 of today is basically four forms. First, to ensure common understanding of key elements and approach for the 2021 HPC. And in order to be able to have an effective and harmonized planning cycle. So agree on the key elements and the approach. So we're all pushing in the same direction, especially if there is different interpretations of this approach by OSHA or other clusters in these operations that we know this is how we interpret it and how we're going. The second is to present and discuss the key elements and proposed approach for the intersectoral part of the HNO, as well as the sectoral analysis that feeds into the HNO. So we'll be very clear how we want to contribute to these two parts. When we propose that to you, we will obtain questions and feedbacks. We will see the cracks in what we're presenting. And advice from you. And based on this conversation, we will issue the global written guidance that will go to you to be sure the message are black on white and clear. And finally, we want to outline support and resources that we have ready to support you in this process and also hear advice from you how to best do that. So to do this, we will start the session with introductory messages regarding the HPC. I have three key messages followed by Bruno and Jennifer who both also have additional messages. Bruno comes as part and head of the MA AOR and then Jennifer from the GBV AOR. And at the end of the session, we'll have closing remarks from HLP and child protection. And this way, we kind of wrap this session together. In the middle is the most important bit where we'll have colleagues going through the different parts of the guidance. So let me start with three key messages. Yes. So, Jennifer, Bruno, I'm not yet on the call. Maybe they're having problems. So I'll let you know. Sure. Thanks. I'm good. So let me start then with three key messages from me and maybe I'll cover for the messages of the others if that doesn't work. First and most important is that we hear you and we see you. And this year is extraordinary. It's usually a pain to have the HPC cycle, but this year is on the double. You have appeals, you have the GHRP, you have the COVID situation, you have less access to the field. So we are advocating for a simplified 2021 HPC approach. We have worked with the global clusters for a simplified the GF guidance. We're advocating basically to have no major changes introduced this year. I think the last couple of years, every year there was a... Now we are advocating for no major changes to be introduced this year. And we want you to echo this message. We will make sure Ocha is on board and the other clusters with this, but least to changes, keep steady and minimize the work is very important for us. My second message is that joint analysis of protection risks, risks, violations and harm. And I insist on risks because it has been such a struggle to convince everyone that from a protection perspective we plan based on risks. So joint analysis of protection risks, violations and harm should be central element in the HNO analysis, in the intersectoral analysis. And you should be a driving force behind defining this. We have worked with within the GAG to ensure the analysis of protection risks, threats and vulnerabilities are key in the methodology and agreed as such. What's very particular and important is to define the scope of the humanitarian analysis and response. And that's two things. Priority affected geographic areas. And this is in line with many of your pushes to have area-based approaches, which we encourage. So we want to see the, these protection risks analysis reflected in a priority defined priority affected geographic area and population groups, which is extremely important in our case. And we've seen this in the COVID situation where specific groups have exacerbated an addition of risks due to that. Let me see who is unmuted here. Khidr Ali. Thank you, Khidr. Much appreciate. So that's my second point. It basically joint analysis of protection risks, violations and harms should remain central. And we have to have priority geographic areas and focus on population groups as well. Third, and here is a, if you take one thing out of this meeting, this is to me is this, where we stand today is that protection size in the HRP is about 8% on average. And that includes all the AORs and beyond the AORs work. So if you look at specific AORs like GBV or Child Protection or MA, HLP, but other stuff like work on disability and work on elderly people, the percentage of what we're submitting in the HRP is less than 8%. And again, if we go to the specifics, it's much less than this, of course. This is not acceptable. We need a major push to reflect the reality that in protection crisis, the size of protection response needs to be deflected in the initial submission of the HRP. So we want you to have, we haven't defined scientifically benchmarks and we're working on that. We will probably not be ready for this year, but we'll use this here as a testing ground. But here are some indicative directions. And here I'm speaking to the coordinators, co-coordinators of AORs and the cluster. The protection should be at least between 15 and 20% of the total humanitarian requirements. This is a logical span of percentage that we think would reflect in crisis that our protection and nature to be reasonable and to allow you to run the proper response, 15 to 20%. That's would require to do that, a solid HNO, a solid HRP and massive advocacy with the HCs, HCTs, your cluster lead agencies to push in this direction. And we're more than happy to push for this. And we're advocating for that loud and clear and all for us, including with donors. So that should be your overall kind of direction. Second, we're pushing all donors to fund the protection at at least 50%. So of what we submit to have at least 50% of the protection submissions funded. Today we stand at again an average of eight, 9%. And as I said, we will have this high level segment at the end of the year where we have a major push at capital level with donors to challenge them throughout to meet that 50% next year. This is extremely important timing as well because we judge that next year funding size compared to the needs will be even less than this year because the needs are growing and also many of the donors are looking inwards and will have less ODA going outwards. So we will keep the pressure on to keep that point on the agenda. Also, we want to see that other clusters are mainstreaming protection not only in narrative and approach, but also in budget. So we'd like to, we are challenging the other clusters to put at least 5% of their program dedicated for mainstream protection. And that could be much more in many parts. I mean, if you take the GBV collaboration with the health cluster, there's much more than 5% of the health response that could be linked to protection and so on. But I think the indication we're saying is everyone should at least have these 5% and go forward. So this is a bit my, the three points I wanted to make. I want to check if Bruno is online. If not, Ivan, is he managed yet to connect? No, I don't see him and neither are Jennifer yet, yeah. Neither, Jennifer. Okay, so let me put on my MAOR hat, global hat here and on behalf of Bruno, I think the AOR wanted to really highlight two points in addition to my first three. First, so fourth, we should reinforce our efforts to ensure inclusivity and people-centered HNO and HOP. What does that mean practically? Disaggregated analysis of the differential impacts of the crisis on diverse groups and people, gender, age, disability, other characteristics, both in the intersectoral part and the sectoral part needs to be there. And I think many of you do quite well on this front. Many others receive some pushbacks, especially on the differential impact part. That has to be front and center in the intersectoral analysis as well as the sectoral analysis. And also that means that we need better efforts to consider priorities of affected population to inform the analysis through the engagement with communities. Many of your clusters have solid engagement with communities programs. Child protection, MAOR has a mass fantastic networks where you are established of engagement with communities, local organizations, community leaders, affected people. Child protection have the same for this work. And I think we need to benefit from these established networks, not only for what the relationship is designed for, which is sometimes response or monitoring. I think engaging them throughout the cycle in a way that is documented and incremental from year to year and proving that, putting that forward. I think our best tool that you're telling us in context where there is lack of access is proving to be these relationships you have established with communities in some cases for decades. So bring that to the front and make sure it's clearly reflected in the way we're contributing to the HNO, we're building it up. My fifth point is that we need to keep expanding on integrated and multi-sectoral responses. So we need to continue promoting this integrated joint programming with other sectors. The child protection work that is done with other sectors is established, it's very good. MAOR as well, HLP is a natural one with a couple of sectors, including shelter. GBV is also so established with other sectors, including health and education and others. So we need to bring the reality, this reality of that protection doesn't only belong to the protection cluster. We need to bring that forward in the analysis and we have to focus on this integrated analysis, integrated programming and integrated approaches. We have a couple of global efforts. We've done all together this collaboration with the health cluster. We have this collective operational framework that is moving in this direction. That's important, GPC, CPMA, education, health, for child victims. So it's also in progress and as you have heard about it and it's also an area of focus. So let's reflect that, keep expanding. I think this is the future, your future there. And now I would turn to the last two points probably on behalf of the GBV AOR unless Jennifer managed to connect. Jen, Jen is not there, Astrid, are you there? No. Okay, two final points here and then we close the opening remarks. AOR specificity is not only the responsibility of the AOR per se to push for their space. It's the responsibility of all of you to push for the space and the specificity of all of you. And that's how we address this at a global level. We need to build on the progress observed in 2020 HPC. We have around 70% of the HNOs and HRPs with specific AOR sections. This is not acceptable. This year we need to hit 100% and aim to systematically include AOR specific sections within the protection cluster chapter in all the HNOs and HRPs. So this is already included in the templates. We need you to fill that role and to support each other. If one of the AORs or the general protection is weak for a temporary period because of lack of staff to be able to generate the right data or to write the right paragraph and narrative, support each other, fill that plank. It is a collective responsibility to take that forward as well as some additional responsibilities on top of it. We have established structures for the four AORs but there are some other key protection areas like protection of civilians, anti-trafficking, mental health, protection of older persons and persons with disabilities. These are major needs you're facing in your operation and should be reflected as such in the HNO and the HRP. And of course I personally count a lot on the cluster coordinators to do that but it's equally the responsibility of the AORs coordinators to bring that to the front. We have to focus on our specificity and bring that visibly forward but we should also look at certain areas where no one has claimed the responsibility like the AORs. And finally, the setup of the HPC tools should follow global policy agreed with OSHA. So the GPC and the AOR we're engaging with OSHA at global level to ensure that the OSHA field offices and protection clusters and AORs get a very clear message on systematic, harmonized setup of the different HPCs tool for the response planning module, for the FTS to allow aggregation, reporting and tracking of AOR projects and activities. This is the global guidance. If someone in the field interprets it differently we should push back. We are very keen to know a link to the funding situation that as I explained in the initial part there. For us to beef up this 50%, we need to be very focused on the global advocacy and say the weak link in this operation is gender-based violence. The weak link in this operation is general monitoring. The weak link in this operation is housing land and property. And for us to be able to do that and scale it up we need specific data. And for that we really count on you should OSHA have a different interpretation to link up with us. And that's our job to keep pushing until it's done. That is my, our collective main seven points. I am sorry, I've spoken for on behalf of three people. It should be taken as such apologies for the monotonic voice. It should have been three different voices. But Jennifer, you may. Sorry, I was having a hard time getting into the teams because we don't really have that system. So I apologize for being late. No worries. I think you covered pretty much everything. So I appreciate you. And that's an example of how we support each other. If one AOR is absent or if the GPC that the protection coordinators are absent we fill in for each other. So thank you. And I think it was very eloquently said. I guess I would just reinforce that, we know that the humanitarian needs overview is critical to have a strong narrative that's very context specific. It shouldn't sound like you cut and pasted it from the last operation you were in but really be specific to the context where you are because we know that later when we're requesting funding it's based on the narrative of the needs. So it's very important to be as specific as possible and have that be strong. And we, as William said, we worked very hard for OCHA to enable us to have more space specific to each AOR. So last year we know that there was an increase, for example, in gender-based violence in having an entire page dedicated to the situation of GBV. And we know that now with COVID-19 there's been an increase in