 So good morning everyone and well thank you very much for being part of this first webinar on the overall rollout of the protection analysis update guidance and that is global protection cluster we developed together with some operations. My name is Francesco Michele and the strategic analysis advocacy officer in the global protection cluster and I've been supporting the global protection cluster on the protection analysis update. And previously in the development of the protection analytical framework and we're a small group so I have a presentation ready and as you can see will be divided in two parts. But my colleague team is going to have a look to the chat so please stop me at any time. The goal of today is actually to have a guide through what the new guidance include because we try to make an effort to simplify the process to make it more focused and so on. So I have the tendency to speak faster so if there is anything that you might understand while I'm presenting please stop me or write in chat or raise your hand and we will address it. And as you can see is in English we are almost English speaker if I understand but I try to include some French subtitles and I also can address a question both in French and Spanish if there is a need. So today this is the first of three webinar that we are going to plan. This is about the guidance itself what includes and is going to be divided in two parts. The first one looking at the basics for 2023 so what we expect within protection clusters in terms of protection analysis updates and a bit the process and also including the support provided by the global protection cluster. And we are going to then have a pause for question and answer if there are no question and answer coming during the presentation. And then in the second part and what I wanted to try to do with all of you is to look at the protection analysis of the format go chapter by chapter and providing more or less a sense of what we expect to have in each chapter so we can actually have an open discussion. And according to what do you see it and how can be rolled out. So as say the please stop me at any time if you have question or write them in chat but we are going to have anyway plenty of time for reflection and after the two presentation and I will try not to be too quick in presenting. Is there any question doubt or clarification you need before we start and maybe some thumbs up, otherwise we can do deep into it. So let me start and I will start from the basics and while the first the first element is about the objective of the protection analysis updates and we we share the standard operating procedure where we also outlined the objective of the protection analysis updates. But we try to a bit more learn from the last year and a half as for everything and clarifying a bit better what do we expect with the protection analysis update. I will say that there are three core objective one is to use the protection analysis update update to call the attention on protection risks specifically, but also to call the attention by providing concrete recommendation at every level. So we are able to engage monitoring coordinator and the general monitoring country team and other actors in pushing forward for specific recommendation to address protection risks. The second goal is related to broadly let's call it advocacy, but the idea is that the protection analysis update should be that document that is used at the cluster level to basically showcase better devices also low our local partners, local colleagues and communities, which which not readily we put in documents, but it's not easy to provide a qualitative analysis that shows very well what's happening on the ground. So the pay you should give also as this opportunity. And of course the protection analysis updates is as we will see afterwards during the presentation is sort of the core document to plan around the specific efforts both at cluster level, but at the global protection cluster. And then generally speaking the idea of the protectionize update is that they become the core documents at the level of the country to inform general work of the cluster and partners in terms of military planning, programming priorities and protection of response. Of course there are many other analysis document that we developed, but the idea is that giving an account of protection risks they become sort of the alternative document and analysis in the country. So for the ones of you that knew the protectionize updates so far we've been working on those we introduce several changes. The first is about the formats and the frequency and when it comes to the format, we have been simplifying the formats and we will see later. But the idea is now that we have two possibilities or we try to have two possibilities at the level of the operations. One is to have a format that allows for a sector wide analysis. So something that is authoritative and national level and provide the account and the update on protection risk findings, messages and recommendation. But then we realize through the experience of operation that sometimes there is a need for partner and colleagues to have a quick analysis something that can be developed in an on set emergency or in specific situation. Or to focus deeper on a specific thematic or on a specific geographic area. So we also develop a brief protectionize update that as you will see it's very short. And the idea is that both the standard and the brief PA you can work, you know, more or less together in one sort of during the year to actually keep the attention on protection risks and they can be used very flexibly. And the frequency. There is no any more sort of quarterly frequency as the previous instruction. But the idea is that the protection cluster coordinators with the partners the side and the URs can actually plan out what is the best timing to actually put to other protection analysis update. We would advise, for instance, to have one before the HNU and the HAPs, but that really depends on countries. You might have something happening a mid year so that I don't know the revision of the strategy of the military coordinator on other moments whereby it will be important to have to have an analysis beforehand. So that's the reason that we thought that at the level of the cluster, one of the decision and one of the things that will be interesting to do is to map strategic moment whereby having protection analysis updates. And there is a minimum that we expect from cluster so we can maintain sort of a consistency, which is providing at least two standards be a user to more broad country wise protection is update and one brief that can be of any kind and it can be discussed with partners, and one of the things that we've been asking our colleagues regional focal point in the global protection cluster together with the operation is to actually try this month to plan more or less the protection analysis update expected during the year. This is extremely important because it will allow us first to anticipate certain processes in terms of support, but also and more specifically it will help us out in linking and doing much more targeted advocacy on specific moments or if there are pledging conferences or specific moment on the Security Council or other other important situation or events for operation at the level of the global protection cluster we can really plan and very much so much stronger advocacy support. What is new specifically in the protection