Day 4: Protection strategy, advocacy and sensitive data…

1The HCT protection strategy

The 2016 IASC Policy requires each HCT to adopt a multi-year protection strategy. A good strategy selects two to four priority risks drawn from the analysis (for example: forced returns, deliberate denial of access to assistance, attacks on civilians), sets measurable collective outcomes, assigns responsibilities to each sector and to leaders, and provides for regular monitoring.

The Protection Cluster is its technical driving force, but the strategy belongs to the Humanitarian Coordinator and the HCT: it is at their level that messages are conveyed to the authorities, the parties to the conflict and peacekeeping missions.

2Protection advocacy

Advocacy seeks a change in behaviour or policy on the part of a duty bearer. Several modes of action are distinguished, described in particular by the ICRC: persuasion (bilateral and confidential dialogue), mobilisation of influential actors, public denunciation as a last resort, support to authorities who want to act and substitution when services are lacking.

Each option is chosen after a risk analysis: a public message can lead to reprisals against witnesses or loss of access. Effective advocacy is based on verified data, makes a precise and realistic request, addresses the right target and is carried at the right level, often collectively by the cluster or the Humanitarian Coordinator.

3Managing and sharing sensitive data

The protection information management (PIM) principles and the IASC Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility apply to the whole chain: collection, storage, analysis, sharing, retention and destruction. The key tools: a data protection impact assessment before any new system, data sharing agreements specifying the purpose, the level of aggregation and the security measures, and a classification of the sensitivity of datasets.

GBV incident data circulate only according to the protocols of the GBV Information Management System (GBVIMS) and the AoR's agreements. Even aggregated data can be sensitive: the location of an ethnic group or a camp can become a target. Before sharing, always ask who could use this information to cause harm.

4Measuring protection outcomes

The results-based protection approach, promoted in particular by InterAction, calls for measuring risk reduction rather than the volume of activities. An outcome is formulated in terms of change for people: fewer incidents, fewer negative coping strategies, more effective access to documents or services.

In practice: define a baseline, track a few outcome indicators combining quantitative data and community perceptions (sense of safety, trust in services), revise the strategy when the context changes, and document unintended effects, including negative ones.

In-depth course

Detailed methods, a complete worked example, tools, common mistakes and interview questions.

5Developing the HCT protection strategy: process, timeline and content

An HCT protection strategy is not a Protection Cluster document: it is a collective commitment by humanitarian leaders on a small number of risks that only concerted action can reduce. Its value depends as much on the process (who commits, how decisions are taken) as on the text. The Global Protection Cluster and IASC guidance on HCT protection strategies proposes a process that can be completed in three to four months.

The six-step process

Step	Content	Responsible	Indicative duration
1. Decision and mandate	The HCT decides to develop or revise its strategy; a drafting group is appointed (Protection Cluster, OCHA, two or three agencies and NGOs, a representative of national NGOs and, where relevant, OHCHR and the mission)	Humanitarian Coordinator	One meeting
2. Joint analysis	Synthesis of existing analyses (PAF, Needs Overview, conflict analyses, human rights reports); targeted consultations with communities and local organisations	Protection Cluster with OCHA	4 to 6 weeks
3. Prioritisation	Workshop with heads of agency: selection of 2 to 4 priority risks, based on severity, scale and the added value of collective action	HCT	One day
4. Outcomes and action plan	For each risk: collective outcome, actions by actor (agencies, clusters, Humanitarian Coordinator), advocacy messages, indicators	Drafting group	3 to 4 weeks
5. Adoption	Formal endorsement by the HCT; decision on dissemination (internal document, public summary)	HCT	One meeting
6. Monitoring	Quarterly review in the HCT; annual revision or after a major change in context	Humanitarian Coordinator, supported by the Protection Cluster	Ongoing

Criteria for selecting a priority risk

Severity and scale: serious harm, affecting a large number of people or an entire group.
Collective dimension: the risk cannot be reduced by a single cluster or organisation; it requires the weight of the HCT or the Humanitarian Coordinator.
Scope for influence: realistic levers exist (authorities receptive to certain arguments, donors who can be mobilised, a peace mission on the ground).
Link with programming: several sectors can adjust their programmes to reduce the risk.

Serious risks may not be selected because they are already well addressed by a specialised actor; this must be explained in the document to avoid misunderstandings.