intimate partner violence. So really this is an opportunity to have a very strong narrative specific to each AOR and that can range from a paragraph to a page and this is finally a chance for everybody to have the space that they need to discuss the situation and not have to push each other. I know in the past it was always like one page for everyone together and that was very, very challenging. So this is definitely an opportunity, as William also mentioned, for everyone to be able to provide a strong narrative around protection and for each specific AOR. And I think we also, we have those specific areas for each AOR but we also want to be very cohesive and comprehensive with the overall protection picture. So it should still flow as looking at the comprehensive needs as a cluster. So again, working together, I know on the information management side, at the global level there's been a lot of work done between the GPC and the four AORs so that we are clear on and having consistency when we do the pin and when we look at the severity ranking there's been a lot of efforts made. So I hope that also at the field level that effort of working together will be strong and it makes us stronger as a cluster and will enhance our opportunities to get more funding. I know that you've already had quite a bit of opening for William speaking for three people so I think I can leave it there and I just realized it didn't turn on my video so I will do that for a moment. So I'm Jennifer Chase, I'm from the GBV area of responsibility at the global level and I'm very excited that this is the beginning of the GPC forum and we're gonna have more for also the response and looking at FTS which are other areas where we also have improvements and we need to work together to be strong. So that's it from my side and I hope you have a very good webinar. Thanks Jennifer, William, just check in. You might be mute. Okay, maybe go ahead William. Nothing more from my side, please go ahead Ivan. Thanks, thanks a lot William and Jennifer and colleagues for the introduction. So let me just go back quickly so well first of all, thanks everyone for joining. Well, for those who don't know me my name is Ivan Cardona, Global Information Management Officer with the GPC and I'm having working together with colleagues in the GPC Opsales and the areas of responsibilities on this year on contributing and preparing the discussions for the HPC guidance, sectoral guidance. So yeah, this is the collective effort of that just on the agenda quickly with a kind of 10 minutes a bit behind but I will try to summarize the next session which is the presentation of key elements and key recommendations, more or less in the line that William and Jennifer were already pointing out on HNOs and HRPs for 2021. And then we'll open for discussion, questions, feedback from you. I think as mentioned at the beginning from William, the part of the purpose of today, a big party is hitting from you to see what other areas or challenges or recommendations we need to make sure to include in the global guidance, sectoral guidance and in our support for this year. We'll have a break, I think around 10.50 or so, 10 minutes before 11, a quick break just to recharge energies. And then we'll go to the second part which is a focus on the HNO presenting to you the key elements approach that are planned for the intersectoral and sectoral analysis of severity of needs and pink calculations in the HNO but also other key elements on the center of protection there. And again, open for questions and feedback and we'll close on with some final remarks by the other AOR coordinators. So let me quickly start with this. And please, as we go along on the presentation, we'll have then the feedback session but please feel free to start writing your questions or comments in the chat or make them during that part of the webinar. So quickly on the HPC, so yeah, last year we had 28 countries with HNOs and 25 with HRPs. The different was the Central American countries El Valor, Guatemala and Honduras that had an HNO for this year released recently but not yet an HRP. And in total, we're talking about 96 million overall people in need of protection. That was in the original HRPs. I understand now with the COVID update some pins are being revised and also not in all operations by sector. And about half of them targeted in the HRP plans. And as William was mentioning, an overall loss of $2 billion including 300 million additionally included as part of the COVID-19 response. So more importance of just hearing from a colleague in the chat that she's having problems listening or he, I'm not sure. Just confirm and everyone else can hear me well. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Good to see you. Okay, thanks. Okay, so yeah, more on the process side of things which is also the key recommendations for today. I'm on the king highlights. I think the analysis of protection concerns that you and colleagues in the field contributed significantly, both particularly in the intersectional narrative of the HNOs and HRPs was very solid. Indeed, even in the independent scoring process that happens every year with HNOs and HRPs that is done by donors and some key agencies, lead agencies. This one of one of the areas that had the highest score. We also saw enhanced protection analysis in the sectoral chapters, in the protection chapters and including as was mentioned also by William Jennifer specific sessions on the AORs figures narrative. Enhanced also this aggregation of the analysis of the figures by sex, Asia, disability and other criteria. Obviously now is one of the key areas of the enhanced approaches having all these figures disaggregated by some specific groups but we see also that in the narrative this was better reflected. Again, in the majority of HRPs, we saw also big requirements and response priorities for AORs, also not in all of them. An increased reference to integrated programming was mentioned in several and we know also this has been growing a growing trend with multi-cluster responses or integrated programming also within the cluster obviously. And another key highlight I think was the analysis as we have listened from you collaboration, communication with the global team so of the cluster and the AORs, which was particularly I think for the HNO season, the needs analysis needs interpretation part but also throughout the HPC but for this year, we want to make sure there is a continuous support both for the HNOs and HRP components. But obviously there were also some key challenges that yeah, we have heard from you and also some related to some guidance that might be missing and that we're working this year. So obviously one was constraints for the new and enhanced approach for intersectoral and sectoral severity and needs analysis due to lack of data or lack of sources to contribute to the new approach which obviously for this year might be an additional or compounded challenge given the situation of COVID-19. Excuse me. Also one of the key challenges that we heard and also came out in intersectoral evaluations of the HNO, the confusions or lack of clarity on the new and intersectoral severity analysis and peak calculations which resulted in a mixed approach. We saw particularly on the whole discussion about the humanitarian consequence pillars because of the confusing or mixed messages in global guidance or the lack or the late saw on that. As you know, the JAF, the joint intersectoral framework was introduced but there was not a finalized guidance so that ended up that we have kind of three, four different approaches in the field that we saw some using four pillars including the protection one others using only two, others three but also some contributing to the other two pillars or overlaps. So yeah, in the second part of today webinar we'll go a bit more in what are the plan changes to have a clear approach for this year. The limited space for the protection chapter narrative. So as mentioned, we saw an increased use of the specific sessions but obviously also the limited space implies that not always the narrative could be as comprehensive. So I think this will require more advocacy so we have a proper space on this but also more focus analysis. Type deadlines and challenges with the management of projects of missions. We know this is a key concern and also as William was mentioning the diversity in the weight or proportion of the protection funding over the total asks. And finally, and we'll go a bit more in detail about that different approaches for the set up of HPC tools. So we'll go into that a few more. What are the expected key changes for this year? As mentioned in the introduction we and also most of the or all the other cloud clusters and lead agencies have been advocating for a simplified approach. So considering the realities of this year the key elements of the HPC approach the templates particularly will fundamentally remain the same there will be a slight modifications to try to simplify and also to adapt to the discussions on the particular for the H&O on the joint sector framework as we will go in the second part. It is expected and recognized by everyone and also donors that there will be a need to use secondary data as much as possible expert judgment due to constraints in primary data collection. One obviously key change compared to last year and what has been happening these recent months is that the COVID response will be integrated into the normal HPC cycle. So there will be no separate plans, addendums or yeah, not also a separate global humanitarian response plan for COVID but to be integrated in the normal response for next year. And as was already included in last year enhanced approach, but this year even more relevant and increased focus on risk analysis and projections which for COVID I think is key. There has been work on a global guidance on this that is being finalized. So quickly on this on the key areas of focus as William was mentioning also and we'll go more in detail about the in the second part. Clusters and AORs in the field need to take an active lead role as you do usually and you have done last year to ensure that centrality protection is properly reflected both in the intersectional analysis but also in the response prioritization and one key area of this is to ensure that priority most affected areas, geographical areas and groups are prioritized for in the analysis and in the response. Second, as William was mentioning to reinforce our efforts to ensure more inclusive and people-centered approaches in HNOs and HRPs. And here I would like to pass the word to Ahmed. I hope you can hear me well as that we will give you a bit more detail some recommendations for inclusions of disability persons with disability in HNOs and HRPs. Ahmed, can you hear us well? Yes, thank you, Evan. Perfect, go ahead. Hi, everyone. Ahmad Ghanim working for UNICEF, program specialist in disability inclusion and also I'm coordinator of advisory group for disability inclusion humanitarian action related to David UN single business case. Actually, thank you for inviting me to be here. Person with disability actually have a great part of access to protection intervention as equal member of the community under the GBC mandate but also we should recognize to which extent they are affected by conflict and displacement more than other because of the barrier that they are facing usually. They are facing huge barrier to access to protection services but also to generally in humanitarian services. Usually these barriers we all know it but mostly they are physical barriers to access to facilities due to their disability also communication barriers to access to information that usually disseminated in this situation or actually reach outing or seeking support attitudinal barriers that is happening either by ignoring their cause or having some discriminatory action toward them from either the staff or the community itself institutional barriers and which I think it's also which is very important that we design systems that is providing services and most of the time this system itself are not inclusive or accessible for these people. Knowing that actually the number of persons with disability who have very high number of estimation like 15% of all the population have disability and also to which extent this group is having a diverse they are not one group, they are diverse they have heterogeneity among them they have intersectionality with other for example one in five women likely to be have some sort of disability and the year we can see how gender is interacting with disability also now like 46% of person aged 16 and above are have some sort of disability nearly the half in case of male and in case of female and in this case you can imagine to which extent that age and disability and gender is interacting to each other to produce some barriers that are risk factor that could also affect the situation of person with disability a children also nearly one in 10 child is the children with disability and we all face how it's very difficult in general for children to access protection but also for children with disability is even more difficult. This kind of intervention that is linked for example to child protection, gender based violence should be ensured that they consider this high level or high number, this group of persons with disability and how this group are diverse and having some intersectionality with other topic. We should also consider that most of this number are very old, most of this estimation are very old and it's a global estimation, most of the time also it's applied to all the world but in even in humanitarian context we expect that it's much higher than that we should consider that also recent studies that have been done at country level at region level for example vulnerability assessment framework at Jordan have seen that person with disability is more than 21% of the population affected population in Syria they are 27% in Afghanistan we have like nearly 40% severe and 65% of population, all population have some sort of moderate to mild disability according to this has been done in Afghanistan and it's expected in this humanitarian action and years of inability to access to humanitarian support or due to the war or the crisis that is happening in specific place that level of impairment is increased and in this case also level of disability is increasing. I think next please, could