 2005 Progress Report to the IASC Principals. 37 PCWG Workplan 2010. 38 IASC Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response, 24 November 2006.

34

During the review of this paper by the drafting group it was highlighted that it should be acknowledged that on many issues, individual member organizations of the GPC will, and should, continue to engage in advocacy in their own right. Therefore, when discussing advocacy, it is essential first to define when the GPC, should engage in advocacy. This requires consideration of when the members of the GPC have a clear and collective interest beyond individual organizational views, or when organizational view are in harmony any yet need the reinforcement of a collective and global response. As an initial matter, it is suggested that these criteria are, at a minimum, met in the following cases:

(1) when an issue actually or potentially impacts field based clusters and their ability to serve affected populations;

(2) in the initial stages of a major complex emergency or natural disaster, when a collective voice on protection is necessary to ensure inclusion in operational strategies and donor response.

It is recommended that this issue be explored during the Visioning Thematic discussions, to identify agreed criteria for when the GPC should undertake global advocacy. Recommendations39 1. The GPC defines and communicates clearly its role (when and how it should engage) in crisis response (e.g. Haiti and Horn of Africa), including engagement with donors to strengthen protection in emergencies. In this regard, the authority of the cluster coordinator and support cell to undertake advocacy on behalf of the GPC should be clarified. 2. The GPC Coordinator acts as an advocacy relay for the field, with access to high level UN and donor representatives, and also proactively identifies challenges and issues. In relation to this role, the GPC should first define what, if any, advocacy should be undertaken by the in country based cluster at the national or regional level (e.g., in relation to the HC or national government) before the GPC becomes involved. It may conduct advocacy with its participating organisations, including the protection-mandated UN agencies, on issues related to their leadership and role in field clusters. 3. The GPC leadership calls upon the expertise of its members and facilitates coordinated efforts and coherence with existing initiatives and roles of GPC members. 4. The GPC advocates for greater resourcing of protection activities, which includes analysis of key protection issues and trends, and anticipates priorities. 5. The GPC, through cluster coordinator and individual members who commit to participate in mainstreaming, engages with other global clusters to ensure practices which are conducive to protection. 6. The GPC needs to consider how it can better link with, and promote, specific advocacy efforts of AoRs towards high-level forums or [alternative wording of this recommendation] Any subsidiary parts of the GPC (AORs or Task Forces) should seek to ensure that their messages are included in an integrated and comprehensive protection response.

39 The who, what and how to implement these recommendations needs to be agreed in the reference group.

35

Background and rationale Advocacy is increasingly seen as a core function of the GPC. A desk review of priority areas highlighted by the field40 carried out by the GPC Reference Group in June 2011 underlined the need for greater understanding, both within the GPC and at the field level, of the GPC’s role in (a) undertaking and coordinating advocacy in support of the field, as well as (b) in supporting the field to develop advocacy strategies. The consultations underline that the GPC to date has not engaged sufficiently in either. A key recommendation of the consultations is that the GPC utilise its position to strengthen advocacy support for field protection clusters. However the GPC’s 2010 work plan already identified the need to develop and implement an Advocacy Action Plan and support elaboration and implementation of advocacy action plans at the field level. It would be useful during the visioning process to assess what is required for the GPC to fully implement this objective, given the existing expertise within the GPC membership. In particular, formalization on representation, decision-making authority, and procedures to manage internal disagreements on advocacy approaches may all be needed. There is a clear expectation that the GPC will undertake high-level advocacy, calling on the resources of its membership (which includes strong NGO partners such as Oxfam with well-developed advocacy capacity and tools), relying on expertise from its diverse membership and facilitating coordinated efforts and coherence in advocacy. The consultations reaffirmed the role of the GPC in assisting field-based protection clusters by developing and relaying advocacy messages on specific protection issues to actors such as the Emergency Relief Coordinator, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the High Commissioner for Refugees and the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, including the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons41. They showed that the GPC could more systematically:

- develop common core protection messages and ad hoc reports raising protection concerns to the ERC;

- advocate for compliance with human rights and international humanitarian law; and

- make recommendations to key stakeholders to address gaps in the response. The consultations indicate differences in opinion regarding whether the GPC should engage with the human rights mechanisms, or rather leave it to individual agencies and organisations. It would be necessary to clarify whether there are situations warranting a direct role of the GPC as opposed to the GPC monitoring the activities of its members, and encouraging the sharing of information to inform these mechanisms and encouraging the relevant members to contribute information back to the GPC and its membership, etc. in the interest of coherence of strategies and shared analysis. The current GPC workplan makes limited reference to advocacy, and the GPC currently has no global advocacy strategy or clearly identified advocacy priorities. To develop a global advocacy strategy may be unrealistic and too time-consuming for the GPC. It may make more sense to first articulate more explicitly what the GPC can and cannot do in terms of advocacy in order to establish the strategic goals of GPC advocacy efforts (including those undertaken collectively) and decide whether there is a GPC role in enhancing coherence among existing activities of GPC members. Then, a strategy could be developed, implemented and evaluated for advancing two or three agreed areas of advocacy.

40 OCHA carried out a desk review in June 2011 for the Reference Group to GPC on priority areas highlighted by the field and recent evaluations 41 As was defined in the PCWG 2005 progress report to the IASC

36

There is an expectation that the GPC will act as a platform for coordinated advocacy on protection issues raised by its diverse membership. To date, AoRs (such as child protection and GBV) have been one step ahead in developing advocacy messages and initiating advocacy on protection issues at the global level. A recent example is the GPC messaging on the Horn of Africa crisis. There has also been a lack of clarity on how advocacy should be done (to whom, how and when). For instance, while the consultations noted the success of the Horn of Africa messaging, questions were raised as to the audience of the messages (were the messages for donors only?) and as to how the messaging was used, beyond being disseminated by email. The GPC should identify a clear process for developing and prioritising messages and means of persuading the stakeholders whose action is needed to pass on messages to advocacy targets. At the same time, it is recognized that in order to do so, and in a timely manner, substantial and dedicated resources may be needed.

Reflections could be drawn from the Horn of Africa messaging experience. In its 2010 workplan, the GPC decided to determine messages on a few themes per year, and agree common messages on protection challenges faced in major emergencies for use by the field and by high-level global actors. It would be useful to explore during the upcoming workshop why the workplan has not been implemented, and where the advocacy objectives workplan has been successfully implemented. It may well be that the process of arriving at common ground would be too cumbersome and it would be more effective to prioritise the quick drafting of strong advocacy positions and messages on emerging issues in support of the field, as was done for the Horn of Africa. The links between high level advocacy and technical assistance should be strengthened in the GPC. High level advocacy can expand the protection space for e.g. refugees and IDPs when there is coordinated - though not necessarily visible - link between advocacy and technical solutions. Public or private advocacy by the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of IDPs or the Rapporteur on Adequate Housing can be complemented by technical work with Government to find practical alternatives to, for example, forced evictions. Internal communications issues are addressed in the background paper on internal working methods and organisation. With regard to external communications, the GPC should strengthen existing communications tools: its website and newsletter. The GPC newsletter published in August 2011 is a welcome means of internal and external communication. However, the consultations raise the importance of ensuring that such communications are issued regularly and formatted for the target group(s). For example, feedback should be sought from donors and others about the usefulness of the newsletter. The GPC Coordinator and the Support Cell also needs to consider how they can better link with, and promote that interested GPC members and AOR leads work to ensure that the advocacy efforts of the AoRs contribute to a comprehensive protection response42. This should include a risk analysis and risk management strategy, since unlike other sectors, advocating on certain protection issues may involve real risks, even at the global level. It is essential that the GPC member organisations are able and willing to generate consensual messages for high-level advocacy targets which are based on solid evidence and analysis. The GPC should build its role in addressing ongoing policy gaps which affect protection across contexts and over time. Some of the consulted organisations argue that when governments or non-state actors are able to divide the international community on protection agendas, the GPC must step in and seek common positions: other organisations advised that they do not 42 A review by the child protection AoR (Lessons learned for Child Protection Sub-clusters) found that in some contexts, protection cluster coordinators have either been unable or unwilling to raise child protection concerns as part of the wider protection concerns.

37

necessarily see that protection should be homogenized and that there can be benefits by different organizational approaches to protection. The GPC should prioritise stakeholders for structured dialogue and dedfine its relationship with them: these should include donors, DPKO, DPA, ERC, etc. The GPC membership could be used more creatively to engage with stakeholders at the international level. Field protection clusters are responsible for advising the Humanitarian Country Teams and Humanitarian Coordinators on key protection concerns and actions required across agencies and programmes. They are also responsible for advising the HCT/HC on advocacy actions on joint concerns. A further responsibility of clusters at field level is to advocate to donors for funding to carry out priority protection activities43. Given the consistent lack of funding of protection in the field, the consultations underlined the importance of GPC engagement with donors, to position protection as an essential area of work which requires resourcing. In certain cases, donors will also be advocacy allies or targets for the GPC. Therefore an ongoing strategic dialogue between the GPC and the main protection donors is required. The consultations point to a broad acknowledgment of the need for the GPC to prioritise stronger links to donors, and be more precise about what issues it will engage with donors on and how that can effectively be done. In terms of the GPC’s role in support of field clusters, there is a clear expectation that the GPC will support field clusters to be better equipped to carry out advocacy. The GPC should ensure that field clusters are aware of its support capacity44 and able to raise issues to the GPC when this is needed. Clear criteria should be agreed for when the GPC will engage in support to the field, on a global level or in the country. Lessons can be drawn from field clusters that have achieved some degree of success in this area, for example the Protection Cluster in OPT and its joint advocacy strategy. The GPC for example could play a key role in supporting the field where there are regional challenges (e.g. Horn of Africa and LRA-affected countries) as well as raising national issues to the global level when appropriate. The GPC should also function as a bridge for country-level clusters to reach higher levels, for example in sensitive political environments where it can be difficult to raise protection issues through in-country structures. The protection cluster often operates in isolation from the more programmatic clusters and can be quite isolated in the humanitarian response despite the fact that protection is a cross-cutting issue. Various cluster evaluations have pointed to the challenge of mainstreaming protection across the humanitarian response. Six years after the cluster system was set up, the GPC’s engagement with other clusters remains limited45. Priority should be accorded to engaging with other global clusters on mainstreaming protection into their sector. The profile of protection should also be raised in inter-cluster forums and those involving other clusters in Geneva. The membership could also be used more strategically raise issues in other clusters (for example, one proposal would be to follow the model developed by the protection cluster in Pakistan, of appointing focal points to sit in the meetings of other relevant clusters key cluster meetings). A number of the membership partners are already engaging in other clusters, and this can be more creatively used by the GPC. The importance of increased engagement with early recovery clusters is noted, in particular with regard to the challenges faced at field level on the transition from emergency to recovery phases.

