Any humanitarian response demands some level of prioritization. In this moment of resets and calls for cost-effectiveness, it is essential that prioritization is not reduced to resource triage. This is particularly crucial when considering not only what needs and response sectors should be prioritized, but also how protection risks to affected populations should be reduced. Although all humanitarian actors engage in prioritization at some level, the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) is responsible for leading the implementation of the Centrality of Protection. For a given HCT, prioritization should fundamentally be about collective focus: determining where coordinated, multi-sector engagement can realistically reduce protection risks, rather than merely responding to their consequences.
This case example explores how a Protection Core Group created by the HCT in Syria conducted a prioritization exercise to develop a genuinely multidisciplinary, practical, and measurable strategy. The Syria exercise showed that effective prioritization depends on clearly defined and well-analyzed protection risks, diverse participation, and distinguishing sector-specific needs from risks requiring collective action. By selecting a limited set of risks suited to coordinated, multi-sector engagement, the process built a foundation for coherent strategy, measurable outcomes, and shared accountability for risk reduction.
RBP QUESTIONS
1. Is the protection risk clearly defined in terms of a specific threat, a specific population, and identifiable vulnerabilities and capacities associated with the threat? Without analytical clarity around the risk equation, prioritization will rest on thematic preference rather than evidence-based assessment.
2. Do you have the right collection of stakeholders assembled to adequately prioritize risks? Even a single agency creating its own strategy should consider a coordinated, multi-actor prioritization exercise to understand the full range of action necessary to reduce a protection risk and where they best contribute.
3. What would observable progress in reducing this risk look like in the short term and over time, and is there a plausible pathway through which current capacities can contribute to that change? A risk that cannot be linked to realistic outcome pathways risks becoming symbolic rather than strategic.