you have, thank you. We have done actually an analysis in 2020 HBC document HNO HRB to see to which extent disability have been included on side the document that have been produced at the time of the analysis we have like nearly 20 HNO and a little bit less and nearly 17 HRB have been analyzed from different country, one of the main finding that we have find that protection was always the highest cluster and the highest section inside HNO HRB that is covering disability not only just recognizing the fact that disability is there but also having some sort of robust analysis of the risk that they are facing and to which extent they are have been identified as a part of vulnerable group but in the same time with specific needs and requirements. So it was a very good comparing to for example, HNO HRB 2019, there was a huge progress and in most of the time protection section inside the HNO HRB have been doing that, which is great and I think this is very important because as our colleague was talking in the beginning of the slides on the proportion of protection inside the HBC itself and the humanitarian action, it's also very important if we have a disability, good disability inclusion in protection part inside HNO HRB, most of the time this lead to improve the situation of persons ability in general on our HBC cycle. So what was our main finding? What was our main lesson learned from the analysis of HBC that we would like to consider in 2021? First, the analysis, it's very important not only to mention persons ability because most of the time we see that the HNO HRB is saying that and we should consider vulnerable group and then between brackets, children, woman, persons ability and so on. So they are just mentioned vulnerable group. We need to ensure that there are some sort of analysis of the factors that is contributing to risk so we can differentiate persons ability from other vulnerable group but also differentiate different groups inside persons ability, woman with disability, children with disability, refugee with disability to ensure that we are able to have a meaningful need of our view and meaningful or of course intervention which is also linked to intersectionality and how the diversity that we have explained is intersect or impact the risk that is faced by persons ability and we were discussing for example in COVID which extends the situation of lockdown have increased the GBV and this have been having even more effect, very high effect on woman with disability. For example, due to communication and access problem that we was talking about. Participation also is very important. One of the central idea of the new HBC and the coming one should be around people centered and we cannot be able to be people centered without to ensure that the people themselves, their opinion, their understanding, their priorities, their needs have been expressed by them and we are accountable to them and one of the main issue here is participation. To which extent we are creating an inclusive process that we able to consult with persons ability and engaged local organization of persons ability because most of the time even we see that even if HNO HRB have creating this kind of consulting mechanism and accountability mechanism, usually some group who have no access to this mechanism due to communication barriers or access barriers or physical barriers, they are unable or even attitude in some cases considering that they don't have opinion or something like that lead to that they are neglected or forgetting or left behind for participation. Data collection also is a very important and it's a high actually challenge. We are now working on how to ensure that monitoring framework that we are creating in HNO HRB are disability inclusive in the light of COVID and we will produce guidance note on that shortly in the next months but also having a reliable and up to date information about person with disability is very important. Not only about the numbers but also about the barrier that is facing them. We can bend on global disability prevalence but as I explained we should be very careful when we are using it and using it only if we don't have any other resources because having the global disability prevalence is most of the time are not accurate because of the fact that we was discussing the humanitarian context the all the data that we have and so on. So the best scenario is if we have a good administrative data most of the time our humanitarian context we don't if we have able to collect our data ourselves and the most easy way to do it is to integrate disability question which is Washington group of question inside your regular data collection tool and if you do that it's five very simple question it will not take any big time from the survey itself or whatever and this will create a whole wallet of difference and at the end depend on national estimation or regional estimation or at the last resource global estimation or prevalence could be a good way to do if we don't have a robust secondary data. Last thing is and I think it's very important to understand and usually I found that people working in protection is understand that very well because you are facing the same concept the twin-track approach. We need to ensure that when we are dealing with disability we have the twin-track approach we are one track we are focusing on the need of persons disability responding to specific disability needs and providing a specific disability services but in the same time we don't need to forget the mini-streaming that what we are usually that persons ability have the same need as other population so we need to ensure that what we are doing is completely accessible and mini-streamed for persons ability to access. So if we are designed GBV services for example we need to ensure that a woman with disability have access to as any other woman in the group which is the same situation as protection usually we have the mini-streaming protection and the specific protection services it's a very similar concept in disability and we need to ensure that this is happening in the right way. The next slide please. So I know that this is a very short time to explain all about disability but there are a lot of related resources and the guidance all that is URL so once you have the bar point you can able to click on it and go directly to the URL. I will just scan it very quickly. We have some resources related to disability and HNO HRP. We have guidance on strengthening disability inclusion in humanitarian responsive plan and the guidance have been designed in the same OSHA template so following it will not be an added work it will be in line and the barrel to your current work. We have also some very quick tip sheets in integration disability in HNO only two pages and it's the same in HRB sorry for the mistake in the title. And then we have also last year a very interesting informing GBC global protection cluster webcast on disability inclusive in HNO HRP. It's are recorded in video and is available on YouTube. We know also that there are some, I will say upper level concept related to the humanitarian response and disability in general and in that we have IACC guideline inclusion of persons ability in humanitarian action. You see the cover in the beginning of the slides and also UNICEF have a very good including children with disability and humanitarian action including protection and education and the other issue. It's online URL guideline but we know that the current situation need a specific attention to COVID and COVID will be integrated in HNO HRP. So we have two resources related to specifically to COVID and humanitarian context. One is disability inclusion tip sheet for the GHRB update and I think most of what is existing there is applicable also in HNO HRP. And the second one which is just have been it's now it's written under development but it's have been issued this morning. So it's good that I think have been issued a guideline on inclusion of persons ability in COVID-19 response which is a very small one that is depending on the big guideline of humanitarian disability and humanitarian response. Thank you. If you have any question, I'm not sure if it's a time for it. Ivan, could you guide me if I'm ready for any question or discussion point or do you prefer to postpone it? Thanks a lot for that very useful presentation. Yeah, I'll just finish quickly with the other points and then we'll open for discussions. I think we can take questions but colleagues please if you have questions or comments please you can start adding them in the chat of the meeting. I already see one request to share the presentation and yes, we will confirm we will be able to share the whole presentation and additional material after the webinar. So thanks a lot. Just to go quickly on the other two points I think we already touched upon some of them but yeah within the other key areas of focus as mentioned the increased visibility and use that we want to ensure this systematically done for next year on the specific AR sections both in the H&M and the HRP. And as mentioned we will also advocate at the global level that we need to expand that space in the documents so this analysis is comprehensive enough. And then as what was also mentioned at the beginning the introduction basis by William Jennifer we want to ensure we have an harmonized approach for the setup and management of HPC tools. Last year in the sectoral guidance for HPC there was an agreement and a great approach between OCHA and the GPC and AORs on how to do this but we know that it was not fully implemented systematically in the operations. Some field offices went for different approaches but also there were some technical limitations on FTS. So we have been talking with OCHA this year on this and we'll be aiming to send Suna message to all OCHA offices, all the closers and AORs that this is the recommended approach and a great approach. And it consists as you might remember from the guidance last year in RPN we set up only one coordination entity called Protection on one field cluster and the framework of the clusters and AORs will be associated to this entity. But then we will have multiple global sectors the global sector is just the denomination that the system use associated to that coordination entity and this will be with the labels that you see here and this will include will allow that in the projects model all the project owners can submit projects to this single field cluster called Protection but then divide all the requirements by the sub sectors of sub sectors as mentioned above and this will later allow that the specific requirements can be tracked either by AOR but also for the whole cluster as a whole and show in FDS and we are working towards to ensure that this is an approach that can be set up both for project and activity based costing and they are working on that. So yeah, just to finish, I think the last point I think was also mentioned the introduction measures we also need to focus on, well, I think one of the key message to focus not so much and hopefully this year not to spend too much on the discussions about the pin severity but focus actually on the planet of response and we hope the simplified approach helps on that and within that some key areas of focus that we know we need to improve and also working on guidance and will be supporting you in regarding results framework response monitoring systems, targets and financial requirements and greater focus on integral program. So to finish, what you should expect very soon at the global interagency level, the step by step guidance the templates and timelines for HPC will be shared in of next week, that's the deadline. It will be accompanied by some annex guidance one on the joint intersect analysis framework which will be the second part of the webinar but also other ones which one in recent analysis and projections, one on prioritization and targeting and one on monitoring, the one on monitoring is a bit delayed and then there is also the plan to develop interagency or update interagency guidance on costing methodologies and HPC tools management that might come later in the year and from our side, we will be sharing with you based on the key elements that we are discussing today but more technical details also sectoral guidance for HNOs aligned to the joint intersect also part. This will also happen in mid-July and then we'll be working on the sectoral guidance for HRPs but concretely the key recommendations but also specific guidance on the areas we were just discussing, targeting, costing, response frames and then schedule additional technical webinars as you know as part of the protection forum. There are several events planned for September mostly but also in other months of the year and we will consider and we'll be glad to hear from you what will be the need for additional dedicated thematic webinars, maybe a more dedicated webinar on pink calculations, more in detail, et cetera. So please do let us know. So with this I finish and open for a quick discussion. Yeah, we have 20, 25 minutes for this on any questions you might have on the different points that we have raised in the first part, whether there are any other challenges or key areas that you think we need to also focus including the guidance or be aware in terms of global support and yeah, any other practices or lessons learned from last year that you want to highlight with us and with everyone else. So open for, yeah, for your contributions please feel free to unmute but also if you can raise your hand, I'm happy to do that. I think I see already one. Samira, good morning and go ahead. Good morning Yvonne, thank you so much. My question is about the inclusion of disability person. It's great actually that we have this discussion because that's an ongoing discussion for us in Afghanistan given the number of people with disability. And it was mentioned in the previous and the current HRP, HNO and HRP but the question is how in practice we can actually make sure that are included obviously with partners doing general protection or IPA people with disability are targeted and part of the criteria for identifying vulnerable households, et cetera. But given that we still get the question, like how we make sure or specifically targeting people with disability given that they have varying needs also so it's not one kind of disability obviously. I'm wondering in practice how we can make sure that this is the case. Of course there have been assessments. Also that's a bit of a challenge as our colleague mentioned because not all organizations unless they're working specifically with people with disability are doing specific assessment on this. Unfortunately we have that now in Afghanistan. So my basic question is how in practice we could, I mean besides what we're already doing in protection activities and response to make sure that people with disability specifically are there. Like what are the, in your experiences, what are the lessons learned and how this is possible? Thanks a lot. Thank you very much. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I think that will be a question for your measurement. Maybe you take a few and to see if they're also related. I see Claudia also raising their hand. Go ahead Claudia. Hi, yeah, thank you. And sorry if I didn't catch it during the presentation. I think from one question is in terms of the additional guidance and support from the GPC, primarily in terms of the calculation of the PIN based on key eye assessment. Because even we discussed also in the past, here in Iraq of course this year because of access and COVID related movement restriction, the country wide assessment will be conducted through key informants. So then it kind of affects the calculation of the PIN as we move ahead with the process. So if some guidance could come on that particular topic would be appreciated. Over. Thanks a lot, Claudia. Any other questions or well, maybe we start. Go ahead, Hamid. Maybe with the question on disability I think and anyone else who wants to join contribute. Go ahead. Of course. Thank you, thank you. This is a very important question and Afghanistan specifically have a very unique situation first because they already have done a very good job last year in including the H&O HRB disability inside the document itself. Although also it's also a challenge to achieve or to transfer what is written in the H&O HRB to reality on the ground. And we all know it's not only related to disability nearly everything we wrote in this document is always a challenge to achieve it on the ground in reality. Afghanistan also in a very good situation because they already have a very robust analysis of disabilities that have been done over years and very recently after maybe one month ago or even less there was a model disability survey that have been issued all over Afghanistan and it was massive. I never see something like that happen in humanitarian context. So we have a huge number or huge amount of data about personal disability. So how we do, how we grasp that and transfer it to practical and even in other country when there are no enough data how we can do that. I will advise of course there are a lot in the tip sheet and the guideline but I will advise three main things. First ensure that you include disability in your need overview and risk analysis. Joint, our joint intersectoral analysis framework should include disability should be able to capture how the framework is applied to personal disability. Having this kind of analysis and understanding is the halfway because most of the time we don't understand the needs and the risk that is faced personal disability as you said they are a very diverse group in good way unless we do that. This is one. The second consult a person with disability. They are expert in this in their situation. They know exactly what they need. So be sure that you are able to reach to personal disability that their help groups, their organization that is representing them, community leaders that is having a good connection with them in order and try to diverse also your richness to them, woman, different age, different gender, different categories of the community or different race. All that to ensure that you grasp their need and risk and most of the time you can get a very, very insightful advice how to include them from them directly. This is second and third and most importantly, when we design our protection services we should either it's current services or service or support or response that we will design, we should ask ourselves if we design it in the way that is able to everyone to access or not the concept of universal design, can they access it or not? Even if we cannot answer this question from technical review just asking the people themselves, you will understand the requests or how to happen. Also, analyzing depending on the result of the last year HRB monitoring framework to see how many of desegregated been person in the people population in need because in Afghanistan and most of the country have desegregated most of their targeted group by disability. So recheck again, if we have achieved what we promised in HRB based on our monitoring framework and is trying to have a community or at interagency and intersectoral discussion about how we can improve this number is also a very important point. So it's a very fast, I know there are a lot of very detailed inside but of course the guidelines and different document could answer some of it and of course we can have a different discussion. Just to very quickly to announce that we will have in 21 of July this month, training about including disability inclusion in HRB, it will be announced through OTSHA because it's joint between advisory group, UNICEF and OTSHA, OTSHA will announce the date and the registration in next week in the beginning of next week. Thank you. Thanks very much. Before going to, coming back to Claudia question and then Maria, I think you were also echoing that just if anyone else from the other colleagues wanted to compliment or on this part about disability. No, okay, good. So Claudia and Maria, yeah, we'll go back to this on the second part of the webinar on the HNO guidance, but just as an advance, indeed that has been one of the key points, particularly since the start of COVID that Global Closer had been bringing up to the attention in the discussion about the JAF, which is expected to be the guidance framework for the HNOs and since the beginning there was already that the framework was highly reliable on household level data, which will be even more difficult to collect this year, but also that it shouldn't be the only source. So I think that measure has been, let's say, as agreed by all the actors and in the guidance and in the structure of the JAF, both household level and area-based level data now have equal importance and we know that probably there will be a need that most of the indicators that will fit into the analysis will be at area-based level, key informants or secondary data sources. So that's included on my stream and there is also two methods that are being proposed in the guidance to do the analysis one if most of your data comes from a large household level assessment, but second, which we know will be the most realistic one to combine multiple sources, multiple units of analysis to conduct the analysis. So we'll touch upon that in the second part of the presentation and please do raise any further questions during then. Ilona, I see also you have your hand raised, go ahead please. Thank you. So it's a partial comment or question and maybe it applies more to the second part, but due to the fact that it was mentioned in all of the opening remarks. It's to highlight, thank you so much for this. This has been very helpful so far and I'm sure the second part will also be helpful to highlight some lessons learned a little bit from last year's South Sudan. I think one of the key issues that we definitely faced was about PIN and of course in the future we look forward to the further discussions that will take place on that. And then second about, I mean like centrality of protection. I think that we faced certain challenges and maybe yes, this was more in the HNO side with getting the buy-in of the extent to which protection should be a factor in the analysis part. And I think that we can, first of all, we did a significant amount of advocacy at our level. However, at the same time, I think we can also endeavor to come with even more of a robust analysis this time to make sure that nobody can overlook and disagree with it. However, food insecurity for example, dominated the landscape in certain ways and then this of course had cascading effect downward to country-based pooled funding or determining priority locations and so on. And so just to kind of ask that, when we get to the guidance, the global guidance that would be, I hope new this year, how much is centrality of protection going to figure in that is protection specifically mentioned as having to have a leading role as we in the cluster see it as fundamentally a protection crisis in South Sudan that it continues to be that from the beginning and we faced some issues with getting buy-in for that analysis. And so it would be helpful to know what, if any support or backup is coming from the global side on that. Thank you so much. Thanks a lot, Hilal. Yes, indeed we'll cover that on the second part, but indeed I think with the Center for Protection as we will go through you, we also see for this year the recommended approach that have integrated into the Javis to ensure the analysis of protection risk violations is central first to identification and prioritization of affected areas and groups. So we avoid in these situations where areas more affected by displacement conflict, et cetera, are repatriated because of the complicated or the methods to calculate being to combine needs, et cetera, and dependent on where do you have more or less data. So that's the whole, the proposed approach, hoping also that we'll serve to correct some of the issues that we saw as you were mentioned in South Sudan, but I took that also in other countries where, yeah, the prioritization of areas affected by protection risk was not reflected necessarily in the intersectoral analysis and intersectoral response. So hopefully, yeah, we'll cover that in the second part, but feel free to add questions at the end of that. Fanta, yes, please, go ahead, come in. Okay, thank you, Ivan. Just one important question on the presentation, it has been, okay, Fanta from GBVSEF cluster, South Sudan, I'm working with Ilona and also other colleagues. So my question would be on the presentation, one of the limitation or key challenge is lack of data for analysis, especially when we're looking at establishing the PIN and also doing intersectoral analysis. I think that is where most of the time other clusters have been really dominating the landscape in terms of the determination, resource allocation or even other aspects. Now, given our experience of last year as Ilona rightly indicated, what are the way forward in terms of enhancing that data availability last year? We were having that challenge because we were having a lot of discussion in terms of coming up and also with a compromisation to come up with a given number of PIN for protection cluster and also the AORs within the protection cluster. We're having a lot of back and forth discussion but what would be the key chain that we have this year during the HNO HRP process in terms of availability of data on protection as well as other AORs so that it can help us really, really to make a case in terms of the discussions and also evidence informant analysis. That is one question. The other thing is, I think it's also our observation the issue of timing in most occasions would be unsupported to provide certain specific activities during the entire process and the time interval that we are unsupported to do is really short. And when we talk about engagement and also consultation specifically I'm looking at colleagues or probably coordinators at the field level. So we can say that we have engaged them but is it really the way that we are discussing or anticipating in terms of engagement given the short period of time or interval that would be given from one step to another and from one activity to another activity in the entire process. So I was looking at why we really, really understand the importance and significance of engagement but how far the time allotted on those sequential activities would allow is something which we need also to reflect on. Thank you, Eban, over to you. Thank you very much. So yeah, again probably we'll discuss a bit that on Pina more in detail in the second part but you bring up a very important point about one thing is how the guidance will reflect in terms of how to analyze the available data where do we need to contribute both for the joint analysis to contribute to data but you bring up also good point. I mean, how do we improve our availability of data which for protection is always in some context difficult to get or we don't have the system. So obviously this to go hand in hand and with COVID is even more difficult but I think this is something that yeah, we're also aware and trying to work at the global level within the established information analysis working group at the global level with all the GPC SAC members and ideas of responsibilities to also start developing better harmonized frameworks better harmonized tools for the collection analysis of protection data. For this year, I think there will be a bigger focus on secondary data as we were talking on area-based data. So data coming from protection monitoring systems I think will be key and we're happy also to have a dedicated discussions on that with operations that we like some support on strengthening the data collection systems, but also in terms of yeah, there might be a lot of secondary data sources that we can support on this. So yeah, let's also touch base on the second part and see if this answer those questions. And I think on the timeframe as you were mentioning, yeah, indeed, it is always tight-skinned deadlines. What we hope and one of the key messages I think we wanted also to share is we know usually months, go weeks and months into the discussion on HNO and PIN and severity and recalculate and disaggregate. We hope for this year and are advocating that this is simplified as much as possible. And we focus on the joint analysis on the joint discussions with partners with experts and on the planning of the response, how that fits into that. So that is one key messages. The timeline will be even tighter this year unfortunately because obviously HPC usually starts in April, let's say now we're obviously in July and only now the global guidance, global templates will be out. But again, we hope