 and cash and voucher assistance for protection. I'm just going to give you a few housekeeping notes before I hand over to our moderator. So please, if you already are not on mute, please do keep yourselves on mute unless you're going to be asking a question or speaking later on. We'd also ask that those of you who are not presenters, please kindly turn off your videos so that we can see the speakers. If you want to make any comments or questions throughout, please feel free to use the chat box. Otherwise, you can also, during the Q&A period, raise your hand by hovering over your name and then raising your hand and then we can call upon you. And for your information, we are going to be recording the event in the hopes that we can share it with you later on. With those notes, it is my pleasure to introduce the moderator of our event today, Mr. Andreas Papa Constantino, sorry, who is the Director of Neighborhood and Middle East in the European Commission with DGECO. Andreas, I'm going to pass the floor to you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Manisha. Colleagues, welcome to the launch of the stock taking paper on cash for protection. This event today is co-hosted by the European Union, DGECO, UNHCR, the IRC International Rescue Committee and the Women's Refugee Commission, WRC. This stock taking paper is a very welcome first product from the new task team on cash for protection of the Global Protection Cluster. We are glad to support its launch today and co-host this event. The European Union is strongly committed to enhancing the use of cash to deliver humanitarian assistance, whenever safe, of course, feasible and appropriate. This is in line with our grand bargain commitments and also the EU is committed to support protection, one of the most important humanitarian sectors for which DGECO is a donor. The stock taking paper is a very welcome first contribution to our collective learning on cash for protection. The paper, amongst other things, highlights the role that cash can play to reaffirm the dignity of individuals and communities, something that is central to humanitarian aid. And as we all know, the protection sector is frequently not a prioritized sector at the onset of humanitarian crisis. We hope that this new area of work on cash and protection is an opportunity to include protection in our efforts to enhance the efficiency of humanitarian aid. I look forward to hear today about next steps and particularly how they pertain to partners in the field. During the first part of this launch event, we will be hearing from distinguished representatives from UNHCR, WRC, UNFPA and IRC, who will highlight the importance of using cash for protection and will elaborate on the conclusions of the stock taking paper. After this, the participants will have an opportunity to ask questions or provide comments live or in the chat. Please note that Manisha from WRC will lead this part, the second part of the event. And now let's get started. UNHCR's Jillian Triggs, unfortunately had to apologize and is replaced today by Grania O'Hara, director, division of international protection at UNHCR, who will be the keynote speaker. Please note that Grania will need to leave immediately after her speech, but her colleagues, Bernadette and William, will be available to answer any questions during the Q&A session. Grania, it's very good to have you here today with us. You are representing the lead agency of the Global Protection Cluster. How will this stock taking paper contribute to improved protection outcomes? And how might the evidence that transpires from the paper help to increase the use of cash and vouchers in protection programming? Thank you and welcome to all concerned. I hope you can both see and hear me clearly. We're not in a particularly well-lit room here. So when we tested the camera, and it looked very much like a silhouette, but we're seeing and hearing everybody else clearly. So I shall press on. And let me echo what's been said by our moderator chair today. Apologies on Jillian's part. And she is, as we speak, currently on mission in Greece. And with all the difficulties about travel, it was difficult to predict if that mission would come through on time. So she was glad it did, but she was regretful of the lost opportunity to be with you here today. But stepping in in her stead, on an issue on which I have a deep personal interest, because this is an issue to which I've been exposed, not only from my current position as director of the Division of International Protection, and in my dual-hatted capacity, also as the lead agency within the cluster, but from my own personal experiences in the field as a protection cluster lead. So when I reviewed the paper, I was very impressed by its content and its quality. And I would, of course, like to appreciate appreciation for the very strong interagency collaboration that led to the production of this paper. I think it's meaningful in its content and its quality because it reflects, in a very honest way, on a lot of the challenges that we have faced in expanding and improving the use of cash as a modality for the delivery of protection outcomes. I think in confidence, knowing that we are a group here that are all committed to the same high standards of use of cash for quality protection outcomes. I think I can venture to say that the whole cash arena has not always necessarily been the model example of best cooperation on an interagency basis. We've certainly, over the course of recent years, had some battles about the best way to utilize cash. And I think one of the things that the report shows us is how far we have come in being more collegial and in building consensus around the use of cash. I think the other important thing to note is that many of us identify as protection actors, but the important thing to appreciate and acknowledge about cash is it's not exclusively being used in the protection arena. It's being used across all sectors and all of us need to have this common understanding