43 See key responsibilities of field protection cluster coordinators, PCWG Progress Report, 2005. 44 Not only in the support cell, but amongst the AORs, TF and membership. 45 The GPC has been engaging with a few clusters in the development of protection mainstreaming tools.

38

B. The GPC’s role in the protection policy discourse Key questions which have arisen regarding the GPC’s role in the protection policy discourse include: - How can the GPC ensure that its tools and guidance are used more effectively to strengthen implementation of protection policy and standards? - What is the GPC’s role (as a collective entity) in the protection policy discourse at the international level (also outside Geneva)? - How would the GPC take positions on global developments and trends in spite of the differing mandates and positions of specific organisations? Independent of advocacy in specific complex emergencies, protracted situations and natural disasters, in New York, Geneva, Addis Ababa and elsewhere, policy discussions on humanitarian action have implications for protection in the field. A natural question is thus the role of the GPC in “global protection policy discourse.” This may include discussions on protection of civilians, engagement with armed groups, humanitarian space, integrated missions, to name just a few. This may also require engagement in fora and with actors who do not consider themselves as an engaged in or related to “protection” in the sense understood by humanitarian actors. Similar to defining its interest in advocacy, the GPC must start with defining its specific role, and value added, in the protection policy discourse. In particular, this requires express recognition that the membership of the GPC, individually, as agencies and organizations, operates with diverse understandings of protection. Collectively, this may be embraced as a strength. But it also requires recognition that, as with advocacy, individual agencies and organizations may pursue individual policy positions. Therefore, once again, the GPC must start with identifying a common and abiding interest in a policy issue that exceeds individual views. While additional areas may be identified, two clear areas of engagement include: (1) where the GPC may represent common views and interests of multiple field clusters, and (2) discussions directly related to or bearing upon protection within the IASC. Recommendations 1. The GPC continues to work on developing policy and setting standards on protection (new issues to be prioritised could include: IDP policy, protection of civilians in armed conflict, protection in integrated missions, protection in mediation/cease-fire contexts, protection in situations of natural disasters) and focuses more on dissemination of tools and follow-up to ensure more effective policy implementation. Background and rationale As articulated in the GPC role and functions, the GPC plays an important role in the development of joint policy and standards and it does that through developing and generating endorsement for (IASC) tools relating to protection, including legal and operational guidance to staff and partners in the field. There are several examples of such tools and guidance developed over the past six years, such as the inter-agency Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, the Operational Guidelines on Protection in Situations of Natural Disaster, the HLP checklist, etc, some of which has also been included in the HC handbook. Ideas for new tools and guidance could involve the GPC contributing to the achievement of a common understanding of protection of civilians among its membership. The prioritisation of new policy issues to address in this way should be derived from an analysis of gaps in field protection clusters as well as global level protection agencies. There is a need to harmonise priorities at the field level with priorities at the global level. Field protection clusters often

39

prioritise gender-based violence and child protection and tend to focus less on broader protection issues.46 Protection of civilians in armed conflict is often on the protection agenda in the case of mandated missions whereas it tends to be ignored in non-mandated missions. Protection leadership remains unpredictable and a major challenge in the response to the impacts of natural disasters. The GPC has an important role to play in ensuring a consistent and coherent approach to addressing protection gaps and setting priorities accordingly. The real challenge lies not in developing policy and standards through tools and guidance documents, but rather in following up at the field level to ensure they are used and implemented. At field level, resources are still being used to develop tools and guidance from scratch. It is essential that the GPC ensures existing guidance is available. For example, it is striking that protection clusters in various contexts (and more broadly HCTs) are not using tools and policy guidance disseminated some time ago, such as the IASC Framework for Durable Solutions. However, ensuring that handbooks and guidelines are being used requires more resources than GPC member organisations are currently devoting. The GPC should take leadership on setting the agenda at the global level on substantive issues, a recommendation from several is to ensure that there is a common understanding among its member organisations. However, others questioned if such a common understanding is possible, needed or even desirable. For example, as mentioned above, the GPC can contribute to a common understanding of protection of civilians among its membership. Focus and prioritisation of issues should be derived from an analysis of gaps in field protection clusters as well as global level protection agencies. The GPC could position the broader protection agenda – and put field priorities on the agendas of key research organisations and other institutes by engaging more systematically and positioning itself in protection discourses. There are different views on whether the GPC should systematically engage on issues on the broader protection agenda. It needs to be decided if, and if yes, “where and why, and with what impact sought. 2. Implications During the Visioning Thematic Discussions, GPC members should undertake a mapping of “protection policy issues and actors” with which it would prioritize engagement. To do this it should: (1) identify relevant actors whose work bears upon or affects the work of clusters in the field; (2) clearly articulate the relationship between the identified actor and the GPC and/or field clusters; (3) identify what issues it would wish to engage that actor upon; and (4) specify the desired impact our outcome of the proposed engagement. Others to be defined 3. Consultations Consultations were carried out with Interaction (meeting and written feedback), and ICVA membership (ICVA organised teleconference on 13 October with ICVA, OXFAM, Women’s Refugee Commission, DRC (incl written feedback), NRC (inclwritten feedback and discussions) /IDMC, HealthNet TPO), OCHA (meetings), and UNHCR (written comments, additional written edits and telephone conference).

46 Analysis provided in visioning paper on field engagement.

40

Part III: Organisation and Internal Working Methods

The Global Protection Cluster’s Organisation and Internal Working Methods

1. In light of the preceding observations, this section proposes a minimal approach to re-organisation of the GPC but one which reflects good practices from the field. Some basic organizing principles 47 will apply to the structure necessary for achieving those aims, for example:

a. Inclusive of all stakeholders, b. A light approach, avoiding creeping bureaucracy such as membership

structures or new oversight functions assigned to the GPC, c. Commensurate to outputs, as defined by the strategy, d. Field-oriented, i.e. the priority is on content (service delivery to beneficiaries)

over process 48 and focuses on impact, e. Reflective of field priorities, so that e.g. questions of financing take priority

over largely theoretical discussions about fragmentation and the meaning of “provider of last resort” 49.

Structure

2. The GPC, through its annual meeting, needs to develop a strategy. Recognising that

the GPC is not a field cluster a logical framework approach may not strictly be needed, the point is that the GPC needs to determine what its priorities are. These priorities will focus on acute protection concerns rather than chronic human rights/development problems and the work plan flowing from the strategy will cover the dual approach of the GPC to engage in global policy discussions and support the field. The work plan should be circulated to field colleagues for brief consultation on relevance to their requirements.

3. As elements in enhancing the content of the GPC’s work on protection, it is

recommended that an inventory of tools, standards, guidance, handbooks etc. needs to be made immediately and that a moratorium be placed on the development of further tools pending this inventory and an assessment of training needs to implement them in the field.

Retreat Report, Protection Cluster Working Group Retreat, Geneva 15-16 November 2007: “The challenge for the cluster now is to link these tools and knowledge to actual field operations. The ‘predicament’ of the cluster is that it is still seen as something distant and separated from field operations”. – George Okoth-Obbo, UNHCR, Director of International Protection.

4. As noted in the Cluster Evaluation I report of November 2007, the GPC needs to avoid

“fragmentation” into silos, thus: “The cluster, under UNHCR leadership, has not clearly articulated its expectations of the focal point roles, and some field examples demonstrate automatic activation of focal areas, which some saw as unnecessarily formulaic”.

47 Derived from the GPC Visioning thematic discussion on 16 June 2011

48 The IASC Directors Task Team recommends that the clusters return to their original purpose,

i.e. to fill gaps and operationalise protection

49 See the statement of the Assistant High Commissioner (Protection) to the 62nd EXCOM meeting

41

5. A strategy, which brings together all the elements of protection in a rounded response, will obviate the risk of fragmentation 50. The technical AORs have made excellent progress in many areas, including in field support, and it is recommended that good practices in the AORs are replicated across the whole GPC. Nonetheless, there is an inherent risk that technical AORs become long-term and free-standing mini-clusters. The operational impact of a fragmented protection response is very serious indeed: for example, a strategy at the field level which aims to deliver protection services to people in conflict-affected services should not work on demobilisation of children associated with armed groups (a child protection objective) without also tackling the social and political dynamics of the conflict through advocacy, peace-building etc (a broader protection objective) or run the risk of failure. Another example would be working on reunification of separated children without also providing psychosocial support to families.

6. At the field level, there are a number of examples of automatic activation of sub-

clusters to replicate the global model. The IASC DTT recommends a more strategic activation of clusters in the field, including by implication sub-clusters. At the same time, it is true that child protection working groups, gender committees and mine action task forces often pre-date the activation of a protection cluster and work on broader themes than acute protection concerns in an extraordinary situation. Nonetheless, there are also good examples, particularly at the sub-national level, of working groups of a protection cluster formed according to the issues arising and a cost-benefit analysis of need against resources available (although more and more operations are seeing automatic replication of the GPC structure). In short, there are examples of informal benchmarks against which working groups are created and disbanded. It is recommended that the GPC define benchmarks, based on need and available resources, for the creation and deletion of technical AORs and task forces at the global level, including:

a. identified need for global support to the field, b. resources available, c. lack of alternative means to provide support to the field.