Typical structure of a strategy (8 to 15 pages)

One-page summary for senior leaders.
Context and brief analysis of protection risks.
Priority risks selected, with justification.
For each risk: expected collective outcome, actions and responsible actors, advocacy messages and targets, indicators and sources.
Cross-cutting responsibilities (protection mainstreaming, accountability, PSEA).
Monitoring and review arrangements.
Management of risks linked to the strategy itself (access, staff security, relations with the authorities).

Tool: priority risk sheet

Item	Expected content
Risk	Precise statement based on the risk equation
Collective outcome at 12 months	Measurable change for people, for example “returns from the sites in district X are voluntary and informed, and no household is transported to an area that has not been cleared”
Actions by the Humanitarian Coordinator and the HCT	High-level démarches, common positions, engagement with donors
Cluster actions	For each cluster, two or three specific, quantified commitments
Advocacy	Targets, asks, mode of action, messengers
Indicators	Two to four outcome indicators, baseline, target, source, frequency
Assumptions and risks	What could prevent the outcome and how to respond

A strategy with eight priority risks has none. The discipline of prioritisation is the condition for heads of agency and the Humanitarian Coordinator to genuinely take ownership of the messages.

6Building a protection advocacy plan

Protection advocacy requires the same rigour as programming: analysis, objective, targets, strategy, implementation, monitoring. The difference lies in risk management: poorly calibrated advocacy can expose witnesses, provoke reprisals, lead to the expulsion of an organisation or the suspension of humanitarian access.

The eight steps of an advocacy plan

Problem: the priority risk, precisely formulated, with its causes.
Objective: the change in policy, practice or behaviour expected from an identified target within a given timeframe. Example: “Within three months, the governor suspends organised transport to villages that have not been cleared and sets up a joint commission to assess return areas.”
Stakeholder and power analysis: who decides, who influences the decision-maker, what is their position, what is their interest?
Asks: specific, realistic, grounded in norms and verified data, and framed so that the recipient can act without losing face.
Mode of action and messengers: persuasion, mobilisation, denunciation, or a sequenced combination; choice of the most credible messenger (Humanitarian Coordinator, head of agency, donor ambassador, religious authority, national NGO).
Risk analysis: for the people concerned, sources, staff, access, local partners.
Implementation plan: timeline, meetings, documents, consistency of messages across organisations.
Monitoring and evaluation: process indicators (meetings obtained, commitments made) and outcome indicators (actual change in practice, effect on people).

Tool: target analysis matrix

Actor	Power over the decision (low, medium, high)	Current position (opposed, neutral, supportive)	Interests and concerns	Approach
Main decision-maker				Direct persuasion, realistic asks
Supportive influencers				Mobilisation, coordination of messages
Neutral influencers				Information, arguments tailored to their interests
Opposed actors				Understand their concerns, avoid needless confrontation

Choosing the mode of action: a decision grid

Question	If yes
Is the duty bearer willing to act but lacking means?	Support (technical assistance, training, resources), possibly temporary substitution
Is the duty bearer accessible and open to dialogue?	Bilateral and confidential persuasion as a priority
Has persuasion failed despite repeated and documented démarches?	Mobilisation of influential actors (States, regional organisations, religious authorities)
Are the violations serious and repeated, and have the other modes failed?	Public denunciation may be considered, after a risk analysis and agreement by senior leaders, in principle carried by actors whose mandate allows it

The ICRC points out that public denunciation is considered only under strict conditions: major and repeated violations, confidential démarches that have had no effect, and the interest of the people affected. For other organisations, the question is not to rule out speaking publicly altogether, but to choose to do so in full awareness of the risks and in coordination with others.

Levers specific to the United Nations system

Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on grave violations against children (Security Council resolution 1612, 2005): six grave violations (killing and maiming, recruitment and use, sexual violence, attacks on schools and hospitals, abduction, denial of humanitarian access); parties listed in the annexes of the Secretary-General's annual report may negotiate action plans.
Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Arrangements on conflict-related sexual violence (Security Council resolution 1960, 2010).
Reports and briefings to the Security Council on the protection of civilians, and reports by the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, including the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons.
Human Rights Due Diligence Policy (2011), applicable to UN support to non-UN security forces.

Effective protection advocacy often requires little: a specific ask, addressed to the right person by the right messenger, backed by data that the recipient cannot dispute. Most failures stem from asks that are too general (“respect international law”) which give the decision-maker no concrete action to take.