that they simplify approach. But I think this is something that we will consider also when developing the sectoral guidance, recommended steps and time frame for consultations and for the different steps. So good point and we'll take it into account. I don't know if, I see another question here. How do you find it for protection so as to come with the PIN? We'll cover that in the second part. So I'll part that question but have it here and we'll refer to that. So I don't know if there are any other key questions related to key challenges or the key messages about the HPC or any other contribution that colleagues from the Opsel or AORs want to add at this point. But other than that, maybe we can do a short break as a schedule, but I'll give one minute or one, yeah. Few seconds just to see if there are any other hands raised or questions in the chat box. Okay, so our colleagues, anyone else wants to continue? No? Okay, so if okay. Yeah, sorry, someone wanted to speak. Yeah, Ivan, it's Michael, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, and thanks everyone for the questions. I think we can later for the second session, but also as we're wrapping up, it sounds like there's a lot of discussion as you raised, Ivan, the equivalency of the secondary data prevalence data, expert judgment, and we can look at a few examples because it sounds like from the questions in South Sudan, we need to support colleagues in emphasizing the validity of those data sources and how they're relevant for protection. So maybe we can spend, and I'm happy to come in second session with some specific examples around food security, for example. Excellent, Michael, thanks a lot, and we'll call upon you on that session and we can discuss. Okay, so let's do a short break. Let's just five minutes just to stretch the legs, have a coffee, and we'll go into the HNO. I'll hope the presentation will be short and we have enough time for discussion, so I see there are quite a lot of questions about the P in the data sources, et cetera, so we'll leave enough time for that. So don't disconnect, just go for a coffee or stretch your legs, or a tea, or let's say we've restarted 1106 Geneva time, so in five minutes. Thanks, colleagues. Hello, everyone. Just confirm it, you can hear me well. Anyone, William or Michael? Loud and clear. Thanks, William. Okay, hope you managed to recharge the energies and let's go ahead with the discussion, which as mentioned, we already understand this is one of the key issues around the whole HPC cycle, the being a severity prioritization discussions, let me share back, I think I'm not sharing, okay. So HNO guidance, the key, what we want to discuss today is key elements and approach for this year, intersectoral and sectoral analysis. As discussed with you, these guidances are still on the making and able to aim to finish soon, so we also want to hear from you today, yeah, whether any other key areas or aspects that you think need to be included or particularly focus, particularly if we haven't thought about it, that we have the time to integrate it. So try to do a quick presentation so we can focus more on the discussion. So, yeah, as you are aware, the last one of the key areas that wanted to be strengthened with the enhanced HPC approach from 2020 and onwards was improve intersectoral analysis of needs and improve intersectoral response and prioritization. Last year, without going too much in the details, but some of you are aware of this, the idea was that the HPC, in particular, the HNO was informed by what has been called the joint intersectoral, joint interagency analysis framework, the JAV, which is an initiative that has been on discussion for more than three years now, I think, since late 2016 onwards, which is a framework that would be being discussed by global clusters, OSHA, donors, and other key agencies and other partners as an overall framework to guide joint analysis, joint assessments in the field. And obviously one of its key outcomes would be also to inform HNOs. Last year, the framework was not finalized. There were discussions ongoing. There were some topics where there was not yet agreement or technical development yet, but some elements of it were introduced in the HNO templates, which was part of the confusions and challenges from last year, because first, not all the guidance was not finalized, so the framework and some of the components were integrated, but without necessarily having the guidance. And then there was also some confusion guidance on the severity and pin analysis that we know. So the idea, since last year, was to continue the work and development of the YAAF to get a consensus among all the actors to develop and clarify the issues that we and other clusters considered that were missing from the framework and included in the develop a specific guidance and then properly included in the HNOs. The idea was also that this was completed much earlier, that the framework would be tested first in some pilot countries, adapted, validated, and then make it into the HNO. This has not happened. The discussion have been delayed and continues because of different, again, conceptual technical issues, but also the delays that COVID-19 had implied. So at the moment, discussions are still ongoing. They have been progressing significantly in recent weeks and the idea is to finish the guidance for, as I was mentioning to you on mid, for mid next week. We, and together with all the other clusters, have called for a simplified approach again for this year, the keyword for today. And that meant also we have been requesting that the elements of the framework that have not been or were there remaining issues were a park and simplified for this year. But also from our perspective, one of the key issues is how to reflect properly the senatorial protection. So the framework concretely is the one that you see now here. It's a framework that has four main pillars, the context, the shocks and the impacts of the crisis and then shocks and the impact translate into what the framework calls humanitarian conditions which in the general template was humanitarian consequences that are the outcomes that is creating on the population and is the main source for the analysis of severity of needs and pink calculation. One of the issues with the framework first is that it was, the discussion was concentrated a lot about this last pillar, the humanitarian conditions one because obviously it was the one where severity and pink calculations were being discussed and a bit on the context shocks impact pillars were being a bit left behind of what concretely should be the analysis in that area, what is the purpose of use within the whole framework of these three pillars. From a protection perspective, one of the issues we saw from the beginning and maybe not locating with the framework is also how the central application is properly integrated in the framework. Initially in last previous discussions, the idea is that the humanitarian conditions pillars where as you have, as you see have specific sub pillars to kind of classify the different type of outcomes on the population. So the outcomes on physical and mental wellbeing, the outcomes in terms of living standards, access to basic needs or services and the outcomes it has on the coping mechanisms or the consequence the crisis has on coping mechanisms with the positive or negative. And all the sectors were supposed to contribute or are supposed to contribute with indicators into these sub pillars to then have a joint analysis of all those indicators and information and see where there are the concurrence of different needs, what is the severity of those needs from a scale from one to five. And then protection obviously was a sector contributing to that, but then it was as any other sector, it was just as disaggregation of the framework, but that didn't ensure the central protection in the analysis. And as I think we already were anticipating the previous discussion, yeah, when it comes to two indicators, the framework for this pillar was also at the beginning prioritizing or giving more weight to household level indicators, which are obviously important, but yes, that meant that some of those indicators or some of the other sectors could have a bigger impact in the analysis of severity and protection concerns will be diluted or de-prioritized. So for this year, what we have been focusing and recommending is first that the centrality of protection is properly integrated and squarely integrated in the framework from the beginning. That means in the context shops and impacts analysis, which is the ones that should define the priority affected areas that the humanitarian response should focus on and what are the specific affected population groups and what are the specific vulnerable groups that are having impacts because of those shocks and drivers and context of the crisis. So this is the baseline, they should be the baseline and setting the scope of the analysis and then the analysis of the intersectionality of needs and the severity of those needs will happen. So this is what we have been basically proposing this year, concretely that there is now a concrete step and guidance that we have been contributing to the job on how the context shops and past analysis will be used to identify the priority affected areas, the priority affected groups of the humanitarian analysis and then humanitarian response, which is was very included in the channel template last year is that section, there was an initial three sections called context shops impact and then all of that should produce the scope of analysis. But there was no guidance or yeah, it was only mostly used to put some narrative content but it didn't have a cross-cutting impact or use in the whole framework. So what we're suggesting concretely this year is that that should be a specific analysis that should place centralized protection as a core element together with other key cross-cutting issues. So the guidance concretely and we'll go a bit more in detail, specifies how to analyze multiple information at different levels and different sources of data, fully or concretely informed by protection risk, protection violations to define that scope of the analysis. Then the protection indicators as well as over sectoral indicators will fit into the different intersectoral sub pillars of humanitarian consequences. Last year as you all remember, because central area protection was not properly integrated in the framework to ensure at least some visibility for protection in the HNO templates, there was included that for sub pillar that was never part of the, let's say the discussions of the YAAF but it was only in the HNO for protection. So it was leaving a standard physical between protection and actually copying mechanism was called resilience in the HNO template. And the idea was that the protection, that protection pillar was the responsibility of the protection cluster and AORs to jointly produce the analysis of the severity and pin that should be equal to the one for the sectoral pin. But also in consultation with other clusters to make sure that we have visibility. But at the same time, the guidance also was asking to contribute the same indicators and divided into the other two pillars. Why? Because the confusing guidance was that the living standards and particularly the physical mental wellbeing sub pillars will have priority over the calculations of intersectoral pin and intersectoral severity. So yes, if protection was not contributing to this, where we were risking being de-prioritized. So what that resulted was is basically that each operation had to interpret this confusing or mixed guidance from a particularly one that Ocha released last year in different manners. And we saw that the HNOs had three or four different approaches. Some use the four pillars, others use only three, others use only two physical mental wellbeing living standards. But it also meant that for the HRP, it was confusing while we had four pins for different pins or three or two in some cases, how then will targets be associated, funding, et cetera. So it created a lot of confusion. So for this year, the recommendation that has been agreed is that we will only have one intersectoral pin. So the sub pillars will be only for classifying information and organizing the analysis, but the main outcome of the framework will be one intersectoral pin. But the first step, as mentioned, will be also the first identification across all the sectors, largely informed by protection, the central protection of affected areas and affected groups. And the other two considerations and the sector analysis is also considering on the guidance and the discussions that we and other cluster have been bringing forward is first. There was also a concern, as I mentioned before, that the analysis of the severity of needs of internal conditions was mostly prioritizing or at least that was understood as a message. Household level indicators needs as base indicators and not giving enough or the same priority to area-based indicators to risk or proxy indicators that for protection are quite important. And for this year, not only, I mean, for any year, combining multiple sources of data is always appropriate, but for this year, the difficulties of having household level data call for a simplified approach. So for this year, the guidance has two scenarios, but we know and we are pushing that there is more focus on what is called a scenario B, which is a scenario where we have mostly data from different sources at different level of analysis, both household, but also mainly area-based data, such as the one that we collected through key informant interviews, the one that is collected through secondary sources, monitoring systems, information systems, et cetera, or official sources. And the last part is that the sectoral intercept analysis is now integrating better, although it needs more development, the analysis of risks in the whole framework. So concretely, the first step as mentioned for the joint intercept analysis will be set in the scope of the analysis. This will mean consolidating information related to the context, the shocks, and impacts, again, with a strong focus on protection, risks, and violations, so the active role of the clusters and AORs will be key in this process to establish the scope of the analysis, the affected areas and affected vulnerable groups of the humanitarian crisis. As