7. There appears to be little awareness of what resources are available to the GPC. The

GPC (including its AORs) may want to consider greater transparency about the resources, including money, available to single agencies and held in common. With the aim of transparency and greater responsibility-sharing among members a common fund should be considered, to which agencies and networks contribute according to an agreed formula, in order to pay for the activities of the GPC. This fund would be managed by a very small group, including the Co-ordinator, but would report to the GPC as a whole.

8. At the field level, the question of “membership” of the cluster does not arise, as such,

although there are questions of participation by national security agencies and international forces. The co-ordinator, in line with the Generic TORs and GHP Principles of Partnership 51 as well as for reasons of exit strategy, needs to engage with as many agencies as possible- UN, NGOs, CBOs- and donors, national institutions and beneficiaries,. Trust in the co-ordinator comes through transparent and consistent work practices.

50 Note from ICVA to the High Commissioner for Refugees, “Some NGO Concerns Regarding the

Global Protection Cluster”, 21 December 2010

51 The Global Humanitarian Platform Principles of Partnership are: equality, transparency, results-

oriented approach, responsibility and complementarity (see

www.globalhumanitarianplatform.org) .

42

9. At the field and also in the GPC there are questions of what is meant by “effective

participation”. However, whether the majority of participants in the cluster do not take a regular active part in the work of the cluster is immaterial as long as they contribute to their areas of interest, coalesce at high points of strategy development and resource mobilisation, when decisions need to be made, include in their work acute humanitarian problems and do not obstruct progress made by the cluster. A pragmatic rather than a formal approach is recommended.

10. A practice which enhances trust at the field level is the (s)election of a co-lead, which

can be either another UN agency or NGO. It is not suggested that this happen at the GPC but it may be helpful to the work of the GPC to share the chairing and hosting of meetings with partners to underline inter-agency responsibilities in protection and infuse operational realities.

11. The GPC should follow field practice and take a relaxed approach to the work of the

AORs, avoid bureaucratization through membership structures and embrace a fluid “membership”, which engages at high points and points of interest to it. This expansive approach should include engagement with DPA and DPKO.

Communications

12. There are multiple protection processes, many requiring actual attendance in Geneva, which is difficult for most NGOs to manage. The GPC should therefore align its annual planning session with other major events, e.g. the annual UNHCR Standing Committee devoted to protection and the Annual UNHCR-NGO Consultations, both of which take place around the same time in Geneva. This mid-year meeting would then become the high point of the “protection calendar”.

13. The Special Rapporteur on IDPs should chair the GPC at a high point in the year,

possibly during a Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, around the opening of the General Assembly in New York or at the same time as the mandate of a peace-keeping mission is created or renewed.

14. The protection part of the Oneresponse website containing resource documents, focal

points for advice and contact details, tools and standards needs to be updated as a priority 52. Facebook groups, Twitter accounts should also be activated and are easy to create and manage. The practice of the South Sudan Protection Cluster in using social media and the internet as information tools can be used as an example of good practice 53.

15. GPC meetings should be held on a more regular basis in order to form a habit of co-

ordinated action. It is recommended that meetings are held monthly, organised around themes and protection response in major operations, avoiding information-sharing as an aim of the meeting 54. GBV and child protection should be standing themes on the

52 A recommendation about use of websites can already be found in the PCWG Retreat Report, 15-

16 November 2007.

53 See http://southsudanprotectioncluster.org

54 The IASC DTT recommends that meetings should focus on strategy, planning and results rather

than information sharing, with more reliance placed on other means of information sharing (e.g.

websites). See the practice of the South Sudan Protection Cluster.

43

agenda, at which time the AORs should report on operational issues and response. The meeting should not be minuted but action points should be noted and followed up. While meetings should take place every month they should also be timed to overlap with other events in order to take advantage of agency presence. A consistent schedule of meetings, agreed with partners a year in advance, should be prepared so that colleagues can factor meetings into their schedule.

Example: 2012 Global Protection Cluster Calendar

MONTH THEME CHAIR OTHER EVENT 30 January Strategy 2012 GPC Co-ord 27 February Natural disasters IDMC Telecon 26 March Horn of Africa GPC Co-ord Telecon 30 April Child protection CP AOR Telecon 28 May Assessments GPC Co-ord Telecon 25 June Partnerships AHC(P) UNHCR-NGO; Procap

debriefs 30 July Protection funding ICVA Telecon 27 August PoC InterAction InterAction Forum; Telecon 24 September Urban IDPs SR IDPs Human Rights Council;

Telecon 29 October Protracted

displacement Brookings Telecon

26 November GBV GBV AOR 16 days of activism; Telecon 17 December Annual report GPC Co-ord IASC Principals

Support

16. The GPC faces two ways: it seeks to provide support to clusters in the field and it seeks to engage on protection issues of global importance.

17. It is recommended that consolidation and complementary efforts by all participating

agencies be used to advance the work of the GPC 55 by building on the work of the Support Cell and creating an Operations Cell. In short, the GPC needs to revert to former ways of working in which the work-plan was implemented by various members of the GPC rather than left to the Support Cell, which does not have the level of staffing necessary to fulfil its Terms of Reference 56. The GPC work plan should be divided among partners to take advantage of on-going efforts and expertise and to avoid duplication and share costs; nothing should be included in the work plan without an agency taking responsibility for implementation. Nonetheless, increased staffing will be required- from all agencies- in order to create an Operations Cell to implement the recommendations in this paper.

18. A proposed outline of an Operations Cell is contained in Annex III.

55 See para.4.1(2), PCWG Retreat Report, 15-16 November 2007: experience shared by the WASH

cluster

56 Global Protection Cluster Working Group: Support Cell Concept Note and Terms of Reference

2007

44

19. There are currently five task forces working on priority issues. A task force on learning is tasked to revise the protection co-ordination training by December 2011; a task force on information management is tasked to come up with a Rapid Protection Assessment Toolkit by November 2011; a task force on protection in natural disasters has elaborated and begun dissemination of a training module by June 2011; a task force on protection mainstreaming is “working on developing tools to support field Protection Clusters to take the protection mainstreaming dialogue forward with other Clusters at country level” (sic); a task force on good practices aims to collect examples of practices from the field that are then posted on the Protection Cluster’s website 57.

20. As with the AORs, it is recommended that benchmarks be created for the

establishment and disbandment of task forces. One of the benchmarks would be whether the work could be done by any other means in order to maximize expertise and efficiency. Where a task force is created its work must be monitored very closely by the GPC to ensure that it completes its work within a reasonable time-frame. While the three task-forces on learning, RPAT and natural disasters are winding up their work it is recommended that the other two task forces on mainstreaming and good practices be disbanded and their work carried out by the Operations Cell.

57 Pp.8-9 Protection Cluster Digest, vol.01/2011

Annex I: Decisions Matrix

OUTCOMES

LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS PRIORITIES AGENCY

Field Support Protection cluster mechanisms • •

Assessment, strategy development and implementation

• •

Standard setting and compliance • •

Performance monitoring and evaluation • •

Monitoring and reporting • •

Training and local capacity strengthening • •

Global Engagement Defining a strategy • •

Advocacy • •

Mainstreaming • •

Funding • •

Organisation Operations Cell •

46

Annex II: Summary of Recommendations

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

PART I: FIELD SUPPORT PART II: GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT PART III: ORGANISATION

Protection cluster mechanism(s)

• Continue efforts to build response capacity and effectivecluster coordinators and AOR/sub-cluster coordinators

• Clarifyroles and reporting lines for NGO co-leads, as well as AORs.

• Clarify the relationship to the national authorities and other key players

• Clearly elaborate the role of the GPC in non-cluster countries.

• Guidance on the phasing out and transitioning of the protection cluster (and the relationship with UNDP and the Early Recovery cluster).

Assessment, strategy development and implementation

• Provide assessment tools and SOPs. • Provide guidance on the CAP

Standard setting and compliance

• Hold international partners accountable for responsibilities at the field level

• Strengthen dissemination of standards and guidance.

• The GPC defines and communicates clearly its role (when and how it should engage) in crisis response (e.g. Haiti and Horn of Africa), including engagement with donors to strengthen protection in emergencies. In this regard, the authority of the cluster coordinator and support cell to undertake advocacy on behalf of the GPC should be clarified.

• The GPC coordinator acts as an advocacy relay for the field, with access to high level UN and donor representatives, but it also proactively identifies challenges and issues

• The GPC leadership calls upon the expertise of its members and facilitates coordinated efforts and coherence with existing initiatives and roles of GPC members.

• The GPC advocates for greater resourcing of protection, which includes analysis of key protection

• Develop a strategy • Draft the workplan on the basis of the

strategy, including an advocacy plan • Make an inventory of existing guidance,

tools and standards; publish it • Define benchmarks for the creation and

dissolution of AORs and task forces • Create a common GPC fund • Embrace a fluid membership structure • Share the chairing of meetings among

partners • Align multiple processes and events to

create a “protection calendar” with high points

• Update the GPC page on Oneresponse; open Facebook and Twitter accounts

• Produce an annual protection report • Hold more frequent GPC meetings

organized around themes; hold a monthly teleconference with all field clusters

• Arrange meetings in advance; publish the schedule

47

Performance monitoring and evaluation

• Provide field clusters with M&E tools. • Establish a mechanism for follow-up.