7Full example: strategy and advocacy in the face of pressured returns in Valdane

This fictional case follows the HCT of an imaginary country facing a policy of closing displacement sites, from analysis through to the assessment of results at six months.

Situation

In Valdane province, 84,000 IDPs live on 22 sites. The government announces the closure of all sites within 60 days, as part of a “normalisation” programme supported by a reconstruction fund. Available data:

Intentions survey (1,450 households, with prior information sessions): 23% wish to return within six months, 41% prefer local integration, 36% are undecided; 74% cite insecurity as the main obstacle.
The mine action operator has surveyed 9 of the 31 villages of origin; 6 have confirmed or suspected contamination.
Shelter assessment: 58% of houses in the villages of origin are destroyed or severely damaged; 12 villages are partially occupied by other families.
Monitoring: on two sites, the local authorities have suspended water supply, which amounts to indirect pressure to leave.

Priority risk sheet adopted by the HCT

Item	Content
Risk	IDPs on the 22 Valdane sites, in particular households without property in areas of origin, older people and families from the 12 occupied villages, are at risk of non-voluntary returns to contaminated, destroyed or occupied areas, as a result of the accelerated closure of sites and the suspension of services.
Collective outcome at 12 months	Any movement from the sites is based on an informed choice between return, local integration and settlement elsewhere; no household is transported to a village not surveyed by the mine action operator; essential services are maintained on the sites for as long as they are inhabited.
Humanitarian Coordinator and HCT	Démarche with the minister responsible for IDPs and the governor; proposal for a joint government-humanitarian working group on solutions; engagement with the reconstruction fund donors to make funding conditional on the standards.
Protection Cluster	Information sessions on the 22 sites; tracking of movements and post-return monitoring in 15 villages; HLP legal aid for households from the occupied villages.
Mine Action AoR	Accelerated non-technical survey of the remaining 22 villages within 4 months (two additional teams funded); EORE before any movement.
CCCM and WASH	Plan for the gradual consolidation of sites rather than simultaneous closure; water maintained on all inhabited sites; immediate alert in the event of a cut.
Shelter and recovery	No reconstruction support in a village that has not been surveyed; prior HLP verification; support for local integration in the provincial capital (rental, municipal land).
Indicators	Proportion of households that have left a site who report a free and informed choice (target: at least 90%); number of organised movements to unsurveyed villages (target: 0); number of inhabited sites without water service for more than 48 hours (target: 0); proportion of villages of origin surveyed (target: 100% at 4 months).

Advocacy plan (extract)

Target	Ask	Messenger	Mode	Deadline
Minister responsible for IDPs	Replace the 60-day deadline with a site-by-site timeline based on assessments of areas of origin; set up a joint working group on solutions	Humanitarian Coordinator, accompanied by the UNHCR and IOM representatives	Persuasion	Week 2
Governor	Restore water on the two sites; guarantee that no transport will be organised to unsurveyed villages	OCHA head of office and sub-national cluster coordinator	Persuasion, backed by aggregated data	Week 1
Reconstruction fund donors	Make disbursements conditional on compliance with voluntary return criteria and on the mine action survey; fund local integration	Humanitarian Coordinator, with humanitarian donors sharing the position	Mobilisation	Weeks 2 to 4
Provincial religious authorities	Relay the message that return must be a choice and disseminate information on explosive ordnance risks	National NGO member of the cluster	Mobilisation	Weeks 3 to 6

Advocacy risk analysis

Risk: the authorities perceive humanitarians as hostile to return. Measure: present the démarche as support for successful and sustainable returns, propose concrete solutions.
Risk: reprisals against site leaders who reported the water cuts. Measure: no mention of specific sites by source; the information comes from direct observation by WASH teams.
Risk: division between agencies on the line to take. Measure: common messages endorsed by the HCT; a single spokesperson at each level.

Results at six months

Indicator	Baseline	Result at 6 months
Households that left reporting a free and informed choice	Not measured	86% (post-departure survey, 640 households)
Organised movements to unsurveyed villages	2 convoys announced	0 after week 3
Inhabited sites without water for more than 48 hours	2	0 since week 2
Villages of origin surveyed	9 out of 31	27 out of 31
Households that opted for local integration and were supported	0	1,900

The 60-day deadline was replaced by a three-phase timeline. Fourteen per cent of households that left report having been pressured: a result below target, which justifies keeping the risk as a priority and reinforcing monitoring on two sites. The HCT documented these results, distinguishing what was due to its contribution from what was due to other factors (pressure from the fund's donors, a change of governor).