about the use of cash for quality protection outcomes. In saying that, I think we've all acknowledged, and this has been one of the positive steps forward, we have all acknowledged the element of the use of cash that provides a greater degree of independence and dignity to the persons that we seek to serve. But I think there's a balance to be struck also in that equation because it's not a simple equation of saying, well, we give people cash, therefore they become independent, that's the best way of doing things. Something which has come out very strongly in the report on that point is looking at the whole interaction between the use of cash in conjunction with other forms of delivery of assistance and how a clear and transparent and honest discussion about that is what is going to contribute most to the quality protection outcomes. The acceptance of the fact that we're not speaking about an either or scenario. There are some services for which cash is clearly a more effective modality of delivery. I mean, some which spring to mind, to my mind from personal experience are around things like direct payment of rent and giving people that sort of independence. But we equally have many operational experiences where we know that cash alone is not sufficient. We need to maintain and be vigilant about the combination of cash assistance in conjunction with quality services in response to sexual and gender-based violence, psychosocial support and a range of other services which clearly illustrate to us that it's not an either or situation. In terms of how we look at the beneficiaries of cash assistance, that's also an area and I think it's reflected very clearly in this report and the report has looked quite closely specifically around issues of gender and child protection. I think it highlights also how important it is for us to remain vigilant on how we go about our selection of beneficiaries when it comes to the delivery of cash or voucher assistance and to acknowledge that it's not simply an easy exercise of identifying the traditional vulnerability criteria and then saying, okay, everybody who is vulnerable should in some way be eligible for cash assistance and in targeting vulnerabilities, we are responsibly discharging all of our protection responsibilities because some of the examples that we have had from the field with quite sophisticated methodologies of cash delivery and the ones with which I am most familiar are those in the Middle East in particular, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and to a lesser extent, Syria, they have also given us a lot of evidence and a lot of food for thought that we can't simply just rely on traditional vulnerability criteria. It is a much more sophisticated exercise than that to identify in a precise way who are the most needy beneficiaries and who are those that can make best use of cash assistance. And again, I look back to the earlier point I made in conjunction with other services because cash assistance alone, particularly for those with specific vulnerabilities will clearly not be enough. We cannot just give people cash and assume that with cash they fend for themselves. The collaborative approach that's been reflected in the production of this report has given UNHCR a lot of encouragement and internal impetus to do better on our own agency performance on the use of cash. As we take the lead in at least 23 of the active countries where of 24, we take the lead on 23 out of 24 fully activated cluster situations and in an additional eight other protection working groups and functioning in IDP interagency mechanisms, we take away from this report and we reflected on it internally the importance of us remaining true to our commitment to step up on delivery of the use of cash assistance in compliance with commitments that have been made through the Grand Bargain and other interagency agreements. That I speak with my UNHCR hat on for that. Equally, we take away from the report renewed impetus and a better level of understanding of our responsibility as the cluster lead to continue this collaboration with all of the area of responsibility lead. So I'm referring here to child protection to GBV, to housing land and property and mine action and their respective individual leads. I think the work on this report has given us a lot of positive impetus to continue forward in all operational settings. I look forward as I hope that all of the collaborators on this stock taking paper will to the idea that we will maintain annual updates that will take us forward step by step in deepening our understanding, our commitment and our effectiveness in using cash as a modality of delivery for protection outcomes. I think I shall leave my comments at that. They have been more a series of comments and observations than a keynote speech per se, but these were the things that struck me most combining my own field experience and a close reading of this report. And I close once again in thanking all of those who have participated and not only in the report but also in pulling together today's event. And I do have to leave because of conflicting and far less, I assure you, interesting obligation, but I leave you in the good hands of William, the global protection cluster lead, global protection cluster coordinator and my deputy Bernadette Cassell and there are many other UNHCR colleagues on the call. So thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much, Grania, for that. And now we move to our three panelists. We will start with Tenzin Manel, who is the co-chair for the task team on cash for protection, as well as the senior technical advisor for cash and livelihoods at the Women's Refugee Commission. Tenzin, what are some of the key obstacles that practitioners face while scaling cash for protection outcomes within the protection sector? What are the next steps for this document and how could we help to put it into practice? Thank you so much, Andreas and thanks to all participants and co-panelists as well. I hope