Protection monitoring and reporting system

• Clarify the key responsibilities of field clusters on protection monitoring and reporting

• Strengthen monitoring and reporting systems. • Strengthen information management capacity • Developgeneric protection matrices and

information sharing documents and tools

Training and local capacity strengthening

• Devise and implement training

Advocacy Guidance for field protection clusters on development of key advocacy messages and strategies.

issues and trends, and anticipates priorities

• The GPC works through cluster coordinator and it’s individual members who commit to participate in mainstreaming with other global clusters to ensure protection forms part of their humanitarian practice

• The GPC needs to consider how it can better link with, and promote, specific advocacy efforts of AoRs towards high-level forums or [alternative wording of this recommendation] Any subsidiary parts of the GPC (AORs or Task Forces) should seek to ensure that their messages are included in an integrated and comprehensive protection response.

• The GPC continues to work on developing policy and setting standards on protection (new issues to be prioritized could include: IDP policy, Protection of civilians in armed conflict, protection in situations of natural disasters) and focuses more on dissemination of tools and follow-up to ensure more effective policy implementation

• Create an Operations Cell to action recommendations along agreed strategy priorities and work plan

• Wind up the existing task forces • Use affiliate staff more dynamically to

take over time bound and discrete tasks

Annex III: Operations Cell

Global Protection Cluster Operations Cell

Recognising that the work of the GPC requires “more matter with less art” 58 and in order to ensure effective implementation of the recommendations on field support and global engagement, the Global Cluster Coordinator proposes the establishment of an Operations Cell. An outline of what such a cell might look like is set out below.

Objective

• The objective of the GPC Operations Cell is to ensure that support is available to the field and to ensure the priorities of the GPC are followed through.

Functions:

The Cell would, inter alia:

• ensure that requests from the field are responded to in a timely manner • develop strategy, tools, guidance and policy and disseminate to the field • make short-term deployments, undertake training, build the good practices database • service the GPC • mainstream protection in other clusters, manage information and undertake advocacy.

The Operations Cell will either carry out functions directly through personnel hired for the purpose (i.e. an executive role) or would be made responsible for executing time-bound tasks though agencies taking on the responsibility to deliver (i.e. a catalytic role). It is acknowledged that current GPC practices are

58 Gertrude to Polonius, Hamlet, Act II, scene ii

49

better at building consensus than delivering on priority actions- the aim is to reverse this practice: critical to this endeavour is giving the Operations Cell the authority to deliver.

Proposed Structure

GPC Operations CellP4 manager

Policy and guidance development

3 staff (P3/P4):

1. Standards2. Guidance/good practices3. Monitoring & reporting

Field support

6 staff (P3/P4):

1. Information management Assessments

2. Response capacity 3. Training4. M&E5. Tools

Global engagement

4 staff (P3/P4):

1. Advocacy2. Mainstreaming3. Liaison

Secretariat Support

2 Staff (G6 and P1/P2)

1. Arranging meetings2. Website management3. Dissemination 4. Preparing workshops5. Newsletter6. internal communication

2

Annex IV: Implications The approach taken in this paper should avoid unintended consequences for the field by a creeping bureaucratization of the GPC. It should positively impact the field by ensuring that the GPC prioritises those issues which concern field colleagues, like funding, and by a focus on dissemination of existing guidance through training over creation of yet more guidance. The establishment of an Operations Cell requires significant resources, some of which are available but some of which are new. Overall, the Cell is envisaged as 16 persons at equivalent P3/P4 level, a staffing cost of roughly $4,000,000- $4,800,000. Mission costs are hard to calculate but if the GPC is to provide greater and more hands-on support to the field it is foreseen that the number of missions will rise, although the cost per mission will fall. A rough estimate of mission costs plus travel cost support for attendance at GPC meetings is roughly $350,000.

2

Annex V: Consultations

1. Katy Barnett, UNICEF, Child Protection AOR 2. Misty Buswell, Save the Children, Child Protection AOR 3. Manisha Thomas, International Council of Voluntary Agencies 4. Jenny McAvoy, InterAction 5. David Murphy, UN OHCHR, Rule of Law AOR 6. Simon Bagshaw, UN OCHA, Geneva 7. Dina AbouSamra, UN OCHA, Geneva 8. Damian Lilly, UN OCHA, New York 9. Miriam Sørli, UN OCHA, Procap/Gencap Support Unit 10. Jacob Rothing, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre 11. Nina Birkeland, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre 12. Louise Aubin, UNHCR, Global Protection Cluster Co-ordinator 13. Leonard Zulu, UNHCR, Global Protection Cluster Support Cell 14. Rebecca Skovbye, UNHCR, Global Protection Cluster Support Cell 15. Karen Gulick, UNHCR, Division of International Protection 16. JosepZapater, UNHCR, Division of International Protection 17. Vicky Tennant, UNHCR, Policy Development and Evaluation Section 18. MeretheNedrebø, Norwegian Refugee Council 19. Susanne Ringgard Pedersen, Norwegian Refugee Council 20. Michelle Berg, Procap 21. Senior protection officers of the ProCap roster on the “mini-reform”, March 2011 22. Oxfam, Refugee Rights, Handicap International Federation, Caritas/CAFOD, Refugees

International, Mental Health/Psychosocial Support Reference Group and Concern Worldwide in a teleconference organized by ICVA, 29 September 2011

23. Oxfam, Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, Danish Refugee Council, Norwegian Refugee Council/IDMC, HealthNet TPO in a teleconference organised by ICVA, 13 October 2011

24. Szilard Fricska, UN-Habitat, LHP AOR 25. Senior protection staff of UNHCR from 25 IDP operations in a Global Field Consultations

organised by DIP, 11-13 October 2011

2

AA

ANNEX IV: GPC Vision Desk

Review

2

AGPC Visioning Process Desk review of priority areas highlighted by the field

June 2011 Background As part of the Global Protection Cluster’s (GPC) Visioning Process, the Reference Group agreed to the need for a desk review to identify key issues relating to the scope, work and functioning of the global and field protection clusters that should be considered as part of the Visioning Process. This paper presents the findings of the desk review as carried out by OCHA. It is based on a variety of sources, including inter-agency and other evaluations, GPC and inter-cluster mission reports, and consultations with field protection cluster representatives.59 Key areas for possible consideration The desk review identified several key areas for consideration as part of the Visioning Process, as follows (in no particular order): 1. “Siloed” or “fragmented” approach to protection and its consequences The protection cluster’s approach, both at headquarters and in the field, has been described as “siloed” or “fragmented” in view of the delineation of protection into different thematic areas of responsibility (AORs). Protection issues that do not fall squarely within the AORs are at times not identified and addressed.60 This is compounded by an expectation or assumption that the entire GPC structure needs to be replicated at the field level and that protection cluster coordinators will ensure focused attention on each of the AORs. In addition to influencing the scope of the overall response, this delineation can also complicate efforts to ensure a coherent response.61 There is, for example, limited interaction and links between the different AORs/sub-clusters.62 The proliferation of coordination meetings that comes with the so called “fragmented” response imposes a heavy burden in terms of capacity and resources on protection actors. This means that innovative methods are required to provide the coordination functions required by the diverse membership of the protection cluster. 59 Key documents reviewed include: the GPC 2010 retreat workshop report; GPC Support Missions carried out in 2010 (draft

Yemen and Afghanistan reports); Inter-cluster Support 2010 missions Nepal and Colombia (draft) reports; Cluster II

Evaluation; ProCap Senior Protection Officers end of mission reports (2010 and first quarter of 2011); ProCap 2011 retreat

workshop; the Pakistan and Haiti 2010 IASC Real Time Evaluations, as well as the GPC compilation of issues in need of policy,

guidance, tools or good practice (Annex 1); UNHCR/Policy Development and Evaluation Service “Earth, wind and fire: A

review of UNHCR’s role in recent natural disasters”.

60 This issue came up during the ProCap 2011 retreat/country debriefings. It is also highlighted in inter-cluster and GPC

mission reports. For example, the GPC mission to Yemen in 2010 recommended that the protection cluster needs to work in

“… a more integrated and harmonised manner … with a view of avoiding fragmentation of the protection cluster into separate

and discrete entities that for all intents and purposes would wind up working independently.” In the case of Colombia, the

2010 inter-cluster mission draft report notes remaining challenges for the protection cluster to ensure an integrated

protection framework including what currently are separate processes into the work of the protection cluster such as

landmines, child protection, SGBV, HLP and natural disasters. The Cluster 2 Evaluation comments that “at country level, especially child protection and gender-based violence are typically organized as “sub-clusters” and often enjoy a similar

status to independent clusters”.

61 For example, senior ProCap officers discussed the challenges of arriving at comprehensive and cohesive needs

assessments, and the role of the protection cluster and its sub-clusters in inputting to these (ProCap 2011 workshop).

62 For instance, the Cluster 2 Uganda Country Evaluation notes that “Child Protection and GBV are largely treated as clusters

in their own right .... The relationship between the Protection Cluster and its sub-clusters is relatively loose, creating

problems of inter-sub-cluster coordination.”

