However, I would like to enhance my knowledge on the general
protection activities (the work currently undertaken by UNHCR as the lead
agency for protection clusters) and the child protection sectors.

In the rest of the program I want to know about the practical aspects of effective protection coordination. I would like to know what are the weaknesses of protection coordination in different humanitarian responses and how to overcome them.

Protection is NOT only ‘the job’ of Protection specialists, no sector has the complete knowledge to address all protection concerns and we ALL play a role to ensure effective application of protection mainstreaming principles. DO NO Harm means ensuring the aid that we provide as humanitarian community is designed, delivered and adjusted based on the evolving needs of the affected population, in order to avoid creating unintended consequences that expose beneficiaries to increased risk. Ensuring Safety, dignity, accountability to affected populations, participation and empowerment of the people that we serve, is the deepest meaning of humanitarian response.

 

Questions:

How can the protection cluster better support meaningful protection mainstreaming across all clusters? Despite many advocacy efforts at global, regional and national level, we keep hearing the famous sentence ‘protection is the most underfunded cluster’. In practice, as much as we train cluster partners on the existing guidelines, support them with implementation on the ground, incorporate protection criteria into HRP vetting, etc, protection sensitive programming and budgeting is weak. Is there a way to introduce more prescriptive rather than descriptive rules for protection mainstreaming at inter-cluster level?  E.g. 20% of each cluster budget requirements to be earmarked for Protection mainstreaming specific interventions. E.g. One indicator for each of the specific cluster plans (e.g. within HRP) to refer to protection outcomes (e.g. beyond the overall HRP protection specific objective).  

Following the self-study phase, I noted the key following messages:

Coordination saves lives: In the view that Humanitarian actors mainstream protection to avoid and help mitigate and minimise risk associate to protection activities. 

Coordination avoids duplication.
Coordination strengthens collaboration

I noted with satisfaction the definition provided in the video that defines Child Protection worker as a fight fighter who strives to protect child in emergencies from all forms of violence and emphasizes that Child Protection is a matter of urgency. On HLP AoR, I noted that Shelter actors should consider lands right and conduct verification.  Strong security of tenure help displaced families to reduced risk of forced eviction. That calls for integration in programming between legal Assistance specialist and Shelter workers. Regarding Mine Action, the positive development in 2018 with increased budget for victims means that donors are taking seriously the case of people affected by conflicts.

 

 

Given the scope and diversity of the sector and the contexts humanitarians work in, incorporating these principles requires a high degree of coordination, and an easily advocated, universally applicable set of professional standards. 

Questions for the course:

How can standards for HLP be applied in areas with little to no state or legal infrastructure, given that these rely on legal recourse? 

When actors in one area of work collect, analyse and present data, how can they highlight areas or findings that might be relevant to people in other areas of work? To what extent is this actually their responsibility or mandate? For example, mine action survey revealing illegal land seizures, or child social work revealing forced marriages. This is not a question about referrals, but about data on a large scale, and the limits of mandate it might highlight in a humanitarian emergency.