mentioned, this is what was so very including the channel templates, although it was not systematically used, here a couple of examples is identifying what are the population groups and what are the areas that should be priority. And then this should have a concrete link to the humanitarian conditions analysis. Among the benefits, I mean, I think the idea is to ensure the central network protection and cross-continent issues inform the intercept analysis in a more central manner that there is a sequential linkage between the first analysis of context, shocks, and impacts and then the analysis of humanitarian conditions and not only go straight into the analysis of needs, without any context analysis also informing that, that this is the baseline that all clusters or partners and agencies agreed for the scope of the analysis and also baseline figure of affected areas and groups that will then be the reference to calculating PIN. And yeah, other key, I think, advantages or value added will be to ensure there is joint analysis interpretation from the beginning of the process. I think that was other of the key limitations we saw from the JAF. It seems to be more about a mathematical or technical process of just give me indicators. There will be some formulas to produce an intersectoral severity, an intersectoral PIN. And there was a lack of the joint analysis interpretation that should happen in these type of processes where all the clusters are reviewed, the information contextualized and adjust what the information is telling you. And also helps to be the baseline with humanitarian development or triple nexus analysis because this analysis can also identify what are concretely the areas, groups most affected by the humanitarian crisis, mostly should be prioritized for humanitarian assistance, what might be also other groups, other areas where the linkage with development actors will be more important. But to avoid trying to dump all the needs, all the issues in HRP and, yeah, deprivatorizing some concretely humanitarian and protection responses in the process. So how concretely, and I'll try to move faster now, some four concrete steps to do this intersectoral analysis of context shocks impacts, identify context specific indicators that will be available for the same geographical units of analysis that is decided. This will include indicators related to the context, but particularly to the exposure of the population to shocks and risks. So here is where we will be able to contribute with indicators about conflict, violence, human violations, but also other shock type of indicators such as natural hazards or disease outbreaks. Indicators also related to the impact of the crisis in the affected population, displacement, mobility, impact on the development of services or systems and impact also related to the lack or gaps in access to humanitarian access to certain areas or groups. And it will also focus on key vulnerability criteria that have differentiated impacts on the population as we were discussing. These indicators can be context analyzed based on a contextual base, meaning that the clusters and the JAF team will have to analyze how to classify the different indicators, some might be binary lack of access to humanitarian access, some could be based on threshold or on ranges. So this will depend on context on a context by context base, which is also something that we hope simplifies the consideration of protection indicators that in the JAF we have been having this issue and I think you had it also at the field level where you were having these replacements. This indicator doesn't fit in the humanitarian condition because you cannot have a universal threshold or it's not an indicator measuring needs. So this is also hope to make sure that these indicators are used for the whole intersection analysis. And then a process of joint interpretation analysis of the results. So this will not be just a mathematical formula of producing this as the combination indicator, this as the area affected, but actually this is where the joint analysis among all the cluster sectors experts will be key. And the final step will be once to identify those affected areas, priority affected areas by the crisis to profile what are the most affected groups both referring to the categories of the humanitarian profile guidance, but also ensuring that key vulnerable groups that might be buried context by context are particularly identified. For the severity analysis and pin calculations at the intersectional level. So the idea is, as I was mentioning, there will be only one analysis of an intersectional pin. The sectors will contribute with indicators to the different pillars. There has been a work on revising the list of indicators based on the ones you use in the HNOs that are most available and that are recommended as core indicators, but also some others that sometimes can help us proxy. And as I was mentioning, I think this was responding also to other two questions in the previous section. Both household and area-based indicators are considered equally to inform this. So it's not only that this indicator needs to come from household level assessment. Also key inform on secondary data sources that produce indicators related to the needs of the population will be integrated in this analysis. So from our side, some key recommendations on this, focus should not only be on this complex or sometimes technical discussions about indicators being, et cetera, but also on the narrative. It's important that this interactive decision is included and I think that was a very well-covered in last year HNOs and it should also be written for this year in the whole intersectional chapters of the narrative, in the context of crisis impacts and in the intersectional pillars as well. And finally, when it comes to the sectoral analysis, we are not expecting or not introducing significant changes this year. It's just harmonizing and building upon what you use and what's recommended for last year. So the sectoral analysis will also start with identifying the information available, the different indicators, which will be ideally the same that were contributed for the intersectional analysis, both for context and humanitarian conditions or others that didn't make it or were not accepted for one reason or another in that analysis but are important for the protection sectoral analysis. As mentioned, there has been a revised list of indicators and thresholds, some country adaptations and we are ready to support you during the process to adapt those. Then we will do as last year a joint analysis across the clusters and AORs of the joint overarching, what we were calling last year, overarching severity scale and also then specific ones. And then that severity scale will be the baseline and also based on the figures of affected groups to derive the PIN calculations, both for the main affected population groups but also the vulnerable groups. So the idea is to link these two together as many of the operations did last year but this year we want to have a more harmonized approach so have some recommended benchmarks or suggest percentages of depending on the severity score what will be the percentage of population in need to apply based on affected groups and vulnerable groups indicators. So to finalize, the key recommendations for this year is to ensure use of multiple sources, secondary data review will be key if there is a possibility and there is availability of household level data, obviously that's quite important but any other sources also of area-based data will be key. A strong focus and strong leadership and engagement to the process of identifying the priority areas and population groups. Also a recommendation again, we hope that this year the simplified approach but we're also ready to support with advocacy and with the consultation communication with you that not get the stock and not lose so much time because we had to go year after year in discussion at the intersectional level about the mathematical pin calculations but focus also on the joint analysis on what it goes in the narrative sections and also the focus on highlighting the groups with the specific needs, specific to each context. So I'll finish here just with a quick presentation and open again for the discussion. I think we already have some of the questions from the previous session that we can bring or start to the analysis but maybe I'll be open for questions from everyone. We'll give the word to the other colleagues from OBSEL or AORs to complement. Michael, I know you wanted to add a few specific points so maybe over to you and then to any other colleagues that want to complement. Thanks, Yvonne. Can you hear me okay? Yes, very well. Great. And colleagues, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. My name is Michael Copeland. I'm with the Child Protection at OAR Globally. So maybe just a few specific thoughts and thanks to Yvonne and Michael. Thanks to Yvonne for working so well with all of the AORs and fighting for the protection specificity. So colleagues, Yvonne mentioned that equivalency of using different data sources. And I think it's important at country level to articulate and advocate why that's important and not just because those other data sources are valid but also as you know trying to collect at household level around issues of abuse, exploitation and rights violations is both unsafe, unethical and often not effective in terms of accuracy. So I think we, as Yvonne's saying, we're also ready to support you with that argument. You shouldn't have to be arguing the case because that kind of mixed method approaches is accepted now but I think it's important to stress the reasons we wouldn't be promoting that. I know for child protection, but also for GBVN and others that would hold. So a few thoughts on and some examples on what we could use and picking up on the comments around the risk that we're going to end up with a narrative that's dominated, for example, by food insecurity and that we may go backwards in terms of not seeing protection as central but seeing it as secondary or tertiary. And I want to highlight information that is collected by food security colleagues around coping mechanisms. We see in some countries that protection uses this data for analysis and in others we don't. So this requires us to become familiar with what food security colleagues are collecting and also to become comfortable in using that as a direct source for coping mechanisms. And the coping mechanisms would include things like child labor, forced and early marriage, for example, but these are very useful proxies for other risks. So we're able to support you with that and one of the questions Yvonne has posed is do we have good practices and we've got a colleague on the line, Boris Ariston who's working with the Child Protection AOR and Global Protection Cluster and we do have good examples from Sahel and more coming about how we can cooperate with food security to use that data which helps us given their footprint to make use of their data but also to ensure that the narrative isn't only on food security because we know those coping, what are called negative coping mechanisms don't come later, they actually start early. And we've also got information from previous years on those coping mechanisms. So again, making use of that data. The second example I wanted to give is that we know from the World Health Organization based on research the levels of mental health conditions that populations will suffer when they're exposed to violence and conflict that's researched, it's known. So again, where we don't have administrative data from Ministry of Health and others we're not going to be able to and nor should we be going household by household to try and assess levels of depression, suicidality and so on. So we should be using this data to estimate that's why the research has been done. The numbers are incredibly high. So as William said, we've got a collective responsibility to look at cross cutting issues such as mental health. The data tells us up to 20% of any given population will suffer mental health conditions. So these are mental health conditions that require a response. The last and again, we'll talk at the end about how you can get support and where to go but we're able to support you with access to the information and to support you on how to use it. The last point I wanted to make and it's linked with the discussion on disability and issues that cut across many sectors and it's about the intersectoral planning and the costing as well as working on the PIN calculation and that's the role within protection including the AORs around case management. So there may be a situation where parts of protection are taking the lead on case management but being clear around the calculation but also the costing and so on where different sectors play a role in that planning. So again, the need to work with other sectors. I'm going to stop there and go back to you Ivan. Thanks so much everyone. Thank you very much Michael for those very useful examples. So yeah, maybe just to hear from you now colleagues. Maybe I call upon also Ilona, Fanta, Claudio and Marie you were raising some points related to the challenges from last year for prioritization, for PIN calculations plus the additional ones because of the focus on key for many interviews and how they didn't or they didn't fit the framework. So yeah, wanted to hear from you whether you think yeah, you consider the proposed approach the recommendations are in line with what you will expect for this year or something more that you will need you want us to bring attention here at global level discussion. So yeah, I don't know if who wants to take the floor first. Hi Ivan, please go ahead. I don't know who's speaking. Oh maybe it's me with the echo, sorry. Go ahead Claudio, I think there's a lot of you. Okay, so I think that there are still a couple of questions that needs to be answered in terms of, of course as you said, I mean it's much better than last year because also the beginning of the first time that we had this enhanced HPC and so on and so forth. So I think that also in country in Iraq, we are coming to a better understanding of this new stream life process. The guidance on the calculation of the PIN through KI which is gonna be also a mix of households level data because in camps in Iraq we will still go ahead with the household level data