2

The experience of actors providing protection responses along thematic lines, such as child protection, is that in most instances it is efficient and therefore preferable to convene primarily within a sub-cluster focused on this thematic, and in many cases a sub cluster such as the child protection sub cluster organises itself by dividing into further thematic groups, on themes such as family tracing and interim care, or child friendly spaces. This is because cluster members rely on immediate provision of coordination services tailored to specific programme interventions to quickly agree joint policies, share tools and enable a functional programmatic response, and such processes are not relevant to the wider group, particularly when time is limited. Less commonly, actors working on one theme of protection choose not to convene as a separate sub-group, and there appear to be two main reasons for this, both of which are undesirable factors: 1, That there are not enough protection actors overall to justify sub groups, and / or 2, The protection cluster as a whole has a tendency to focus on one theme, such as Child Protection. One final challenge related to the very broad and multi-faceted mandate of the protection cluster, is that different parts of it are likely to transition to different parts of government. Uganda is an example of this, where the child protection sub cluster transitioned to the ministry of welfare and eventually to an inter-divisional group headed by the president’s office, whereas the protection cluster transitioned to a national human rights office.63 2. Focus on IDPs A related problem to that just discussed is the tendency in some contexts for protection clusters to focus on particular groups, specifically internally displaced persons. The result is that substantive protection issues that do not arise in relation to IDPs are not identified and addressed. 3. Need for senior, dedicated and competent protection cluster coordination Insufficient capacity and resources are dedicated to cluster coordination, particularly outside of capitals. Rather than being seen as a “full time” function, cluster coordination is often added to existing functions and responsibilities of staff.64 Dedicated coordination staff are typically required for sub clusters and / or thematic sub groups, in addition to the overall cluster. Experience from the Child Protection Sub-Cluster has shown, for example, that where dedicated coordination capacity has been made available at the national as well as field levels, the overall response was deemed more efficient and effective by Sub-Cluster members. Overall, there is a need for greater commitment at the senior-level rather than “dumping cluster coordination on UNVs” or on top of the existing workload of agency Programme staff. The lack of appropriately qualified and dedicated coordinators to establish and run protection clusters and AORs at the district level is also a problem (see point 5 below).65

63 For more information about the CP Sub-Cluster in Uganda, refer to the CPWG Inter-Agency Review and Documentation:

Uganda’s Child Protection Sub-Cluster, Briefing Document of 2008.

64 The need for dedicated cluster coordinator functions (with sufficient time and skills) is a key recommendation of the

Cluster 2 Evaluation. The point was also reiterated by representatives of field protection clusters in recent GPC and ProCap

retreat discussions. This need was also raised in CP Sub-Cluster evaluations and reviews, including from Haiti, Kenya and

Uganda, with regards to CP Sub-Cluster Coordination capacity.

65 The Cluster 2 DRC country evaluation comments on the tendency to accumulate coordination infrastructure and

resources on the national level. For example, dedicated cluster coordinators (e.g. Health, Protection, Logistics, WASH and

Education) are placed on the national, not the provincial level.

2

4. Need for strengthened communication and reporting between the GPC and field There is a need to strengthen reporting and communication between the GPC and field protection clusters as well as between Global level AORs and country level Sub-Clusters. Field protection clusters need to have a better understanding of the GPC and what it can do for the field.66 Similarly, the GPC needs to have a better overview of what is happening at the field level in order to identify areas that require support. The same can be said of AORs. In some countries, GPC support was perceived as strong and useful while in others it was considered weak.67 In a number of countries, support from the CPWG has helped relieve some of the Sub-Cluster’s workload and promoted common approaches amongst Sub-Cluster members whilst other countries remain relatively unaware of, or reluctant to request support from, the global level support available.68 In a similar vein, there is a need to strengthen communication between protection clusters and AORs at the capital and district levels both intra-cluster and inter-cluster respectively.69 5. Protection training and capacity-building, including in coordination There is a demand from the field for protection training and capacity building. Concerns have been raised as to cluster coordinators requiring more skills and leadership training on the basics of coordination – how to run meetings, prepare an agenda, team building.70 Beyond the skill set for coordination, another important skill that has been highlighted as a gap amongst Coordinators is linguistic skills, as was highlighted recently for example by CPWG members in the Haiti emergency response. In order to address these, mechanisms for developing coordination capacity for both the Protection Cluster as well as the AORs should be created and supported. In addition, protection cluster coordination meetings have been accused of focusing too much on information sharing instead of on substantive issues and how to respond to these in a strategic and coordinated way. It has been suggested that emphasis should be placed on the need to prioritise capacity-building, training and support to NGOs that frequently take on field protection cluster coordination roles at the local level, as well as on the need for general reinforcement of civil society organisations in protection. 6. GPC links with ProCap ProCap has been identified as an important resource and greater use could be made of the ProCap Senior Protection Officers to support the establishment of protection clusters at the field level and the development

66 It was furthermore noted at the GPC 2010 retreat that the capacity of the GPC to respond quickly is good but the capacity

on the ground to request support was limited – “we barely had any time to breath let alone think about what the GPC could or

would do for us”.

67 The DRC Cluster 2 Evaluation notes with regard to the protection cluster perceptions of the GPC that “The global cluster

support is considered very weak but the support of Kinshasa for the field (which could be considered support for the

operations) is considered valuable and useful.”

68 In Haiti, CP Sub-Cluster Coordinators highlighted the value-added of the support from the CPWG for the Sub-Cluster. The

Cluster 2 Country Evaluation for oPt, however, suggested that there was limited knowledge of the coordination support

available at the global level.

69 For example, the GPC Support Mission to Yemen notes that the weak relationship between national and sub national level

protection clusters was a key concern highlighted by Yemen Protection Cluster members. The Cluster 2 DRC country

evaluation points out the request from provincial protection clusters for more guidance from national and global levels. It

notes some efforts to address this in DRC, where the protection cluster had introduced ‘Points from the Provinces’ onto the

agenda of the national cluster meetings to ensure better information sharing between the different levels (national,

provincial, district).

70 ProCap 2011 retreat/country briefing discussions.

2

of a coherent protection strategy.71 In this regard, it is important to ensure that ProCap Officers have a strong grounding in the priorities and ways of working of Protection AORs. There also needs to be more systematic contact between ProCap officers and the GPC, both pre- and post-deployment. 7. GPC’s role in supporting the field There is a need for greater understanding – both within the GPC and at the field level – of the GPC’s role in supporting field-based protection clusters and the types of services that it can offer. 8. GPC role in advocacy support Connected to the previous point, there is a need for greater understanding, again both within the GPC and at the field level, of the GPC’s role in (a) undertaking and coordinating advocacy in support of the field, as well as (b) in supporting the field to develop advocacy strategies. Lessons might be drawn from field clusters that have achieved some degree of success in this area, for example the joint advocacy strategy developed by the Protection Cluster in OPT.72 There is also need for further exploration of how Protection Clusters can better link in with, and outwardly promote, specific advocacy efforts of AORs which are too specific to be championed broadly by the Protection Cluster, but important enough to be given a voice at high fora. 9. Maximising support to, and from, the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) Consideration is needed as to how field protection clusters can better support the HC and how the latter can better support the objectives of the former. HCs are not always considered supportive and advancing protection concerns is frequently not a priority for them, particularly if raising protection issues is seen as a potential impediment to progress in other areas.73 Overall the link between the Cluster approach and the HC has been described as loose, resulting in low levels of accountability between the two.74 10. Accountability to affected populations There is a need to strengthen accountability of field-based protection clusters and AORs to affected populations and promote participatory approaches to response planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Efforts are also need to make field protection cluster and AOR activities and information more accessible to local communities and to directly involve affected populations in cluster activities.75 Protection clusters have also noted the importance of translating relevant documents and tools into local languages to facilitate a participatory environment and increase ownership in the cluster.76 As long as the roles and 71 For example Cluster 2 evaluation (e.g. OPT and Myanmar). In the case of the latter, ProCap is noted as an important

resource that contributed to drawing attention to protection and cross cutting issues.

72 The Cluster 2 Evaluation also points to success of the protection cluster advocacy in Myanmar, which enabled

humanitarian actors to start discussing the sensitive topic of protection with the Government.

73 The challenges in working with HCs came up in the ProCap 2011 retreat/country briefings.

74 The Haiti Cluster 2 Country Evaluation clearly raises this issue.

75 The Uganda Protection Cluster, for example, identified the lack of beneficiary participation as an important problem of the

response to the Teso floods in 2007: “Participation of beneficiaries in the response was lacking; beneficiaries didn’t

understand the criteria and standards of distributions therefore they didn’t understand why they were getting certain items

in certain quantities and not others etc.” (Uganda Floods Lessons Learnt Workshop Final Report, p. xi). (Cluster 2 Uganda

Country Evaluation).

76 For example, an Inter-Agency Review of the protection cluster working group in Myanmar in October 2008 noted that the

cluster had been one of the few that began translating meetings and documents into Burmese, creating a participatory

environment and facilitating increased levels of ownership in the cluster (Myanmar Country Cluster 2 Evaluation).

2

responsibilities between the different Cluster / Sub-Cluster levels (national, district, local) are unclear and there is little monitoring and evaluating of Cluster / Sub-Cluster activities, accountability will remain weak.77 11. Measuring protection cluster impact and progress Greater consideration is needed in terms of how to measure the impact of field protection clusters and Sub-Clusters. Similarly, protection clusters, such as in Darfur, note the need for further guidance on defining objectives and achieving results in situations with limited protection presence. Several protection clusters express a general need to reflect on and share lessons learnt on this from other protection clusters.78 The need for clear performance and progress indicators for (Sub-)Cluster Coordination has also been raised by CPWG members. 12. GPC and other missions - clarity of purpose and ensuring follow-up Several field protection clusters have requested and welcomed GPC support missions including AOR representatives which are considered to contribute to raising awareness among the wider humanitarian community of protection issues on the ground.79 Nonetheless, greater clarity is required regarding the precise purpose of such missions than is currently the case. In addition, there is a need for more systematic follow-up to GPC support missions, as well as inter-cluster missions, to ensure and support the implementation of mission recommendations. 13. Clarifying the role of NGOs as cluster co-leads The importance of the cluster co-lead role, in particular in areas where the designated UN cluster lead agency has no presence, as well as in terms of enhancing the overall participation, ownership and legitimacy of clusters, has been recognized.80 However, there remains a lack of clarity as to the precise role and responsibilities of the NGO co-lead. The collection of good practice on this issue would help to provide clarity in this respect as well as the possible basis for more formal guidance.81 For example, formal agreements have been concluded in Pakistan and Myanmar that could be shared with protection clusters and CP Sub-Clusters in other contexts. 14. Relationship to UN peacekeeping missions There is a need to for greater clarity and guidance regarding the relationship between protection clusters and UN peacekeeping operations (a project to this end is included in the GPC workplan for 2011).82

77 Weaknesses in accountability were raised, for example, in the Cluster 2 Country Evaluation DRC.

78 Several protection clusters requested sharing of good practices at the 2010 retreat.

79 GPC 2010 retreat

80 The importance/success of co-leadership arrangements in the protection cluster in DRC and Myanmar is highlighted in

Cluster 2 Evaluation.