you can hear me and see me okay? It's a great question. Great, it's a great question. I'll dive into this in more detail in a moment, but top line obstacles for practitioners include fundamental knowledge and skills. So while protection actors and cash actors or experts in their respective fields, a basic understanding of the other cohorts methods is central to being able to apply and scale cash for protection. And another challenge is funding, both for the startup costs, which are associated with adopting this approach and for programs for affected populations. The stock taking paper focuses on cash and voucher assistance or CVA for protection outcomes within the protection sector specifically. And as has been mentioned, it's been the collaborative effort among task team members comprising 40 different individuals across 30 different agencies led by WRC and IRC. And foundational to the stock taking paper were evidence maps, which were led jointly and individually by task team members. The paper addresses cash and voucher assistance for child protection, as well as gender-based violence outcomes. And future additions of this paper will reflect evidence on cash and voucher assistance for housing, land and property outcomes as well as mine action outcomes. So it is a living document which will be updated annually based on stock taking across all areas of responsibility on an ongoing basis. And then we will develop a position paper. The task team is currently fundraising to be able to provide regional as well as field level capacity-building opportunities and also to partner with colleagues on the ground to build more evidence to address the gaps that all outline momentarily. So what are the key lessons identified in critical gaps from this initiative? The study confirms that cash and voucher assistance has the potential to contribute to positive protection outcomes. And evidence suggests, as has been discussed, that cash and voucher assistance alone is unlikely to achieve meaningful long-term protection outcomes unless cash and voucher assistance is integrated into holistic and cross-sectoral programming that includes case management as well as referral systems. For example, a cash transfer delivered through case management might be able to help address aspects of gender-based violence response when core GBV response services such as health or legal services are not accessible to a survivor due to financial barriers. In this case, cash can be considered instrumental to a survivor's recovery. And while protection cash or cash for protection and the use of cash and voucher assistance to achieve protection outcomes are terms which are increasingly being used by humanitarian practitioners, there's still a lack of common understanding around these concepts and also an absence of a common policy and operational framework. So efforts are needed to understand which forms of cash and voucher assistance, for example, conditional and unconditional as well as restricted and unrestricted transfers as well as ways of delivering cash and vouchers such as ATM cards, mobile money, e-vouchers, et cetera are best suited for which types of protection programming and this plays into effective program design. We also need to understand more about the optimal complimentary protection services which are necessary to reach longer term protection outcomes. Understanding this will bring about more effective program design as well. So what are the key takeaways from the GBV mapping? I'll share a few top line takeaways but invite you all to dive into the paper as well as the executive summary. There's a persistent poor practice which is undercutting the potential of cash and voucher assistance to contribute to gender-based violence outcomes. So what do I mean by that? There's poor coordination between cash and GBV practitioners. There's a failure to integrate cash and GBV programming and also a failure to conduct ongoing gender and protection analyses. We need to know more about excluded and marginalized populations. So what are the impacts of cash and voucher assistance for the most excluded and marginalized groups of GBV survivors and individuals at risk for women with disabilities, older women, married and unmarried adolescent girls and persons with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities? What are the specific barriers and enablers of cash and voucher assistance for GBV outcomes? Are they different for different groups? What are the key takeaways from the child protection mapping? I'll share a few top line takeaways here. The supply side limitations such as school facilities and qualified teachers are crucial to cash and voucher assistance having a positive impact on child protection and this requires a multifaceted and coordinated approach. In addition, we require more comparative evaluations to learn across context and CBA modalities if conditions tied to cash and voucher assistance for caregivers can have a significant impact on the well-being of children and if so, to learn which conditions are most effective. Next slide, please. So what are the actions we need to take? First, we need to break down silos between cash and voucher assistance and protection actors through mutual capacity building and improved coordination on cash and voucher assistance for protection. The protection sector should proactively be reaching out to cash working groups where they exist for ongoing dialogue through local, national and international fora. And on the other hand, the cash community needs to better engage with protection colleagues as well. Stakeholders should endorse and adapt the existing guidance and tools to align with organizational processes and establish their use in policies and protocols. Second, we need to build local actors' capacity and cash and voucher assistance and deeply engage local partners' expertise in the protection context. In doing so, they will be able to assist other stakeholders to identify opportunities to use cash and voucher assistance for