1. Programme Criticality Preparatory Webinar1

2. Structure of this Presentation
Programme Criticality - Overview
Key Principles
Why undertake a PC assessment?
What for? Using the results of a PC assessment in day-to-day decision-making: The “Acceptable Risk Model”
Programme Criticality Assessment: Methodology
Key elements of the process
Overview: 8 Steps of a PC assessment
Explanation of each step
Who should attend the PC workshop and why?
Final Remarks
Background and Learning Resources
Q&A 2

3. 1. Introduction to Programme Criticality

4. 1. Introduction to Programme Criticality
Key Principles
Programme Criticality = common UN system framework for decision-making on acceptable security risk.
Mandatory in high risk environments, applying to all UN personnel.
Establishes guiding principles and a systematic structured approach to ensure that programme activities can be balanced against security risks.
Defines four levels of programme criticality (PC1-PC4).
UN personnel includes international and national staff members, UN consultants as well as individually deployed military and police personnel. 4

5. Programme Criticality Working Group
1. Introduction to Programme Criticality
What for? Using PC results
Programme Criticality Working Group
A Programme Criticality assessment will help decision-making on:
What can be delivered where with the presence of UN personnel
Programme delivery strategies
Where/what further security risk management measures may be needed
Planning for business continuity
Adjusting possible personnel deployments

6. UN Guidelines for Acceptable Risk
1. Introduction to Programme Criticality
UN Guidelines for Acceptable Risk
April 2009 : CEB approved UN Security Management System Guidelines for Acceptable Risk.
Do not accept unnecessary risk (There is no benefit in accepting any risk if it does not help towards UN’s objectives)
Accept risk when benefits outweigh costs (Cannot eliminate all risks – too rigid and costly. Avoiding all risks does not help UN’s objectives)
Make risk management decisions at the right level (Take decisions on risks at the level of delegated authority. Do not assume risk for which authority has not been received.)
These are the risk management principles that apply to the “Acceptable Risk” model the CEB has approved. We will see later how these connect to Programme Criticality. 6

7. Programme Criticality Working Group
1. Introduction to Programme Criticality
What for? Using PC results
Programme Criticality Working Group
PC is a decision making tool to make legitimate and justifiable decisions on acceptance of risk
PC level + Statement of present risk (SRM) = Acceptable Risk

8. PC in day-to-day decision-making: The “Acceptable Risk Model”
1. Introduction to Programme Criticality
PC in day-to-day decision-making: The “Acceptable Risk Model”
Present Risk
Unacceptable
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Programme Criticality Level
N/A
PC1 = - Life-saving activities (at scale) - or -
- Any activity endorsed by the SG
(Principal’s approval to implement in very high risk)
PC2
PC3
PC4
Likelihood
Impact
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Severe
Critical
Very likely
Low
Medium
High
Very
Unacceptable
Likely
Moderately
Unlikely
unlikely
Security Risk Assessment
2 rating criteria:
Contribution to each in-country
UN strategic result
Likelihood of implementation
balancing risks and programme criticality
Programme Criticality

9. 2. Programme Criticality Assessment Methodology

10. Key elements of the process
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
Key elements of the process
The assessment must be done by the whole UN country presence in peer review format.
The methodology must be applied as defined in the framework.
Existing planning frameworks form the basis for the assessment. A PC assessment is not a programme planning process.
Criticality means impact of an activity on population, not necessarily on an organisation.

11. 2. Programme Criticality Methodology
8 steps of PC Assessment
Establish geographical scope and timeframe
List strategic results
List UN outputs
Assess contribution to strategic results (peer review)
Assess likelihood of implementation (peer review)
Evaluate activities/outputs with PC1 criteria
View PC level results, form consensus and approve final results
Agree on a process to manage and implement the results of the PC assessment
Preparatory
steps
PC peer
review phase

12. 2. Programme Criticality Methodology
1. Geographical scope and timeframe
Geographic scope should be matching the programmatic context.
Can be the same as the SRM Area, but does not have to be.
Timeframe can be anything from 3-12 months.
During the chosen timeframe, there should be no expected change in programmatic context.
Can be aligned with planning and project cycles.
A review/rollover every 6 months is recommended.