analysis update compared to the last year and a half is that of course there are the two formats, but also introduce page limitations. So the standard is maximum to be 15 pages and the brief six pages. And we realize that this can both be helping in the field to actually rationalize what can go in a document instead of having maybe long document that try to cover everything, but much more focused document. And also it simplified the elaboration. And the second major change we have been, I will start from the, I think what is the most important step in the last four months we've been working together with the Global Protection AORs and we develop 15 standard core definition of protection risks. Then now you can find the website and also are part of the guidance and the goal is to have those 15 protection risk guiding our narrative. So presenting the analysis throughout this 15 protection risk so we can have a common number and of course we have to be able to show the contribution of each area to actually the analysis, but at least the presentation is going to be more or less consolidated across operations. The second major change in the protection analysis update is that we limited and you will see there are specific criteria now that we're going to try to use is to limit the updates to actually visualizing five core priority protection risk for the period code. So we have been having for the last time we've been our class that have been producing around 55 to 56 protection as a date in the last year and a half. And sometimes some documents are very long with many risks and the feedback that we had from McDonald's and other colleagues is that it's really difficult to pinpoint what is actually priority for the period. So the protection is updated should be less of trying to present everything, but really, really much focus to the period that they cover. For instance, now we suggest to have one for the first quarter and if it's developed for the first quarter to cover the period generally March and really focus on what are the priority risk in that period. Then as you will see the idea that element of the cluster, if there is a possibility and the need to develop a longer analysis, a longer document that can be done, but the protection is that they should be actually be that vehicle of the core priority for the period. Then in term of the formats we introduce several elements to try to simplify it because often time I think that our partner and our clusters in the field are very good in doing analysis, but often time is not easy to represent it in ways that actually it's actually make an impact on the targets we would like to influence with the analysis or what we want to influence with the analysis. So we introduce certain elements that are cores. So we introduce an executive summary, we revise the response section and we revise the recommendation section, we will see that later. But then we also introduce some publishing criteria to simplify the use of the protection analysis updates and have a bit more of consistency across operations and the publishing criteria as you will see are just to actually agreed and when we publish a document as a protection analysis update, it's consistent. So we all of them, we have all of the analysis consistent. So even the donors and the targets that you would like to reach already know what to expect. But then one of the important elements for 2023 is that as a global protection cluster or in general, we are never going to stop a document of analysis. So if in the elaboration of a protection analysis update, eventually it comes out a document that is longer or it's wider or we would like to have a different focus, we will work together in order to see how to publish it. Probably we're not going to publish as protectionized update, but we can publish as any other different type of analysis. So we thought that it will be important to as a sector to show both flexibility because the needs of different operations are quite specific, but also to have a consistency in terms of the way we present protection risk analysis specific. To do that, and that's part of this webinar we develop a summary guidance in order to develop the guidance. We have been doing two general exercise one is to look back at all the protection analysis updated publish in the last two years. We actually mapped out best practice, certain operation that to that actually shape them in ways that can be helpful for the for all other other operations. And and then also we have been having an engaging with several operations to test them out to see what can what they can be actually used in operation. So the guidance you're going to see is mostly a compiling of best practice rather than a guidance developed by ourself. So we try our best, but of course the idea of the rollout is also to learn from the rollout itself. So going to the guidance. And you can find the whole guidance in the website specifically in the in the section of the protection analytical framework and below you will see the old guidance for both the protection analysis updates and the protection risks. So the first part is two formats. What we try to do with the format is not just to provide a format but actually to develop a sample. So if you're going to when you're going to download the both the standard and the brief, you're going to see that they are ready and analysis. So we try to develop a full fledged analysis that can be used as an inspiration not to actually be identical, but at least we realize that sometimes it's better to have an inspiration to build upon. Then the two documents are in word and modifiable. So there is plenty of flexibility to use them and to adapt them with the whatever the visual elements or other elements you want to include in the in the document itself. Then in order to help with the actually the analysis itself of protection risks. We are second a second document in relates is called the protection viscous planetary note and you will find inside the two specific parts. One is the old 15 definitions of protection risk agreed by the global protection cluster in the US. And what we try to do is to make them simple and operational rather than a legalistic or technical and they really focus on more or less giving an idea of what should be monitored. To identify protection risk, what type of actions or what type of violation can be included in each protection risk and more or less some hints on what information and data can support in actually monitoring and analyzing protection risks. And in complementarity to the core document of the protection risk explanatory note that also give you a bit of a sense on how to adapt the 15 categories to the context when we see that later. We develop a two pager of that actually builds on the same analysis that you find in the in the sample format. But what we try to do is to provide the analysis itself so the narrative analysis and type each part of the analysis with the protection analytical framework categories. We realize that our colleagues from the from I am they are very good in understanding the framework but sometimes when we when we coordinate with partners colleagues or the wider group that bind up I am specific. The protection ethical framework might be felt cumbersome. So this document is it's it's developed this guidance to actually have a visual look or what does it mean structuring and analysis using the logic of the protection ethical frame. And last so that the package is composed of