This chapter deals with the collection and handling of protection information relating to individuals or specific events. It is primarily addressed to protection actors who conduct interviews with witnesses or victims on a regular or ad hoc basis, as well as those receiving or using such information collected by others. It is also addressed to those actors who partner with established protection actors in collecting or managing sensitive protection information for instance through crowdsourcing platforms. While not a full-fledged manual, this chapter outlines some of the key principles and standards that should be adhered to when collecting or handling information. Protection actors working with aggregated information, such as trend analysis, do not face the same challenges, as the information they handle is less sensitive. They may feel less concerned by the standards and guidelines of this chapter. They should nevertheless be aware of the constraints of managing data on individuals and events, in order to understand how the information they are handling has been obtained. In situations of armed conflict and other situations of violence, conducting individual interviews can put people at risk not only because of the sensitive nature of the information collected, but because mere participation in the process can cause these people to be stigmatized or targeted. In practice, the risks they may incur can range from physical violence to social marginalization, and are often unknown to the individual soliciting the information, and sometimes also by the person providing it. Furthermore, conducting interviews can be emotionally taxing for both the interviewee and interviewer.
New technologies allow for the collection of data without actually meeting individuals and communities to conduct face-to-face interviews. Rather they rely on the capacity of individuals to transmit information on unfolding events and/or on their needs, in real time, by means of the Internet or other telecommunication networks. In recent years, activists as well as some traditional media have used a variety of electronic processes to report on unfolding events. Humanitarian organizations themselves are increasingly using Internet and mobile-phone-based applications for their own surveys and other data gathering (e.g. EpiSurveyor or Open Data Kit). Combining and cross-checking such information with other sources, including information collected directly from communities and individuals affected, is becoming standard good practice.
Professional standards for Protection Work
purposes of information collection
Protection work requires the collection of information linked to individuals or incidents for various purposes, including as means to:
• inform protection programming and planning;
• monitor and analyse compliance with IHL, IRL and IHRL, and other norms protecting the individual, in order to draw attention to violations identified through public or confidential reports;
• follow the situation of vulnerable individuals or groups over time;
• trace individuals, provide means of re-establishing family links, organize family reunification, or identify human remains;
• keep track of activities that were carried out in favour of affected populations, communities and individuals (referrals, assistance to populations or indivi- duals, etc);
• identify trends and substantiate reporting;
• confirm a particular legal status and determine entitlement to rights, such as those based on the status of refugees or stateless persons;
• prepare stories and case studies for campaigning or advocacy.
N.B. Although not its primary purpose, data collection can also support fundraising. When this is the case the same standards apply.
The protection actor seeking the information bears responsibility for managing the risks associated with the process. This chapter addresses critical issues, such as humanitarian intent, non-discrimination, and informed consent. It provides standards and guidelines to ensure that the collection of potentially sensitive protection information, and its subsequent handling, is undertaken in a professional manner. It urges actors involved in these processes to treat the witnesses and victims of abuses and violations equitably, to protect their interests and to preserve their dignity. Witnesses and victims of abuses and violations should not be exposed to repeated or useless questioning, or unwelcome attention. Such principles are even more relevant when dealing with vulnerable people, such as separated or unaccompanied children, detainees, refugees or IDPs, who are often unable to fully measure and anticipate the use of the information they have provided.
Finally, the chapter underlines the need for caution and professionalism, ensuring that all staff involved in documenting incidents of abuses and violations, or in handling sensitive protection information are well trained.
Setting up data collection, combining, cross-checking, and analyzing data from different sources, and finally archiving sensitive protection data has become more complex with the multiplication and diversification of sources of information. Competent staff is needed to manage the information flow, to take into account the
81 mAnAGInG SEnSItIVE protEctIon InFormAtIon
information is thought to be of benefit to the individuals and communities concerned, it should be shared, as appropriate, with local, regional or national authorities, UN peacekeeping operations, other protection actors, and last but not least with service providers.
who else should apply these standards and guidelines ?
Many large humanitarian organizations have specific communication and media teams who may not formally view themselves as part of a “protection” team, but who conduct face-to-face interviews and collect information on sensitive issues. Such teams must also apply the following standards to ensure that all colleagues within an organization apply the same professional ethics to information collection and management.
Given the growing importance of new technologies in data collection and management, involving information managers and ICT colleagues can also be of prime importance to clearly understand and answer the challenges mentioned in this chapter.
Finally, most standards linked to data collection and data management developed in this chapter will also be of interest to people who do not necessarily see themselves as protection actors, such as people working in social media, or people setting up crisis mapping1 independently from traditional humanitarian and human rights organizations.
1