collection. It's something that we can explore together with the assessment working group and Ultra and your support along the line as we move ahead. One question which I have is still in terms of this clarification of having just, not having protection as humanitarian consequence anymore, whether we the protection intervention and the protection activities will automatically still fall under the two that we had last year, whether it is physical and mental wellbeing or end living standards. Because as you might recall from last year conversation, especially for Iraq operation and protection cluster, it was a bit of a back and forth with Ultra, whether we would put some of the our key activities in particular legal assistance and wellbeing, whether we would put it on the living standard, whether putting under the protection, humanitarian consequence would indeed be excluded automatically. So as long as there is clarity and that comes from the global level of the indicators where they fall, where the activities fall, I think it should be straightforward this year. Remembering as I said that last year for us was particularly challenging to the point that we had to go to ask William and yourself to jump in in discussion with Ultra globally. So this year hopefully it will be smoother, but still some more guidance in terms of what is expecting, what are the discussion happening in Geneva or New York or wherever would certainly be beneficial in the country operation. When we also know that there might be different pushes or different elements coming into play in different operation. In Iraq, it's been an example in the past. Nothing more from my side. I think it's maybe other colleagues have some other elements to add, but for us it's the issue of having clarity on the way forward, especially for the activities and humanitarian consequences over. Thanks a lot, Claudia. Just to confirm and have it clear, you're talking mostly also about how then the humanitarian consequence was also translated into the HRP and then have a P NAL software consequence to attach your targets and your activities. It was mostly on that, right? Yeah, it was mostly on that because at the beginning we delayed the whole process in Iraq for I think over a month beyond the expected submission or definition of the way forward because of this and clarity. So then if basically for us, it was bringing up the conversation again where the protection should have then in the HRP a separate pin as a separate humanitarian consequence, which eventually it was decided at the HCT to have it just as a centrality of protection political or like obvious statement linked to the HCT protection strategy. So this year for us, it's clearer, but still I think that this type of conversation and this level of clarity needs to be conveyed to all the country operation because as I said, there might be colleagues who have difficulties in having that clarified from the beginning over. Thanks, Claudia. Yeah, I'll come back to that, but I also wanted to give the chance to the other colleagues that already raised hands. So I have Ilona and then Erie and then Boris, you'll see his hands. So Ilona, go ahead. Ask the same question that I or issue that I posed previously, but to give a follow up to it in response or in connection with Michael's comments that of course definitely these areas like VAM mental health related data are absolutely great opportunities for protection further analysis. I think that what ended up happening if I'm not wrong, but anyone can correct me last time was more that the other sectors kind of more holding the pen on this data were incorporating it. However, then the perception was there that this is enough protection analysis and this then leads to the challenges that had been highlighted there that I previously highlighted as well. So that definitely, I do think it can be like let's from our side, we will definitely pay more attention I think on trying to put our own analysis on similar data or that data at the same time. Yes, I think if the issue goes back to certain buy-in on the extent of involvement of protection in the analysis and how much of a leading role that protection has. And then if I can pose another question about population groups, is it possible to clarify whether there'll be population group disaggregation not or if there's anything that can be said on that? Thank you so much. Thanks a lot, Ilona. Erie, please go ahead. Yes, thank you. I'm Erie, GBB Subsector Coordinator from Myanmar. So mine is more like a request for support rather than question. So in the context of Myanmar, one of the biggest challenges that we are facing is like a lack of available data. And yeah, I think overall doing any assessment to a survey in Myanmar is very sensitive and it's very difficult. So we don't also have like a multi-cluster needs assessment. But then like here in today's discussion, probably what we can do is also like a secondary data analysis and the protection cluster has a protection monitoring and also like from GBB, we have some data from GBB safety audit. So it was really good to know that yeah, there's something also we can do even within constrained environment. So I think, yeah, we would also like to request from global team to support us in the coming days in terms of looking at available data and then how we can utilize for this agenda process. Thank you. Thank you very much. Boris, go ahead. Mr. Cardona, good morning. Do you hear me well? La Danque. Fantastic. So hi everyone. Good morning, afternoon or evening. This is Boris Aristim from the Child Protection OR which is at the moment somewhere between Venice and Verona. So one greetings to all the Italian colleagues that are attending the call. My comment is more, is more a general, I have a specific feedback to one of our colleagues and also one more general comment overall which is from the questions that our colleagues they are sending at the moment, we can already visualize how context to allies is each of our situations, how on every country we face different challenges and we need to tackle them in different ways. And having that into account, this is the main reason why the Global Protection Cluster and the Global AORs, they have been working over one year to have this consolidated approach. And I have been working very closely and often in facing hard moments, particularly in the discussions with Iotsa, with Iban and the rest of the AOR colleagues in order to ensure a couple of things. And the main one is that the Protection Cluster and the Global AORs, they have a solid approach about making their needs, identification and analysis, regardless of the information available. And as Michael was saying, ensuring that we can use of prevalence data and secondary data that can help us to make an interpretation of the protection priorities. That's why we have been working very strongly on the context analysis for the prioritization of the most affected areas and the identification of the most affected groups or giving a kind of feedback to the colleague that was making a specific question about that. Yes, there is a categorization that will be included into the data and we have the options, the technical and the coordination-wise options for ensuring that all the categories that will be properly identified and as protection cluster requires with all the disaggregation that is a must. We have been postponing this discussion and this objective for a long time. The second point is also the strength of the, all the AORs and the protection cluster for making this joint analysis. So we have the tools and at the same time, we have the capacity for supporting you and to tailor the different situations and the different approaches that each of the countries that will be facing for the Child Protection AOR, we can say that we have at the moment in this global protection cluster support, operational support cell for the remote support, like seven people counting with the global health desk, the regional health desk, the regional focal points and also three people working on each identification and analysis which will contribute not only to the efforts of the Child Protection AOR but also to the protection cluster. Which one it will be my main recommendation to all the colleagues is that we can position ourselves saying that protections should ensure its centrality in the HNO analysis and count with our support during the overall cycle of the HNO and also to the HRP because one thing, one process is going to be very much connected with the other. So it's a message of motivation from my side and also good spirit but also a bit of sending a message of we can do it, we have the tools and approaches for making it possible and we have the right people in the right place for making it possible, not in particular Ivan for his enormous support. So very much ready to start the process and please don't hesitate directly through your focal points or directly to the global level to reach us when the processes of the HNO are starting in your respective countries and how to tackle the differences of between how is the situation in Myanmar or how is the situation in Iraq. Second, I would like just to give a very quick feedback to Mikele that in the chat was mentioning about the situation in OPT. Just to let you know that the Child Protection AOR that's in OPT is contracting in the coming weeks. Boris, we cannot hear you. Is it me only that cannot hear Boris? No, he dropped, I think go ahead and we can link up Michelle, I think it's Michelle, not Mikele, Michelle. We've borrowed some myself afterwards, back to you Ivan. Thanks, thanks, thanks. Yeah, taking notes here to do some close remarks on the different questions I also have Sasha and then Fanta, I think was asking. So go ahead, Sasha and then Fanta. Thank you. Good afternoon, Orwell. My question is more of a clarification that leads to a question. So as you mentioned, Ivan, the purpose of this new guide guidance is to try and harmonize what has been happening last year. And you mentioned that with the framework and the humanitarian conditions or consequences. You mentioned that in some of the operations for the calculation of the intersectoral pin, for example, for South Sudan, we only relied on physical mental wellbeing and living standards, dropping the others. So what is the plan for this year? Are we using all the humanitarian consequences for the calculation? Because based on even the new ones or the changing of the names, protection would be part of all, I would presume. So if you can clarify and give more guidance on that. Thank you. Thanks, Sasha. Go on that Fanta, go ahead and then I'll take. Okay, thank you, Ivan. My question would be looking at the use of secondary data, especially when you are doing on the pin and severity analysis. For instance, looking at our experience of last year, we were using some secondary data, let's say for instance, reach assessment on WASH, where for GBV specifically, we're using the distance covered beyond 30 minutes as one way of indicating on increased risk to GBV. And also we're looking at the IPCs, integrated food security phase classification, IPC 345 and areas where the risk would be high. So those kinds of data are usable because if you look at the information is available for all counties or for all administrative units which would allow us comparability in terms of helping us to decide on the determination of pin or severity analysis. My question is that in some instances, there are good secondary data which are more of qualitative rather than quantitative. So how best can we use or how much flexibility or room is there this year HNO HRT process to use some of those secondary data, knowing the fact that the pin and severity analysis is heavily dependent on numeric value like quantitative data. That is my question. I think my second question was about population group, about the host community, IDP, IDP returnists, refugee returnists and IDP like refugee returnists. I think it would be very important if we get clear guidance which population group which would be covered because I realized that Ilona, my colleague has also asked it. You can give us more clarification on that. Then also again looking at our experience of last year, when we talk about the single intersectoral pin, I recall maybe Sasha can come in there where we were asked to look at our pin because our pin was affecting either an increasing or decreasing the intersectoral pin number. So how much is our like as a PC pin should be open for fluctuation or maybe adjustment while others remains as they are in order to adjust the intersectoral pin? The last question is even looking at William's presentation at the beginning on the first session of the webinar. The maximum that we have obtained as a PC is 37% of our requirement in terms of resource. Again, I think if we go operation by operation, I would not expect much different trend. So the resource requirement would heavily depend on the HRP and then HRP is also dependent on the pin number. So if that is the case, how do we reconcile the huge amount of funding gap that we are looking at globally or at operational level vis-à-vis the pin, the population in need number because which is ultimately affecting the HRP and then the resource requirement. Maybe if you can shed some light on that, I would highly appreciate. Over to you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Fanta. So just before providing some comments on several of the questions, just looking if someone else wants to add a question or comment. Okay. So thanks a lot for the very useful feedback. So let me just, I think, yeah, we have covered also some before, but Claudia, well noted on the need to have a clear guidance on how the changes in the intersectional framework will be translated and aligned and expected to be reflected in HRP and where all the different activities will go. So we'll make sure that that is, there is clear aesthetic guidance on that. But also on your point, and also I think on a bit related to such as point. So the idea again is that indeed all the sectors including protection for the material conditions analysis will contribute with indicators to the difference of pillars. Some sectors are more focused on physical metal will be and other in physical and even the standards for protection, we think there are indicators and information needs relevant for all the three difference of pillars including copying mechanisms. But