The example shows the full logic: analysis based on aggregated data, a precise risk, a measurable collective outcome, quantified commitments from several clusters, sequenced advocacy, an analysis of advocacy risks and an honest measurement of results.

8Sharing sensitive data: protocols, impact assessment and external requests

The IASC Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility in Humanitarian Action (2023) sets out actions to be taken at system-wide, cluster and organisational levels. The most structuring for a Protection Cluster are data ecosystem mapping, data sensitivity classification, the information-sharing protocol and the procedure for data incidents.

A cluster's information-sharing protocol

Element	Content
Scope	Signatory organisations, types of data covered (monitoring, 5W, aggregated service data, alerts)
Sensitivity classification	Table of datasets and their level (public, restricted, confidential, strictly confidential), agreed collectively
Sharing rules	For each level: who may receive the data, in what form, at what level of aggregation, through which channel
Thresholds	Minimum size of published cells; minimum geographic level; prohibition of personal data outside case management
External requests	Procedure for handling requests from authorities, donors, media, researchers, peace missions
Data incidents	Definition, reporting within 24 to 72 hours to the coordinator and the organisations concerned, containment measures, informing the people affected if necessary
Review	Annually or after a change in context

The data protection impact assessment: how it works

Describe the processing: purpose, data collected, data subjects, flows, systems, recipients, retention period.
Check necessity and proportionality: is each data point essential for the purpose? Would an aggregated or pseudonymised version be sufficient?
Identify the risks to individuals: access by a party to the conflict, search and seizure, leaks, hacking, re-identification, use for recruitment or surveillance, discrimination in access to assistance.
Assess likelihood and severity and define measures (technical, organisational, contractual).
Decide: proceed, modify or abandon, and have the decision approved at the right level.
Review when the context changes (change in territorial control, new law, new partner).

Responding to external requests

Requester	Typical request	Appropriate response
National authorities	Named lists of IDPs or “vulnerable beneficiaries”	Aggregated data; if registration is legitimate, it is the responsibility of the competent authorities with safeguards; never data from monitoring or case management
Donor	Named database for verification or audit	Aggregated data; on-site verification of pseudonymised files by the auditor under a confidentiality agreement; contractual clauses negotiated in advance
Peace mission or armed forces	Location of IDPs or incidents	General trend analysis; no data that could be used for military purposes; respect for the distinction of roles
Media	Testimonies, figures on sexual violence	Approved aggregated messages; referral to spokespersons; no contact with survivors arranged by the organisation
Researchers	Access to monitoring databases	Data-sharing agreement, ethical review, anonymised data, compatible purpose

Donor clauses change: some grant agreements provide for extended access rights to supporting documents. These clauses must be read before signature by the data protection officer, and adjustments negotiated where access to personal data could expose people. Donors generally have procedures that allow an audit without transferring personal data.

Data responsibility does not mean sharing nothing: a cluster that shares nothing prevents coordination and referral to services. It means sharing what is necessary, at the right level of aggregation, with the right people, through secure channels.

9Measuring protection outcomes: indicators, methods and donor expectations

The Results-Based Protection framework (InterAction) rests on three elements: continuous, context-specific analysis; programme design geared towards risk reduction; and monitoring and evaluation focused on outcomes for people. The practical difficulty is that risk reduction is rarely directly observable and incidents are under-reported.

Hierarchy of indicators

Level	Weak example	Strong example
Output	Number of awareness-raising sessions	Number of people who received legal assistance, disaggregated by sex, age and disability
Intermediate outcome	Number of people trained	Proportion of IDPs who obtained an identity document after support
Protection outcome	“Improvement of the protective environment”	Proportion of households reporting that a member was held at a checkpoint in the last three months; proportion of women reporting feeling safe when collecting water

Measurement methods

Baseline and repeated surveys on perception and behaviour indicators (sense of safety, freedom of movement, negative coping strategies), using the same method and the same period of the year.
Follow-up of individual cases: risk reduction assessed at closure and during a follow-up at three months.
Outcome harvesting: retrospective identification of changes in duty bearers' behaviour and of the programme's contribution, useful for advocacy.
Most Significant Change technique: stories of change collected from people and selected collectively, to capture unintended effects.
Contribution analysis: build a theory of change, gather evidence for each link and examine alternative explanations, rather than claiming an impossible attribution.