81 This issue came up in the GPC 2010 retreat (raised by the Somalia and DRC protection clusters, as well as the ProCap 2011

retreat. The Cluster 2 Evaluation recommends that the IASC produce guidance to clarify roles and responsibilities of co-

facilitators/co-leads.

82 The Cluster 2 Haiti country evaluation for example recommends the need for clarifying the obligations of cluster lead

agencies vis-à-vis integrated mission and vis-à-vis cluster members and the division of labor regarding humanitarian

coordination. The DRC Cluster 2 country evaluation outlines some advantages and disadvantages of MONUC participation in

the Protection Cluster. The relationship with peacekeeping missions was also highlighted as a priority in the GPC 2010

retreat.

2

Consideration needs also to be given to the desirability and appropriateness of assigning the coordination lead role to an entity that is formally part of a peacekeeping mission. Concerns have been raised that leadership of the cluster by a peacekeeping mission, which is seen as an inherently political actor, could negatively impact the independence, impartiality and neutrality of the cluster and its members.83 This may in turn have ramifications for cluster membership and participation. 15. Winding down/closing clusters Guidance is needed on winding down/closing clusters at the field level and the transfer of responsibility to national authorities or other actors. Particular attention needs to be given to ensuring the continuity of protection activities that will remain critical after the cluster has closed.84 16. Mainstreaming protection in the humanitarian response Increased attention and guidance is needed on mainstreaming protection in other clusters and the role of field protection clusters in this.85

17. Clarity on “protection” The lack of common understanding as to the concept and scope of protection has negatively impacted the work of some field protection clusters.86 A particular aspect of this has been the difficulty in some situations in defining the substantive remit of the protection cluster and whether this should be limited to addressing

83 The potential tensions of the relationship of the protection cluster to UN peacekeeping missions are noted in the Cluster 2

evaluation, which notes the role of MINUSTAH in the Protection Cluster was controversial. Concern was expressed by some

partners to fully participate might compromise their independence, neutrality and impartiality. In DRC, the Cluster 2

evaluation also notes the protection cluster faces the challenge of mixing together different protection actors who have

different mandates and different means/modes of action (from military protection to advocacy or capacity building strategy).

The different perceptions lead regularly to a questioning of MONUC’s place, its role within the cluster and tensions between

cluster members.

84 The issue of clusters in transition was raised in the GPC 2010 retreat, and is also highlighted in the Cluster 2 evaluation for

Uganda.

85 Several field protection clusters have asked for guidance on protection mainstreaming. This has also emerged as a

recommendation to protection clusters from IASC inter-cluster missions. For instance, in the case of the intercluster mission

to Colombia, a key recommendation to the protection cluster is the strengthening of protection mainstreaming efforts and

links with working groups outside of the Protection Cluster, addressing protection-related issues. The Inter-Agency Real-

Time Evaluation (IA RTE) of the Humanitarian Response to the Haiti Earthquake (August 2010) also notes the lack of

effectiveness in mainstreaming protection into the response. It furthermore notes that it is clear that factors which are not

considered and incorporated in the initial project design are rarely fixed later on. The DRC Cluster 2 country evaluation notes

some success this area in some areas of the country although it does not provide much detail. It notes that “The Protection

cluster manages protection monitoring efforts in the Kivus, which is useful for other clusters for mainstreaming protection

(e.g. WASH, RRC).”

86 The Cluster 2 evaluation notes that protection clusters are systematically caught up in time-consuming and often

irresolvable debates concerning their scope and mandate. Despite the existence of an agreed IASC definition of protection,

humanitarian actors at country and local levels work with different and conflicting definitions and modes of action (ranging

from advocacy to military intervention) concerning protection due to differences in their mandates and experiences. As a

result, disagreements on which issues the Protection Cluster should deal with are often inevitable and cluster members

return to the debate of what is protection over and over again. For example, in the case of Haiti, the Cluster 2 Evaluation notes

that “… the work of the Protection Cluster was hampered by different, sometimes contradictory definitions of protection in

humanitarian assistance. The cluster coordinators even recognized a lack of understanding about protection among many

humanitarian actors. The coordinators had a hard time explaining the cluster’s supposed purpose and work.” These

challenges were also discussed in the 2010 GPC retreat.

2

protection issues that arise as a direct result of the emergency situation as well as – or not – chronic human rights problems that existed prior to, and may be exacerbated by, the emergency situation. 18. Remote protection work The need for guidance/good practices for undertaking remote protection work, including managing protection clusters in situations with no access or extremely limited protection capacity and working with community-based protection networks.87 19. Rapid assessments The need has been highlighted, for example in the Pakistan flood response, for closer collaboration between the Protection Cluster and the AORs in designing and carrying out rapid assessments. Given that time is of the essence, actors on the ground would be greatly helped if at the global level the GPC and the AORs either vetted each others tools or agreed on a basic assessment tool or a basic set of questions to always be considered as part of a locally adapted tool. 20. Provider of Last Resort There is a lack of institutional support and guidance on the application and implementation of the ‘Provider of Last Resort’ responsibility for Cluster and Sub-Cluster lead agencies. Cluster lead agencies have, in many cases, been described as ‘advisors of last resort’ but not ‘providers of last resort’ mainly due to financial restrictions.88 21. Further areas for policy/guidance support Annex 1 compiles a summary table of policy/guidance gaps compiled by the GPC membership on the basis of surveys/consultation with the field.89

OCHA-PDSB-PDS 1 June 2011

87 This is an issue raised for example in the 2010 GPC retreat by Yemen and Somalia field protection clusters. Also

highlighted in the GPC Support mission Yemen report as a critical area.

88 The Cluster 2 Country Evaluation Myanmar cites this problematic alongside the 2008 Inter-agency Review of the

Myanmar Protection of Children and Women Cluster Response.

89 Annex 1 draws from three key sources: the GPC 2010 Retreat, UNHCR consultations with its field staff as well as NRC

consultations with its staff. The latter two consultations were undertaken at the end of 2009.

Annex 1

DRAFT Compilation of issues in need of policy, guidance, tools or good practice

Category Issue Sources Mentions

What is being done What is needed

Operational protection

How to engage in IDP returns, particularly in difficult situations, and what is the division of responsibilities among clusters

NRC Camp management advisor NRC Burundi NRC Georgia UNHCR Chad UNHCR Colombia UNHCR Sudan 5 Guidance

Operational protection

Disengagement criteria from IDP situations and its relationship with IDP "cessation"

NRC Georgia NRC Burundi Uganda 3 Guidance

Protection in particular contexts

IDPs in protracted displacement

NRC Georgia UNHCR Chad UNHCR Sudan 3

Seminar on local integration Good practices

Protection in particular contexts IDPs in urban areas

NRC Georgia NRC Liberia UNHCR Sudan 3

IASC reference group on managing humanitarian challenges in urban areas

Guidance / good practices

Protection in particular contexts

Rules of engagement when the Government violates IDP rights

NRC Sri Lanka UNHCR Bosnia UNHCR Colombia 3 Guidance

Operational protection

Return to places other than home (refugee returnees)

UNHCR Kosovo UNHCR Afghanistan 2 Guidance

Protection in particular contexts

What is the meaning of displacement in nomad / pastoralist contexts NRC Burundi 1

Research / good practices

Protection in particular contexts

At what point does migration become displacement, particularly in contexts of drought / climate change? NRC Burundi 1 Research / guidance

Operational protection

Extent to which the Pinheiro principles can practically be applied, alternatives to restitution NRC Burundi 1 Guidance

Protection in particular contexts

Rules of engagement when the Government willingly does not invest sufficiently in IDPs NRC Sri Lanka 1

Guidance / good practices

Operational protection

When displacement ends and who decides this NRC Sri Lanka 1

Framework for Durable Solutions

Operational protection

Inter-Cluster Rapid Protection Assessments

UNHCR Afghanistan 1

NATF working on this (MIRA)

Coordination Coordination / reporting / assessments standard formats NRC Darfur 1 Tools

Protection mainstreaming

Mainstreaming protection / human rights into development programmes / plans UNHCR Uganda 1 PDNA to be revised

Operational protection

Mixed protection-assistance approaches (protection through livelihoods) Somalia 1 Good practices

Coordination Guidance on best practices in co-chairing clusters Somalia 1 Policy

Coordination Functioning of clusters in integrated missions Somalia 1 Policy

Operational protection

Indicators to assess PC impact Afghanistan 1 Tools

Coordination Interaction with international military and PRTs Afghanistan 1 Policy

Protection in particular contexts

Guidance on objectives and results in situations with limited protection presence Darfur 1 Guidance

2

Protection in particular contexts / coordination

Guidance on managing a cluster in complex remote protracted emergency situations Somalia 1 Guidance

Operational protection

Community-based protection networks to ensure protection in areas with no access or limited presence Yemen 1

Research / good practices

Operational protection

Assessment of the extent to which durable solutions have been achieved Uganda 1 Tools

Protection in particular contexts / coordination

Remit of the Protection Cluster v.a.v. chronic human rights gaps in emergency situations ? 1 Policy

Coordination Reporting linkage between GPC and field-based clusters Uganda 1 Policy

Operational protection

Technical support for contingency plans for earthquakes Nepal 1 Guidance

Operational protection

Guidance for special tribunals on land issues Uganda 1 Guidance

Coordination Guidance on liaison with the ICC Uganda 1 Policy

Operational protection IDP evictions Haiti 1 Guidance Protection in particular contexts

Protection of IDPs who are members of minority groups UNHCR Serbia 1 Good practices

Operational protection

Countries of origin using availability of refugee protection abroad to deny recognition as IDPs - and vice-versa UNHCR Colombia 1 Guidance