protection outcomes. Third, we must develop clear eligibility criteria and harmonize targeting and implementation approaches of cash or protection activities of both the country and sector level. Fourth, to support institutionalization of cash and voucher assistance for protection as a standard aspect of humanitarian response, practitioners should be including cash for protection within donor proposals based on context-specific assessments. And on the other hand, donors need to resource cash and voucher assistance for protection outcomes, both the protection programming and the related startup costs of integrating cash and voucher assistance such as additional staffing and capacity building. Fifth and last but not least, we must conduct more research on cash and voucher assistance for protection outcomes across all the areas of responsibility. We need rigorous, ethical, longer-term evidence that adheres to principles of do not harm. Thank you, Andreas, back to you. Thank you very much, Tenzin. I would now like to invite our second panelist, Monica Ferro, who is the director of the Geneva office of UNFPA to take the floor. Monica, the gender-based violence area of responsibility which is part of the global protection cluster was instrumental in gathering good practices of using cash and vouchers for improved protection outcomes. What are some of the ways in which cash and vouchers can contribute to GBV risk mitigation and improved responses to GBV survivors? Can you hear me? Yes, I do. Oh, okay. I've been having problems with my computer. Thank you, Andreas, for... Over to you. Thank you. Thank you for introducing so well the work of UNFPA and our specific position. And I would like to start to thank also the organizers for putting up such an interesting panel that really provides, in our view, a broad perspective on the main issues that are on the key issues that are discussed in the paper. And I would like to start, if I may, just by thinking on behalf of UNFPA, but also saying that due to the fact that we are this dual mandated agency, we work on norms, but we work on implementation. And also that we work with the sectoral productive health team under the health cluster, which is relevant for this discussion also. And that we leave the GBV AOR under the protection cluster, as Andreas just referred to. This systematic and intense work that we do in advocacy for human rights, adopting a human rights-based approach in all programming we do, the constant fight for sexual productive health and rights and also fighting the multiple and intersectional discrimination that Stenzine just referred and it's referred also in the stockpaping, the stock taking paper. And it's by working the full spectrum of rights and choices, there are vision and shape, and that our work understanding how cash and voucher assistance really works for gender-based violence in emergencies and sexual productive health in emergency. And we are really very much engaged in cash-based programming to facilitate access to essential sexual productive health and GBV services in emergencies and also to contribute to women and girls' well-being across a number of countries. And I can mention Jordan, Syria, Bangladesh, Mozambique, the DRC, and also if you allow me a very contextualized reference to the current situation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we've been tirelessly working with government, humanitarian, private sector partners. So to understand, to deliver cash and vouchers to vulnerable women and girls who have been affected by the closure of women's safe spaces, the reduced transportation and income losses. And so to allow them to access essential items and sexual productive health and GBV services. And we have also produced a COVID-19 guidance note for cash in those specific programming areas, which we think was ideally shared across the GBV and the cash communities of practice, but I will also share the link in the chat box that we have here. And what we know, what we've learned and now it's our starting point also, Andres, is that we know that cash and voucher assistance can contribute to the protection objectives, including access to sexual productive health and GBV, but also to prevention, to response. And at the same time, it puts women at the center of decision-making power. And while the evidence based on TVAs for women's health and protection in emergency countries continues to grow, we all know and we've heard from Gain that learning from the field suggested that the couch and voucher assistance can support protective outcomes for women and girls if and if it's well-designed and part of a comprehensive case management, service delivery and other support. What this emergency cash transfers have shown us is that they help women at risk of GBV or survivors of GBV to escape from perpetrators, to access safe housing, to reduce indirect costs related to medical care, psychological support or transport. And we have found that this strategy that delivery on the cash and vouchers really offers an opportunity to share important messages, messaging on COVID-19 related issues, GBV and health services available for women and GBV referral pathways and I'm gonna give you an example. Shops through text messaging and in ATM machines. So we know that CVA can contribute very effectively to protection objectives when again it's well integrated into protection and GBV programming. This means of course that we need to work more closely with local women's organizations, community health, workers, case managers and also other local actors who are on the front lines with women and girls. And this really provides us with a very concrete opportunity here to overlap with the localization land and the grand bargain commitments. And just to finalize on with a couple of notes with the result of the stock taking paper, it's really focused on the contribution of CVA to protection sector outcomes. While it highlights the linkages between cash and protection, it's very clear that they are not