Tool: indicator reference sheet

Item	Example
Title	Proportion of women and adolescent girls on sites A and B reporting feeling safe or very safe when collecting firewood
Definition	Answer “safe” or “very safe” on a four-point scale
Baseline and target	31%; target 60% at 12 months
Source and method	Quarterly household survey, random sample of women aged 15 and over, interviewed by a female enumerator
Disaggregation	Age (15 to 17, 18 to 49, 50 and over), disability, site
Limitations	Perception sensitive to recent events; to be interpreted together with qualitative data and aggregated service data
Use	Quarterly review of the programme and of the HCT strategy

What donors and evaluators look at

DG ECHO: Key Results Indicators and protection-specific indicators, consistency between risk analysis and results, the Gender-Age Marker, and measurement of risk reduction.
BHA: standard indicators by protection sub-sector, with disaggregation requirements and data collection methods specified in its current guidelines.
Humanitarian Response Plans: cluster indicators and response monitoring, whose consistency with project indicators is checked by pooled funds.
Evaluators: use of the OECD DAC criteria and the ALNAP guide on evaluating humanitarian action; examination of unintended effects, participation and consistency with the HCT strategy.

Common mistakes

Mistake	Correction
Setting a target whereby an increase in reported incidents is presented as a failure, or a decrease as a success	Interpret reports in the light of access to services and trust; cross-check with perceptions
HCT strategy without monitoring	Quarterly item on the HCT agenda, with a one-page dashboard
Undocumented advocacy	Advocacy log: date, target, messenger, ask, response, follow-up
Sensitive data in annexes to donor reports	Systematic review of annexes by the data protection officer
Uncoordinated public denunciation	Prior consultation within the cluster and with the Humanitarian Coordinator; written risk analysis

Contextual variations

Sudden-onset emergency: short HCT strategy (two pages) adopted within a few weeks, revised at three months; advocacy focused on access and the protection of civilians.
Protracted crisis: multi-year strategy linked with development and peace actors, and with national policies on durable solutions.
Strong government sensitive to criticism: priority to persuasion and technical support, messages grounded in national law.
Areas controlled by armed groups: humanitarian dialogue through specialised channels; strict data protection; collective rather than individual advocacy.
Local partners: they often bear a higher risk when associated with critical messages; their participation in advocacy must be their own choice and must be protected.

Interview questions

Question	Elements of a strong answer
How would you contribute to an HCT protection strategy?	Step-by-step process; prioritisation of 2 to 4 risks; collective outcomes; sector commitments; quarterly monitoring; role of the Humanitarian Coordinator.
How do you choose between persuasion and public denunciation?	Analysis of the duty bearer; sequencing of modes of action; analysis of risks to people, staff and access; coordination; strict conditions for denunciation.
A donor demands access to your case management files. How do you react?	Data responsibility principles; alternative proposals (on-site audit, pseudonymisation); negotiation of clauses; involvement of senior management; no transfer of personal data.
Give an example of a protection outcome indicator you have used.	Indicator framed as a change for people; baseline and target; method; limitations; concrete use to adjust the programme.
Tell us about an advocacy effort that succeeded and one that failed.	Specific objective; target; messenger; data; measured result; clear-sighted analysis of the causes of failure.

Key references

IASC, Policy on Protection in Humanitarian Action, 2016, and Global Protection Cluster guidance on HCT protection strategies.
IASC, Independent Review of the Implementation of the IASC Protection Policy, 2022.
InterAction, Results-Based Protection, framework and methodological resources.
ICRC, Professional Standards for Protection Work, 2018 (chapters on strategy and modes of action); ICRC, Enhancing Protection for Civilians in Armed Conflict and Other Situations of Violence.
IASC, Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility in Humanitarian Action, 2023.
ICRC and Brussels Privacy Hub, Handbook on Data Protection in Humanitarian Action.
United Nations Security Council, resolutions 1265 (1999), 1612 (2005) and 1960 (2010).
United Nations, Human Rights Due Diligence Policy on United Nations Support to Non-United Nations Security Forces, 2011.
ALNAP, Evaluation of Humanitarian Action Guide; OECD DAC evaluation criteria.
European Commission, DG ECHO, thematic policy document on humanitarian protection, 2016.

Protection strategy, advocacy and sensitive data