Protection in particular contexts

Role and responsibilities of non-state actors in IDP protection UNHCR Somalia 1 Guidance

Operational protection

Objective and consequences of establishing IDP registration systems UNHCR Yemen 1

UNHCR / IOM to develop review of practice Guidance / tools

Operational protection Armed elements in IDP camps UNHCR Yemen 1

Informal discussion with Walter Kälin 2010

Good practices / guidance

62

ANNEX V: Report from 1st

Thematic Discussion

63

A Global Protection Cluster Visioning

Thematic Discussion on “Vision and Focus Areas”

16 June 2011

Report

Background At the beginning of 2011, with the arrival of the new Coordinator for the Global Protection Cluster (GPC), a series of consultations with members of the GPC were initiated to discuss the planned activities for 2011 and its future direction. Based on these consultations, it became evident that 5 years after the establishment of the Global Protection Cluster, it would be useful to re-visit the focus and direction of the GPC and strengthen support to field Protection Clusters, with a hope of fostering a more coherent approach among GPC members and stimulating increased engagement. This “Visioning” process takes the form of thematic discussions addressing key issues relating to the objectives and structure of the GPC. The outcome of the Visioning will be a revised strategy and work plan for the GPC for 2012 and beyond. The first of these open discussions was held on 16 June90. The meeting focused on the development of a vision statement and focus areas for the GPC. The all-day meeting was well attended with 29 participants representing a wide spectrum of the GPC membership, including its Areas of Responsibility (AORs), Task Forces and diverse membership.91 Methodology The meeting was organized around two working group sessions and review in plenary of the outcomes of the discussions.92 During the morning session, the development of a GPC vision statement was discussed, and the afternoon session focussed on the identification of GPC focus areas. At the conclusion of the day, a number of issues had been placed on the parking lot for further consideration, and it was agreed to establish a Drafting Committee composed of representatives from the different working groups (consisting of staff from OCHA, ICVA, OHCHR, GBV AOR/UNFPA, Support Cell/UNHCR) that would take the elements agreed upon during the day and refine the text of the vision statement and focus areas. It was underlined that these drafts would not be final versions, but would be presented and reviewed for further refinement at the next session of the Visioning, as well as benefit from input by the field and the broader GPC membership. The meeting also included a lunch time side-meeting to discuss the next steps in the Visioning process. Workshop Summary Opening remarks

90 The scope and structure for the meeting was discussed and prepared in advance by the Reference Groupestablished for this purpose. See note 4 below. 91 See annex IV for the list of participants. 92 See Annex I for the Agenda.

64

The Global Cluster Coordinator opened the meeting thanking the participants for their contributions to the Visioning. She particularly thanked the members of the Reference Group93 for the commitment and hard work they continue to put in to this process. She underlined the need to strengthen the ability of the GPC to respond to the needs of field protection clusters and the importance of the Visioning in ensuring this. She advised that the emphasis on the field should be maintained during the discussions despite the conceptual nature of the topic. She moreover highlighted that the wide range of actors with specialisation in different aspects of protection makes the protection cluster more diverse than other clusters, but that this also creates particular opportunities that we should embrace. GPC Vision Statement

“A world in which boys, girls, women and men affected or threatened by humanitarian crises are fully protected in accordance with their rights.”

The above sentence represents the vision statement that was agreed upon during the meeting. To arrive at this conclusion, the participants were divided into three working groups, each tasked to develop a proposal for a vision statement. The outcomes of the working group discussions are summarised in box A below. A small group of participants (OCHA, CP AOR/UNICEF, IDMC, Support Cell/UNHCR) was subsequently tasked to work over lunch to synthesise the suggested vision statements into one statement that would take into account the elements that had been highlighted by the different groups. This synthesised version was then presented back to the plenary and discussed before a final draft was agreed upon. In the drafting process the importance of using simple wording was prioritised. Discussion moreover centred on the use of particular terms. “Boys, girls, women and men” was preferred over “affected people”, as it was considered to make the vision more personal. There was a choice to include both “affected” and “threatened by” to ensure that the vision would capture all the stages of a humanitarian emergency, including protection of communities at risk. “Protected” rather than “safety and dignity” was maintained to avoid slipping in to a definition of protection. The reference to “in accordance with their rights” was left optional, but it was generally felt that it would be good to maintain a reference to protection being rights-based, be it international human rights, international humanitarian law or rights provided for under national law. It was agreed to leave the exact formulation of the vision statement, including the decision to refer to “safety and dignity” rather than “protection”, as well as “boys, girls, women and men” as opposed to “affected people”, to the Drafting Committee (OCHA, ICVA, OHCHR, GBV AOR/UNFPA, Support Cell/UNHCR) that was established to finalise the text prior to further circulation and consultation. In addition to the text of the vision statement, there was discussion regarding the need to revisit the GPC mission statement. A quick brainstorming on the elements that should be covered in such a mission statement was done in connection with the synthesis of the vision statement (see box B). Due to time constraints, it was agreed to park the further discussion on the mission statement to later in the Visioning process. Box A – Outcomes from the working groups on the GPC vision statement Group 1: “The safety and dignity of affected populations in emergencies is ensured

through effective, people-centred protection that is coherent, consistent and in-line with international standards.”

Group 2: “A world in which the protection of boys, girls, men and women affected by

93 At the beginning of the Visioning, the Global Protection Cluster Coordinator requested that a Reference Group be established to support the Visioning and ensure continuity in the process. Staff from the following GPC member organisations volunteered to participate in this group: IDMC, OCHA, GBV AOR/UNFPA, Child Protection AOR/UNICEF, DRC, OHCHR, CRS/InterAction PWG, Save the Children, ICVA, World Vision International, GenCap, IOM, and the GPC Support Cell/UNHCR

65

or at risk of humanitarian crises is secured in full respect of their rights at all times.”

Group 3: “Protect the safety, dignity and rights of emergency affected populations,

including ensuring a protection sensitive response by the humanitarian community and all relevant actors.”

Box B - Proposed elements for inclusion in a GPC Mission Statement:

� coherence (more than the sum of our parts) � should reflect the GPC’s dual roles in a) protective action b) protection mainstreaming � accountability � proactive diagnosis and solving of problems, including at field level � responsiveness to the field � advocacy � people-centred � results oriented � based on the principles of partnership � prevention and preparedness � learning and applying � facilitation/support � supporting field based clusters � shape and progress the protection in emergencies sector

Focus Areas The afternoon session centred on the development of focus areas for the GPC. The focus areas were defined as strategic objectives that the GPC should work towards (reference annex III). Reference was made to the Strategic Priorities that are identified in the Strategic Framework for the GPC developed in 2009, as well as those elaborated by the different AORs, and participants were encouraged to take note of these, but also to think freely about how to define focus areas for the future. The focus areas were developed in two main working groups that presented their respective suggestions in plenary. The outcomes of the working group discussion are summarised in Box C and D below. Although the areas that were highlighted by both groups had considerable overlap, the approach to define these was different, and due to time constraints it was not possible to synthesise these two approaches during the meeting. Instead it was agreed that the focus areas would be left to the Drafting Committee for elaboration and finalisation prior to further circulation and consultation. Box C – Outcomes from Working Group A 1. Support to the field (clusters)

a. Advocacy i. Ensure that protection issues are on the relevant agendas and actioned

ii. Facilitate high-level advocacy iii. Advocacy for fundraising

b. Ensuring a coherent and comprehensive approach to protection i. Needs assessments ii. Planning and programming iii. Developing protection strategies iv. Monitoring and reporting v. Advocacy strategies

c. Ensuring prompt and effective support/capacity building i. Training

ii. Proactive engagement to strengthen response iii. Thematic expertise iv. Policy development/operational guidance v. Knowledge and learning

66

2. Conceptual development

a. Leading the protection debate/evolution of the protection sector b. Mainstreaming of protection at the global level in global policy processes and other

clusters. Box D – Outcomes from Working Group B 1. Ensure that appropriate protection standards are integrated and applied by all clusters by

concentrating efforts on the field and inter-cluster collaboration. 2. Support and define the role of the GPC in setting protection-sensitive community-based

reporting mechanisms and on accountability to affected people. 3. Implement a strong advocacy strategy on protection principles ensuring their application in

inter-agency fora. 4. Implement, harmonize and prioritize inter-cluster learning initiatives. 5. Provide operational guidance and policy on key issues. 6. Ensure intra-cluster collaboration for preparedness through formative phase for response. Next Steps A lunch time side-meeting was held to discuss next steps for the Visioning. Agreement was reached on the following points:

1. The remaining three thematic discussions will be held consecutively over 2-3 days in mid-October. Specific dates TBC.

2. Substantive discussion papers will be prepared in order to structure the thematic discussions. These should include proposed options/solutions. Agreement on the topics to be covered and who will lead on the drafting of the different papers will be reached by the Reference Group. So far, OCHA, ICVA and IDMC have confirmed their willingness to engage on drafting of the discussion papers.

3. A “stitching up” meeting will be needed following the thematic substantive 2-3 day meeting to transform the discussions into working documents. Date TBC.

4. The Reference Group will discuss and map relevant interlocutors for consultations (field protection clusters, HCs, etc.), including at what stage in the process relevant stakeholders will be consulted.

5. A briefing to donors on the process/outcomes will be planned at the end of the process. 6. The Reference Group will aim to ensure links/opportunities to influence relevant IASC

processes in the next months. 7. The GPC retreat is tentatively planned for the 3rd week of January 2012. Exact dates

TBC.