limited to protection oriented programming. And what do we want to highlight is that there is still a great deal of work to be done in ensuring that protection risks and protection risk analysis or it informs CVA design, implementation and monitoring. Evidence shows clearly that a lack of protection and GBV risk analysis can risk stigma, tension or even violence against women who receive CVA. Ashen voucher assistance is a unique tool in the humanitarian box, but just like all of our assistance services and other work with crisis affected communities, it really requires a do not harm and protection lens. And what this means is that we must have a stronger gender protection and GBV risk analysis and also adopt the necessary mitigation managers. It's not an exercise to be stored in a file, but it's an analysis in which women and girls, they feel they can fit into local risks and mitigation managers and also informs program design. So a protection lens should be community based and we've been making that point very strongly. Women and girls should be able to give their inputs to design and implementation and their preferences should be taken into account. It cannot be just a talk shop, it has to translate into changes when we hear their voices. And also the ODI annual report on the ground bargain found that cash programming continues to be scaled up and that cash has the potential to bring transformative change to the humanitarian system. However, we know that as cash and voucher assistance assistance expands, protection and GBV risk analysis become even more important. What needs to be done is that we need to continue to bridge the protection that CBA communities to ensure that all CBA research reaches, sorry, those further behind, especially as CBA increasingly replaces some sectoral assistance. So as in all programming, CBA should aim to reach those left for the behind and those who face intersecting and heightened risks of GBV as it was mentioned, all the women, adults and girls with a disability just to mention two of them. So just that the GPC and its AORs as well the protection clusters and sub clusters in the field advocate for the inclusion of the most vulnerable women and youth persons and youth persons with disabilities and other persons across all the humanitarian programming. It's also very important to give the same inclusion in mind when we are considering the multi-purpose cash assistance. So the GBV AOR led by an FDA is rolling out guidance and support for GBV sub clusters and working groups in the field so that GBV coordinators are prepared to advocate for targeting that includes those most in need for protection for whom cash and voucher assistance can be lifesaving. The whole mantra that we've developed around the agenda 2030 that the secretary-general has been calling our attention constantly in the current circumstances of this pandemic that we are living, but that the mantra that it is leaving the one behind can be really mainstreamed into this work. And I'm sorry if I took too long I get very excited when I have to talk about this. Thank you, Andres, and sorry for exceeding my time. Thank you very much for that, Monica. Let us now move to our last panelist who is Modar Al-Mohammad. Modar is the senior protection manager at the IRC, the International Rescue Committee. Modar, I understand that you will draw on a practical example in Syria. My question to you would be the following. What do you think is the biggest benefit of cash in protection programming compared to traditional protection assistance? Yeah, thanks, Andres. For us, cash for protection allows individuals to meet immediate needs that are beyond the basic needs met by other multipurpose cash assistance delivery and protection response to increase the coping capacity of individuals or families facing unexpected and significant shocks. Yeah. As said, my name is Modar Al-Mohammad, I'm with IRC and I'm going to provide you a short insight into our cash transfer programming for protection outcomes. Like we're operating in a really very challenging context. It is an active conflict zone with a lot of barriers to accessing services and prolonged and multiple displacement. Next, please. Yeah, using cash to support protection outcomes is intended to help the clients at risk or mitigate protection risks or promote access to essential services for a specific need. Next, please. Our transfer value is determined on a case-by-case basis by a committee consists of protection staff and ERD staff. And the transfer value is ranging from 50 to 500 US dollars. And it is delivered within 48 to 72 hours in emergency. And we're targeting IDPs and host community members with protection concerns. We're not targeted by other cash assistance and who can obtain a tangible protection benefit from a cash transfer. Next, please. Yeah, here we can see some examples of protection needs which IRC attempts to cover with cash, like transportation to access services, imminent risk of eviction, modification of existing shelter, livelihood support for vulnerable head devolves holds, relocation due to protection concerns, sudden financial shock and assistive devices. Like, for example, one-time injection can support shelter modifications or purchase repair of an assistive device that allow a person with mobility restrictions or other impairment to have greater ability to move around their home and feel safe to be an equal participant as other family members. Also, like, for sudden shock to the family that can strain resources and make it difficult for family to either pay for rent or basic necessities. One-time injection can support easy shelter modifications including doors, locks, toilets, curtains, sheets to create a safer space for especially female residents. And in every case, other referrals and services like information and basic PSS, like psychological first aid are provided as well to ensure clients receive holistic support for all needs they have and thereby also ensuring the success of the cash assistance. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Modar. And thank you, my thank you to those two speakers who have shared their vision and provided their insights into this important new emerging area of work. Allow me to say that what I gather from this round of interventions is that you have highlighted the importance of cash on protection outcomes and the areas where opportunities can be found. You have highlighted that cash and vouchers can support protection outcomes if they are well designed and they are an integral part of a comprehensive approach. And you have also underlined the responsibility of donors and organizations in that respect, including their grand bargain commitments on cash. In terms of next steps now, we need to see more practical examples and how lessons can be learned to further the implementation of cash for protection outcomes. We will take questions now and comments from the floor. And this is now for Manisha to lead on. Manisha, over to you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Andreas, and thank you to all our presenters. We have a bit short of time and expected in terms of our questions and answers, but hopefully we can get some in. I'm going to ask you to please raise your hands if you'd like to take the floor or please put your questions in the chat box. And I see we've already got one from Catherine who is asking Modara, how does this broad information provisioning to the relevant community members and not only targeted households work? If the transfer amount or entitlement is decided on case by case and individual need, does this not create further tension and possibly protection risks if other community members are unclear about who would receive what entitlement on which basis? I'm going to see if we have a couple of questions before I can turn back to the panelists and ask for your inputs. Does anybody else have any questions or comments that they'd like to share? Our speakers have all been so comprehensive that they've answered all your questions in advance. Oh, Marisol, please, you've got your hand up. Thank you all. Marisol, do you want to take the floor? Please keep your questions quite short though, please. Hi, yes, thank you very much. So the first question is for the example from Syria, do we have any example about delivery of cash programming and data protection problems? How do we assess? I know that in the stock taking stock paper, we suggest to go with the risk metrics from the global protection cluster, but do we have any example considering that I'm particularly interested in the programming in the, based in Damascus? And then a second question is, in my experience, let's say the cash for protection is implemented especially as a one-off kind of interventional injection, as we have heard also from our colleague from IRC. But to some extent, it looks like one-off interventions is more appropriate for an emergency or let's say like saving kind of operation. But when the crisis changes the contextual or let's say the operational setting into a more early recovery or social cohesion kind of programming, do we have any evidence or a similar paper that shows how more effective it could be the cash intervention if it would be more medium or longer term? Or do we stick to the evidence for one-off injection? Thank you very much. Thank you, Marisol. We have a few questions in the chat box as well. Modar, you're getting most of the questions from Emmanuel. Could you let us know how the individuals and the communities were involved in the design of your CVA program, including the determination of the value you transfer? And there's also one from Lara. How were protection outcomes measured and how much time had lapsed from the distribution of cash and when they were measured? Were the impact short-term or could any longer-term effects be observed? I'm also gonna ask the other panelists to come back on those. I'm just gonna go to Espatan, who's got his or her hand up. If you could ask your question very briefly, please. Espatan. Hi, yes, Stefano from WorldTide. You can hear me well. The question is about the targeting. It would be interesting to know a little bit more about the process through which the clients are targeted in the IRC example, as well as the post-distribution monitoring. I guess these overlaps with Lara's question would be interesting if Modar could share more details about the monitoring of the outcomes. Super, thank you very much. We've also got a question from Emmanuel as a follow-up, I believe, to the other question. You also said that you managed to transfer cash within the first 72 hours of a crisis. This would be only in the case where you had the ID of the people affected, right? In a situation like the recent explosion in Beirut, has your team there managed to deliver some CVA that quickly? We've also got a question from Sarah Martin. What is a concrete way to break down the silos between cash and protection? This is a common problem with cross-cutting issues. In fact, having more meetings, what can we do? Maybe Tenzin, that's one that you could take. And then what mechanisms have been put in place to ensure women or adolescent girls benefiting from cash are not further exposed to intimate partner violence as a result? Monica, you may also want to come on, you know. But yes, we had our hand up and we had also, Yasmin, I'm going to give you the floor and then I'm going to come back to our presenters and ask if you can come back to our answers on those before I turn back to Andreas so we can wrap up on time. Yasmin, please. Okay, thank you. I just want to make a comment about the delivery of cash assistance based on rigorous analysis and part of a more comprehensive package because I work in Yemen and we have seen that in many cases we had one-off cash assistance given just on the analysis of vulnerability and not of a definite protection risk and it proved not to be very impactful because at the end of the day, if someone has a disability, a one-off assistance will