13. 2. Programme Criticality Methodology
2. List strategic results (maximum 6)
Should be based on existing planning frameworks (e.g. UNDAF, HRP, ISF, Joint Action Plan). PC is not a planning or prioritization exercise!
Should reflect an accurate balance of the UN’s collective priorities for the geographic area and specified timeframe.
Should capture the totality of UN outputs in the area of coverage.
Must be leadership endorsed, in advance of rating exercise.
Must be clear to all what they mean/include.
Programme Criticality

14. 2. Programme Criticality Methodology
2. Examples of strategic results
Example for strategic results

15. 2. Programme Criticality Methodology
3. List UN outputs
UN RBM: Combining activities output level, in order to rate them against Strategic Results.
Only list outputs that involve UN personnel.
Ensure consistency in formulation of outputs. This matters for how ratings are done.
Programme Criticality

16. 2. Programme Criticality Methodology
3. Examples of outputs
Programme Criticality

17. 4. Rating the contribution to strategic results
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
4. Rating the contribution to strategic results
Make use of the entire rating scale (0-5) to rate the contribution of an output against strategic results.
As an example, the rating scale could be defined as follows:
“5” = ‘very high contribution to success’/when an output fully and directly contributes to a strategic result
“3 or 4” = when there is a secondary but notable contribution of the activity to the strategic result
“1 or 2” = when the activity may make a small, indirect contribution to the strategic result
“0” = ‘no contribution’ / when there is no contribution or linkage to this strategic result
Discuss how to score ‘enablers’, e.g. coordination, management, operations, logistics support, etc.

18. 4. Example: Contribution to strategic results
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
4. Example: Contribution to strategic results
Example (screenshot from PC tool)

19. 5. Rating the likelihood of implementation
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
5. Rating the likelihood of implementation
Collectively agree on criteria to measure likelihood of implementation of activities (not including security). For example:
acceptance (government, community), etc.
staff capacity,
partner implementing capacity,
funding,
logistics,
physical access (roads, air strips, seasonal climatic conditions, etc.)
Guiding question: ‘how do you know you can do this?’
Use entire rating scale (1-5); e.g.
“5” = very likely implementation, all criteria are met (practically guaranteed)
“1” = very unlikely implementation, none of the criteria currently met (practically impossible)

20. 5. Rating the likelihood of implementation
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
5. Rating the likelihood of implementation
Example (screenshot from PC tool)

21. The PC tool then generates preliminary ratings:
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
The PC tool then generates preliminary ratings:
Example (screenshot from PC tool)

22. 6. Evaluating outputs with PC1 criteria
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
6. Evaluating outputs with PC1 criteria
Two criteria for PC1:
The activity is assessed as lifesaving (humanitarian or non-humanitarian) at scale (defined as any activity to support processes or services, including needs assessments), that would have an immediate and significant impact on mortality;
Directed activity: the activity receives the endorsement of the Office of the Secretary-General for this particular situation.
Activity is PC1 and implemented where very high present risk: Certification by Executive Head of the relevant UN entity required. Final approval given by the USG DSS.

23. 2. Programme Criticality Methodology
Final steps
Step 7. View PC level results, form consensus within the UN system and approve final results
Once agreed by the programme managers/peer reviewers, the final results must be validated by the UN team in country and approved by the RC or SRSG/Head of Mission, as applicable
If consensus is not reached at country level, the PC Steering Group at ASG level can mediate and/or ultimately decide.
Step 8. Agree on a process to manage and implement the results
The final step is to implement the results of the PC assessment. This entails using the results with the relevant SRA(s) to determine acceptable risk levels for UN outputs.
Additional risk mitigation measures may be required for certain outputs.
It is recommended to establish a PC Working Group that regularly reviews the PC assessment and advises when a full revision is necessary.

24. Who should attend the PC peer review exercise?
2. Programme Criticality Methodology
Who should attend the PC peer review exercise?
 Heads of Programme (Dep. Rep.) and/or Senior Managers
PC focal points must have a full overview and understanding of all of their entity’s activities.
UN entities should ensure that their Focal Points are available to participate throughout the entire PC assessment.
All PC participants need to have a sufficient understanding of Programme Criticality, for example by having read the Programme Criticality Framework and completed the e-course on Programme Criticality.

25. Final Remarks
Present security risk level of Unacceptable or Very High are rare
Move from Acceptable Threat to Acceptable Risk decisions
PC inputs (and fits logically) into the Acceptable Risk Model
SRM empowers programmers – efforts to lower the risk can be reflected in the SRM
The higher the risk, the higher the level of decision
PC Assessments are done only for programmes that involve UN personnel
PC assessment done jointly by UN system in country (peer review) `

26. 3. Background & Learning Resources

27. 3. Background and Learning Resources
Programme Criticality on the CEB website
UN System’s Programme Criticality Framework (approved 2013)
E-Course on Programme Criticality (approx. 30 minutes)
Additional guidance and resources will be provided directly to the PC focal point in country for circulation to all participants
PC co-chairs: Rebecca Jovin Simon Butt
PC Secretariat: Bastian Richter 27

28. 4. Questions