ANNEX I

Global Protection Cluster Visioning 1st Thematic Discussion

Vision and Focus Areas 16 June 2011

Centre International de Conférences Genève (CICG)

17 rue de Varembé CH – 1211 Genève 20 Room C

8.30-9.00 Registration and welcome coffee

9.00-9.05 Welcome

Joel Nielsen

9.05-9.30 Opening Remarks and introduction to the Visioning - overview of current developments in protection and the role of the GPC - outline of the Visioning and introduction to the first Thematic Discussion

Louise Aubin

9.30-9.45 Introduction to the day

Joel Nielsen

9.45-11.30 Working Groups: The elements of the GPC Vision - discussion of the key questions outlined in the Discussion Guide - identification of key words - formulation of a draft GPC Vision statement

Working Groups

11.30-12.00 Presentations from working groups and plenary feedback - presentations by the working groups of the draft vision statement - feedback from the participants

Working Group presenters

12.00-13.30 Lunch - Drafting group to synthesise four draft vision statements

Drafting Group

13.30-14.00 Presentation of draft vision paragraph and plenary discussion - Drafting Group to present Vision paragraph - final adjustments

Drafting Group

14.00-15.00 Working Groups: Focus areas for the GPC - brainstorming and drafting of focus areas for the GPC

Working Groups

15.00-15.30 Working group consolidation of focus areas

Working Groups

15.30-15.45 Coffee

15.45-16.30 Presentation of focus areas and plenary discussion - presentation by the working groups of their suggested focus areas - plenary discussion and prioritisation

Working Group presenters

16.30-17.00 Recap and final review - review of vision paragraph and focus areas

Joel Nielsen

17.00-17.15 Closing Remarks Louise Aubin

68

ANNEX II

GPC Visioning 1st Thematic Discussion: Vision and Focus Areas 16 June 2011 Vision Guide

Outline of methodology: The tasks of this working group session are divided into three steps: 2. Look at the questions posed below and discuss what you think are the key aspects of this. 3. Based on your discussion, draw out the key words that you think a GPC vision should

entail e.g. protection, prevention, international standards, humanitarian, durable solutions etc.

4. You will be provided with a few suggestions for how a GPC vision statement could be formulated. Taking inspiration from these, formulate a one sentence vision statement.

All working groups will present their vision statements to the rest of the participants. Please select a representative from your group to do this. Based on the four draft vision statements and drawing on comments made during the presentations of these, a Drafting Group, consisting of person from each of the four working groups, will develop a final vision paragraph that will be presented back to the participants after lunch for final review. Trigger questions: ● What role should the GPC play in the future vis-à-vis the field (national and local

level)? How can the global protection community provide support for enhancing the quality of the protection response in the field? What is the added value of support from the global level?

● What role should the GPC play in the future vis-à-vis the global level? What are the key areas that the Protection Community at the global level should be involved in? Which developments is it important for global protection actors to help shape?

● What objectives should the GPC have in relation to the role it plays at the field and global levels? Do these objectives differ from those highlighted in the Mission Statement? If so, how should this be adjusted?

Tips to working groups: ● A vision statement should be: ● the overall goal we would like to achieve through our work. ● forward looking –what do we strive to achieve over the next five years? ● limited to one sentence.

● In your discussions try to: ● maintain a focus on the vision –it is easy to start thinking about activities or focus

areas. ● use the “parking lot” – if you in your discussions touch on points that you think are

important, but not directly relevant for formulating the vision statement, place them on the parking lot. We will return to them later in the GPC Visioning.

69

ANNEX III GPC Visioning 1st Thematic Discussion: Vision and Focus Areas

16 June 2011 Vision Guide

Outline of methodology: The tasks of this working group session are divided into three steps: 5. Look at the questions posed below and discuss what you think are the key aspects of this. 6. Based on your discussion, draw out the key words that you think a GPC vision should

entail e.g. protection, prevention, international standards, humanitarian, durable solutions etc.

7. You will be provided with a few suggestions for how a GPC vision statement could be formulated. Taking inspiration from these, formulate a one sentence vision statement.

All working groups will present their vision statements to the rest of the participants. Please select a representative from your group to do this. Based on the four draft vision statements and drawing on comments made during the presentations of these, a Drafting Group, consisting of person from each of the four working groups, will develop a final vision paragraph that will be presented back to the participants after lunch for final review. Trigger questions: ● What role should the GPC play in the future vis-à-vis the field (national and local

level)? How can the global protection community provide support for enhancing the quality of the protection response in the field? What is the added value of support from the global level?

● What role should the GPC play in the future vis-à-vis the global level? What are the key areas that the Protection Community at the global level should be involved in? Which developments is it important for global protection actors to help shape?

● What objectives should the GPC have in relation to the role it plays at the field and global levels? Do these objectives differ from those highlighted in the Mission Statement? If so, how should this be adjusted?

Tips to working groups: ● A vision statement should be: ● the overall goal we would like to achieve through our work. ● forward looking –what do we strive to achieve over the next five years? ● limited to one sentence.

● In your discussions try to: ● maintain a focus on the vision –it is easy to start thinking about activities or focus

areas. ● use the “parking lot” – if you in your discussions touch on points that you think are

important, but not directly relevant for formulating the vision statement, place them on the parking lot. We will return to them later in the GPC Visioning.

70

ANNEX IV GPC Visioning Thematic Discussion 16 June

Participants List

Name Agency

1. Kate Halff IDMC 2. Nina Birkeland IDMC 3. Katy Barnett CP AOR/UNICEF 4. Helene Ruud CP AOR/UNICEF 5. Simon Bagshaw OCHA 6. Dina Abou Samra OCHA 7. Nathalie Herlemont Handicap International 8. Pia Skjeldstad WFP 9. Rachel Ricco OHCHR 10. Veronika Talviste ICRC 11. Lobna Abdel Hadi IRC 12. Maha Muna GBV AOR/UNFPA 13. Mar Jubero GBV AOR/ UNFPA 14. Gustavo Laurie Mine Action AOR/UNMAS 15. Ruth O’Connell MHPSS 16. Delphine Brun GenCap 17. Stefan Leon HLP AOR/UNHABITAT 18. Misty Bushwell Save the Children 19. Claudio Delfabro GPC Learning Task Force/UNHCR 20. Louise Aubin Global Protection Cluster Coordinator/UNHCR 21. Leonard Zulu GPC Support Cell/UNHCR 22. Rebecca Skovbye GPC Support Cell/UNHCR 23. Anneen De Jay GPC Support Cell/UNHCR 24. Karen Gulick UNHCR 25. Josep Zapater UNHCR 26. Nadine Cornier UNHCR 27. Heather MacLeod World Vision 28. Julien Schopp ICVA 29. Joel Nielsen Facilitator

71

ANNEX V Following the GPC Thematic Discussions on 16 June 2011, a Drafting Committee composed of OCHA, ICVA, OHCHR, GBV AOR/UNFPA, and the Support Cell/UNHCR was tasked to finalise the formulation of a GPC Mission Statement and further articulate Focus Areas for the GPC. The objective of the Drafting Committee was not to arrive at a final draft, but that these would be further refined in the subsequent stages of the Visioning process. MISSION STATEMENT:

A world in which boys, girls, women and men affected or threatened by humanitarian crises are fully protected in accordance with their rights.

FOCUS AREA 1: Support humanitarian inter-agency protection mechanisms established at the field level ensuring an efficient and timely response:

� Developing and maintaining adequate capacity, tools, and skills for deployment within humanitarian inter-agency protection mechanisms established at the field level;

� Provide guidance and advice on the operationalisation of the protection response on the basis of the expertise and institutional mandates of its wide range of member agencies.

� Facilitating advocacy on protection issues and concerns at the field and global levels.

FOCUS AREA 2: Promote the application of protection principles within the overall humanitarian response by:

� Facilitating exchange and discussion on protection and emerging challenges between practitioners at the field and global levels.

� Promoting and mainstreaming protection in global fora.

ANNEX VI: GPC Visioning

Concept Note

73

A GPC Visioning – Concept Note Background At the beginning of 2011, with the arrival of the new Coordinator for the Global Protection Cluster (GPC), a series of consultations with members of the GPC were initiated to discuss the planned activities for 2011 and its future direction. Based on these consultations, it became evident that 5 years after the establishment of the Global Protection Cluster there is a need to re-visit the focus and direction of the GPC and strengthen support to field Protection Clusters, thus fostering a more coherent approach among GPC members. Process The objective of the GPC Visioning is to determine the direction for the GPC over the next coming years and identify which adjustments are necessary based on recent years’ experiences. The main output of the process will be a revised strategy for the GPC, including a multi-year workplan covering 2012-2014. The Visioning will take the form of a series of discussions gathered around the four broad themes of “Objectives and Priorities”, “Support to the Field”, “Structure”, and “Modus Operandi”. It is envisaged that broad consultation with all GPC members and Protection Clusters in the field will take place regularly throughout the process. At the same time, a smaller Reference Group of committed individuals will be set up to support the Visioning process in moving forward and to ensure continuity throughout the exercise. Reference Group The Reference Group will report directly to the Global Protection Cluster Coordinator and will, in cooperation with her, be mandated to make changes to the Visioning process as needed. The specific tasks of the Reference Group will be to: 1) Conduct a desk review of priority areas highlighted by the field; 2) Put together a list of foundational documents that will guide the process; 3) Prepare and develop the agenda for each thematic discussion; 4) Develop notes from the thematic discussions; 5) Steer the consultations with the field, the GPC membership, other Clusters and donors; 6) Draft the GPC strategy for 2012 and beyond, including a multi-year workplan. The Reference Group will consist of the following members: Organisation Name IDMC Kate Halff OCHA Simon Bagshaw GBV AOR Janey Lawry-White Child Protection AOR/UNICEF Katy Barnett DRC Kathrine Starup NRC Susanne Ringaard Pedersen OHCHR David Murphy CRS Daisy Francis InterAction Jenny McAvoy ICVA Manisha Thomas/Julien Schopp World Vision International Patrick Sooma Cross-cutting issues focal point Delphine Brun Save the Children Misty Buswell Mine Action AOR Gustavo Laurie GPC Support Cell Rebecca Skovbye