at the end, the analysis will be only one single pin. So for this year, the idea is that there are no pin, physical metal will be in pin, leaving the standards and that these two in addition will not have a priority in terms of funding resources. The priority should be based on the context in patchbox analysis of most affected areas and on the intersectional severity of needs all combined. That should be where the priority analysis happens. So when it comes to HRP, the targets should be given against each of the strategic objectives that are agreed. And so not necessarily to each of these sub pillar pins which shouldn't no longer exist. And this is precisely to avoid in cases, particularly where we had a protection pin, but we also contributed to pillars that we, and we're not clear where to put our targets, our activities in the HRPs, but we'll make sure to ensure that it's clear on the guidance. I think on, there was question from Fanta I think on Ilona on the clarification of population groups. So well noted indeed the idea is to focus on first of all the humanitarian profile guidance which is the agreed framework and make sure those groups are profile and identify which ones are having particular impacts for the crisis not and have that joint discussion. So that will include the affected, first affected versus not affected within the affected differentiated between displaced population and not displaced within the non-displaced which are unhosting displaced population which are non-hosting but still affected to the different impacts of the crisis. And finally non-displaced, non-affected necessarily. And indeed we think this probably is a good and is a key element. And that's why we are giving more importance that this is a first step of the analysis because we do see some operations and some cases where maybe sometimes groups that are not necessarily affected by the crisis but they do have some needs that might be more related to development issues or to other structural issues than not to the crisis which we are there to response might get higher pin figures of pin might get higher priorities. So this is a key element to ensure that is agreed jointly and based on the analysis of the context and the impact of the crisis but that will be the groups first of all so it will be referring to that guidance so we'll make sure to include that and that that is clear in the guidance but then the specific vulnerable groups including a specific sex, age, disability, disaggregation but also particular groups these might vary country to country other minorities in some countries having a specific focus on pastoralism on minority groups, et cetera will be important. I think there were also some questions about the support I think Boris once mentioned that, Michael and that and I think also Jim and Michael on the closing remarks will touch upon that but indeed we plan to provide a continuous and collective support for the HPC season to all the operations that require either with technical support or also advocacy support as I was mentioning last year that clarifying messages et cetera but I think also in line with Ilona's point about sometimes that other indicators and other information from other sectors is key but because they are the pen holders of owners is not always easy how to either access some information or decide what should be placed. I think part of the also approach with taking this year is a strong collaboration with the other clusters so not only the discussions of the intersectional level et cetera but also with the other clusters to ensure we have common approaches with health cluster in particular for instance now we have the joint operational framework so we are looking forward to strengthen the collaboration with them and that translate to the field in terms of better collaboration also for analysis and information sharing. So hope to cover that. Let me see. So Sasha on your point, I don't know I hope it's clear but also just to reiterate yes protection will contribute to indicators to all the sub pillars but at the end we will only have one intersectional pin and then this will be complemented by each sector on a specific analysis and pin calculations that will remain as before that will not have... There is discussions on to make sure that at the end the intersectional pin is aligned to the different sectoral pins particularly if an area that intersectional analysis identify as low severity or low pin but there are specific pockets of severity for a specific sector or a specific population group that also reflects them into the final intersectional calculations. But that's the idea. So the idea will be also a bit too... To avoid what happened last year it was that the intersectional pin was mostly all the sector pins so the severity and the pin calculation was kind of disconnected. The idea is to link them better this year. And Funtown your specific questions about the indicators, yeah, access to services for sure will be key indicators that are including the reference tables and we do know that another word that last year in many HNOs indicators about acts or lack of access to GBV core services or child protection services or victim assistance services were used in many operations and should continue to be used and they can inform and contribute both to the intersectional needs analysis but also for their own sectoral needs analysis. And indeed also when we talk about our sectoral analysis we not only usually rely on specific sectoral indicators but also on using all the other sectors indicators. So the IPC for instances is a key one for us so that will continue to happen like that. For the intersectional analysis will be probably food security who will be contributed with that specific indicator in any case as the owners or producers of that data. So, yeah, I'm just checking the notes. I think I hope to have covered everything. Just looking here now at some further questions. A high amount of difference to individual context on the approach to big calculations or we avoid to having to use part of the calculation and impact the overall sectoral being. Yes. Okay, so what you're at the same, yeah, as mentioned, the intersectional pin will be one part and then the sector pin will be a calculation that we will use our approach and the indicators that we consider relevant that we hope also to integrate into the sectoral analysis and mainstreaming and as mentioned both at the context and in the entire needs. And Christine suggesting a technical session with IEMOS at the global level. Yes, I think we were also discussing that probably after this introductory webinar and all these good feedback and comments that we can break into the finalization of the guidance probably to have a dedicated section or a webinar with the IEMOS just to go more on the technical details about the indicator set also does well noted and will follow up on that. Let me see if there are any other comments. So, yeah, let me know or please in the chat here again if any other questions were wasn't answered or yeah, I hope we didn't miss anything. I think maybe only Fanta. I think your last question about the reconciliation of pin for funding and yeah, how that might be also translated to the over-represented or under-representing of protection as. And indeed, I mean, when we look at the pin, the pin of protection total last year was around almost 100 million persons compared to the total intersectoral pin on the same countries of 165 is under run. So, yeah, more than, yeah, or 150, so more than 60% or 70% of the total pin and that compares only to 7% of the funding. So, obviously that could be have to do a lot with different in context targets, but also costing. So I think that's where we want to also develop a specific guidance over July and August, ideally with also consultation with you on how we have a more harmonized and systematic way to divide targets and to ensure that protection requirements are more associated to the needs and response of the population. And so, yeah, I think with that, I think Ilona sectoral pin was also highly relevant to funding, which also had the need to ensure a ton of intersectoral calculation. Yes, totally, completely. And that's something where that will remain on the responsibility of each sector and cluster to develop. Okay, so I'm conscious of the time. Thanks for being with us a few minutes after the expected deadline. Hope we covered all your questions, but also we do note also just to make sure that the different points are both considered in the guidance, but also in the field support that we'll provide. So maybe without extending too much the session, we'd like to give the floor to the global coordinators again to closing remarks. So, William, I'll give the word to you, yeah, maybe just to then also give the floor and understand to Jim and Michael to close the session. Over to you guys. Thank you. Oh, sorry. No, Jim. Go ahead. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so I'm Jim Robinson. It's good to meet you. I'm with the Housing Land and Property AOR. I just wanted to offer just a quick recap. William or Jim directly, maybe? Jim, I hope you're still with us. Yeah, can you not hear me? Is my mic, can you not hear me? No, loud and clear, go ahead. Sorry. I was just going to offer some, you know, zoom out again after that really rich discussion just to recap some of the key messages before Michael closes with some further remarks. One is just to say that we should be focusing on ensuring the centrality of protection and inclusivity as William was talking about in the beginning. How do we do this? Well, by ensuring the protection risks inform the overall collective analysis. So not only through the protection indicators, but also through the expert inputs and the secondary data and the area data as well, and the key common narrative sections like the context, shocks and impact analysis. We need to build on that progress from 2020 where we had between 70 and 75 with specific AOR sections within the protection chapter in the HNO. It'd be great if we could hit that 100% and we need to support one another to do that. And it's important that we are as context specific as possible. We've seen a lot of hard work with Ultra to enable the AORs to have more space and to have these dedicated pages so we can really sort of look at how we can have a strong narrative that's specific to each AOR. And as well as the specific AOR sections, of course, we need to focus on enhancing visibility to other key protection areas. For example, protection of civilians, anti-trafficking, mental health and psychosocial support and protection of older persons. And we heard particularly about the inclusion and of importance of including persons with disability in the HNO and HRPs. And Ahmed shared some key points on how to do this in practice. So include disability in the needs overview and risk analysis and consult persons with disabilities. They are experts in their situations, either they're organisations, they're health groups, community leaders, get in touch, find out what's going on. And when we design a protection response asking, is it able to be accessed by everyone? Is it universally accessible? And just wanted to highlight that on the 21st of July, there's, he mentioned they'll be training on including disability in the HNO and HRP that's going to be announced through Ultra. So look out for that. Jennifer also just mentioned that we need to, you know, have that comprehensive flow across protection. So sort of look at how we manage information but get that consistency across the HRs. It's a real collaborative and coordinated response. The second key message is just around keep expanding the integrated and multi-sectoral responses and programming. So early discussions with other clusters to see, ensure that protection risks inform the sexual analysis and response priorities, promote integrated and joint programming with protection actors. And there's guidance available for that as well. And that includes advocating with donors together with other sectors to prioritise joint and integrated programming in the funding strategy. And the third key message I just want to re-emphasise would be just that focus on comprehensive response planning, targets and requirements. And that there's going to be further guidance to be developed and disseminated. So look out for an additional HRP webinar and also some dedicated regional events during the Global Protection Forum in early September. So that's just by way of summarising the key messages. And Michael, over to you. Thanks, Jim. And yeah, big thanks presented today for us. It's really, really helpful. And most importantly, thanks everyone for the questions and the inputs. I want to highlight that there are good examples out there and they're from the different countries that participants are joining the call from today. So I want to encourage you to share those. What we've seen is that those good examples are gold for colleagues in other contexts to learn and exchange. So whether you're with an AR or with the overall protection cluster, do share those. We'll make them available across the protection cluster. I also want to encourage you to reach out for support. Again, reach out to your AR, reach out to the protection cluster and we'll also be exchanging that information. There's reference to information management officers and I wanted to emphasise the importance of working together, working with other sectors as Jim has said, but for the coordinators and IMOs to really be looking together at how they approach the work around needs identification, for example. Finally, reaching out to those other sectors is important in terms of also education and centrality protection. So starting the conversation about how information from other sectors is very relevant for protection, I think is actually a great start to a discussion on centrality of protection. With that, a big thank you to everyone. Thanks so much for all of the hard work that you're doing, always in difficult times, but especially at the moment. And with that, thank you very much to be in touch over. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Michael and Jim. Yeah, thanks a lot everyone for your participation. We'll be, as mentioned, sharing the presentations and the further material and we'll be in touch. And yeah, glad to be happy and ready to start the HPC and CSUN. Thanks a lot and bye everyone. Thanks, Ivan. Bye.