not change his or her situation. So also like on the point of the misconception or the lack of common understanding of what is cash for protection, it also links a lot to our understanding of vulnerabilities and how to address them. Wonderful, thank you very much. We also have a comment from Nadia before I'm going to turn back to the panelists. As Tenzin said, selection criteria for cash assistance is very important. The right staff, for example, social workers with a GBV or child protection background are my recommendation and that's from Nadia. Modara, I'm going to maybe turn to you first if that's okay since a lot of those questions were really directed to you about some very specific elements around your presentation in terms of creating further tension, possible risks, how were communities and individuals involved, how were the protection outcomes measured in terms of time and were you able to do things in the short term and then I'm going to come back to the other panelists. Modara, please. Yes, thanks for all the questions. Yeah, I'll start first with the procedures like how do we identify how we start with cash? Like our protection monitoring teams do household visits as part of their normal monitoring work. The protection assistance believes that there is someone in the household who has a specific protection need based on the assessment conducted that can be met by cash for protection. Then they will fill out an assessment form specific for cash and share it with their office-based focal point. Protection focal point will ensure that the forms have been correctly filled and uploaded on the system like we're using the cum care so it's safe and all the data is secure. Then the form will be sent to... This is in Syria and we're sitting in Amman so the forms will be sent to the cash committee that sits in Amman for review. And Amman committee would review the cases on weekly basis and decide if this would receive cash or other reference. And if so, what amount is appropriate? For the second question on the monitoring part before, during and after the cash transfer our state protection monitoring team, company clients and ensure every type of assistance is provided in a timely manner. And in every case, other referrals and services are provided as well to ensure clients receive holistic support. And for any kind of program, post-distribution monitoring for cash is conducted by our meal team. And approximately 30 days after each cash transfer. And IRC is the feedback and response mechanism enables community members including beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries to contact the IRC confidentially to raise any suggestions and concerns regarding IRC's programming. Super, thank you very much, Modar. And I think you did a great job of answering those very particular questions around how you did the programming and highlighting the emphasis of really taking the time to involve people. Can I maybe turn to Monica in terms of coming back, particularly on some of those questions around ensuring that you've got staff with the right background or how you can also ensure that cash does not result in the further exposure to intimate partner violence? Thank you, Manisha. I think that Modar already made my life easy because he spoke to so many things that are relevant, but let me be telegraphic so that I can share the most relevant things. I think the first thing we need to do answering specifically to your questions, it's really to implement mechanisms that allow for a meaningful participation of women and girls in risk analysis. And this, as you know, include organizing meetings where they can sit comfortably. But this requires, of course, as you were saying, a proper analysis of the cultural and the specific context in order not to expose them further when they are participating in this type of initiatives. And then we need to identify what are the locally relevant mitigation mechanisms and identify the key people that make sure that this mitigation mechanisms can translate into proper measures. And then, of course, strong monitoring and feedback mechanisms. It's super relevant, the fact that we can have feedback from the own beneficiaries of our program. And of course, these has to lead to a more agile, the possibility to quickly adapt the program that we are developing. We all know that there's no one size fits all we've mentioned many times, and I think all the speakers mentioned that this is not a tool that will work per se alone. It's a tool that has to be integrated. But those would really be my main point, you know, starting from what you said. Personnel who are clearly trained to understand the context and the circumstances in which we are acting and then participation, mitigation, monitoring and adaptation. Those would be my key points. Thank you, Manisha. Super, thank you very much, Monica. That's excellent. Maybe Tenzin, I will turn to you and then maybe Bernadette or William, you can come in with any responses on anything that you've heard in terms of questions that you'd like to answer or any other final thoughts before I turn back to Andreas, please. Absolutely, thanks. So in terms of the question around breaking down silos, these silos are both within our own agencies and also across communities of practice. So we need to have more intentional leadership to make sure that we're collaborating appropriately and capacity building is really essential. As I said in my remarks, we need to have kind of basic level competency and the other cohorts, modalities and methods to be able to identify those key opportunities so we can leverage cash and voucher assistance for protection outcomes. And there are many trainings available that we can go ahead and apply immediately. There's the ERC cash and protection training. There is the cash and GBV compendium training. While these are both in-person trainings and currently access is an issue, these can be modified for online formats and modular to fit into the busy days of field-based colleagues. Monica spoke to this a bit as did Modar, but in terms of targeting, it is really essential that this process is led through the case management process and there are available tools such as the WRC, IRC Mercy Corps Toolkit and others as well that assist GBV case managers to identify with the GBV survivor, centering their experience, their choice around what assistance they want to take advantage of, whether or not cash assistance can be helpful. And the starting point needs to be not assuming that cash is appropriate or that it isn't, but speaking to the individual within a case management context. And as that is led by the case manager, confidentiality survivor-centered approach can be adhered to and information can be shared as relevant and de-identified with cash actors to then tailor the cash response where referrals are appropriate. Lastly and briefly, there were a lot of questions, but one regarding multi-year funding or the opportunity to provide transfers in greater amounts over a longer period of time within protection case management. And this absolutely is a critical gap. WRC's past experience with care in Ecuador are findings where that we indeed needed to provide longer-term cash and voucher assistance in greater amounts with a longer duration, but we need support from donors in order to create those multi-year opportunities through which then we can also examine and build evidence around those longer-term impacts. Over, thanks. Super, thank you very much. William or Brunadette, either of you want to come in? There was also a question that came in while you were speaking Tenzin about how we can ensure that women and girls benefiting from cash assistance are not exposed to further harm or protection risks, which I think Monica, you answered quite well. But William or Brunadette, either of you would like to take the floor before I quickly wrap up and hand back to Andreas to summarize and close? No, okay, we'll leave it at that then. So huge thanks to those of you who asked the questions and I think you got some excellent responses from Modar Tenzin and Monica. And I think it was very clear that as many of you said, we need to really break down those silos that currently exist between the different areas of work that we're in and different ways of working. But as Grania also said at the beginning, we need to make sure that cash is complimentary with other forms of assistance, but we also need to very much involve individuals and communities to make sure that we understand what their needs are, figure out how we respond best and make sure that we're not putting them at further harm. So really ensuring that we look at local mitigation measures that are already there working with those but making sure that we involve women and girls throughout but also other individuals within communities so that we are able to identify who amongst the communities at risk are the ones that are able to receive cash and voucher assistance that will complement protection outcomes. I know we have probably many more questions, but this is really just the launch of a series of events. So hopefully the paper itself will give you lots of more exciting ideas. And with that, thank you to the panelists. Andreas, I'm gonna hand back to you please for a last summary and closing. Thank you very much. Thank you, Manisha. We are approaching the end of this launch event which has been very fruitful. I want to thank all speakers for their insights and approaches and the participants for their questions and active interest in this thrilling topic. We are very pleased to have been part of this launch and now we look forward to next steps. As you said, Manisha, this is the beginning of a journey and a new area of work. And as the stock taking paper and the speakers have highlighted today, there is still a lot of work ahead. We need, first of all, to break down the silos. I think that was the common thread of many interventions between the cash and protection actors. We need to continue to learn more about the advantages of cash and vouchers for protection, including by distinguishing the two modalities as well as by addressing gaps. And for the European Union's Humanitarian Aid Department for DGECO, cash should be prioritized over vouchers and in kind whenever possible since it offers dignity and flexibility to beneficiaries. And cash is usually, the keyword is usually more efficient than other modalities of aid. We also need to learn more about targeting approaches. We also need to learn more about the different ways that cash and protection can be related. For instance, integrating cash into case management, so integrating cash into a protection response or multi-purpose cash assistance based on protection sensitive targeting to help reduce negative coping mechanisms, so in a nutshell, more prevention. And most importantly, all learning, all learning needs to be strongly grounded in experiences from the field. And as we saw today, we have already good experiences that we can build on from crisis zones in the world. What will be more, even more important to keep in mind as the evidence has highlighted so far is that cash alone is unlikely to achieve meaningful long-term protection outcomes. That could happen if it is integrated into a holistic programming that includes case management and referral systems. In other words, we must keep focusing on the fact that when cash is integrated in protection, there must be a clear protection outcome. In this sense, I welcome very much the conclusion that we need to conduct more research on cash for protection outcomes. I understand that further events will be organized and scheduled and there will be opportunities to address outstanding issues and questions. And these events will be announced on the website of the Global Protection Cluster and the link will be included in the chat box today. Allow me to extend a very warm thank you to all participants, to all our great speakers and wish you a very pleasant afternoon. Thank you to all.