these four documents that there is a specific what we call the protection analysis of date annotated template that provide a specific guidance on both the format of the pay you so to adapt it to adjust it and also the core elements. But also some guidance on the content and suggestion on information and management elements graphics and other aspects or sources that can be used for different sections. So the idea is that the whole package and more or less together so there is not just a format and try to understand how to fill it up but it's actually provide our hands on a set of steps that you can actually build up and use for the protection analysis update. So these are the basics so the basics are two new formats and the frequency to be decided a country level and the adaptation to be decided also with partner you are colleagues and so on. And then a much more focus on protection risk and the specific the 15 standard categories that we developed that with the with the colleagues of the yours. And I would like now to go on the process but before I move on to the process maybe I pose a moment to ask you if so far everything is clear if there is any doubt to question. We are a small group so please feel free to jump in. Or give me some thumbs up if everything is okay and then maybe I can do the second part on the process and then we can go back to the questions. Okay there is a lead. I saw you raise your hand. I don't know if it was a mistake or maybe we will have to turn it. Okay thank you. So let's go to the process. We realize that to a short consistency and to simplify better and the support that even the global protection cluster can provide but also to support our cluster coordinator and co-coordinator in engage multiple partners. We wanted to actually more or less structure the process but not making it too cumbersome and the idea is that from the start idea of the protection analysis update to the elaboration. I mean whatever time is needed for the coordination in the in in in the operation at least the support from the GPC doesn't take more than three four days if we work a bit on anticipation. So let's look a bit of the general steps so I will I will give you another view of the core general step but then I will show so what you will find in the standard operating procedure that actually basically is a summary of the core steps. So the first element is that the protection analysis update and the decision to the operator protection is updated identification and so on. It's a it's at the level of the cluster in country so cluster coordinator and co-coordinator in consultation with the AOR coordinators the SAG if it's established the partner and so on. So the protection is update becomes should be a consultative process with with all the constituency within the cluster in the operation. What we found in the past and what will be very helpful is that if every operation can map out the professionalist update expected to 2023. And then in doing so maintain a strong relation with the regional focal point at the level of the global protection cluster. So if in your operation you can reach out to you to the regional focal point and actually discuss together when you plan to have protection analysis updates that you will that will really help us out in in be strategic all together. And not just in the in its elaboration or also needs use and make sure that with the ultimate goal of the protection analysis update which is using it is actually much more effective. The full process when the process starts so the consultation the look at the data and information the shaping in the analysis that the elaboration of the documents on and so forth. All of that the need that the supervision and stays within the protection class. So that's the global protection cluster is just that to give support. So the timing and the meetings and so on can be actually discussed with that. The accordingly in the classes. It's important to know is that in one step that we introduce is that when the professionalism date is three four core criteria. In order to publish them you know to do basically what we introduce what was explaining before. So either publish in the PAA date or publish and so there is a focal point should be. Francesco. So involved it will be good to involve them during all the short and they can guide you in shaping the dog and then yeah you lost me. Yes you're lagging. Yeah. Maybe you can turn off your camera in the meantime. Yes I can hear you but still I mean there's like. Can you hear me now. Hello. Yes we can. I mean I can hear you. But still. Yes we can hear but the connection is not very fluid. Okay. What about now. Sorry my internet here sometimes falls down. Is it better. Yes better. Thank you. Sorry for that. Sometimes the Internet falls down here in Tunisia. Sorry for that. And I don't know where you lost me but I think that we were discussing you lost me when we were speaking about involving the regional focal point for ensuring that the quality criteria and all the support is provided by the clusters. At the last step as a general step we in the global protection cluster for the one you don't know we have a advocacy pillar so me and two colleagues Mari and Allison are in charge of the advocacy. So in our what we are going to do on our side is just to look at three four core criteria to ensure a bit of consistency and starting looking together. So there's a moment in where we engage our operations to actually look at core disemunization strategy. We've been realizing that sometimes with the protection analysis update if we are if we have better conversation or not we want to disseminate. We actually have a wider impact. And in many cases and I had we had that question all along last year in sensitive context that you might. There might be sensitivity in publishing the documents so we can really look into a combined strategy. So sometimes we don't publish them in the website. For instance, we just share them privately with donors or we don't even maybe share them then with Donald we prepare a joint presentation and we present the we present the findings. But all in all what we suggest is that you don't refrain to do the protection analysis update because then we can really look together at the best strategy of using that. Other examples include sometimes we have been published as a protection cluster global and not as a country wise to avoid repercussions on the level of the operation. The goal is that through the dialogue with the geographical focal point at the level of the GPC and us we can really together and how to disseminate and better and better use it. The final step of course is the publishing if we agree on the publishing and one core aspects for everyone is that the automatic publishing publishing now goes through the global protection cluster because we've been linking our website directly with the relief web and with other platform. So by publishing in the global protection cluster website automatically gets published in all the platforms in all the monetary and platforms including relief web. So the last steps is basically to share the final document with the regional focal point and we normally publish it even within the day or within the hour. I mean team our colleague here is very, very efficient in that part. So resuming that it's not very it's not very scientific as a process but we actually rationalize it a bit. So the change is that the engagement between the operation and the global protection cluster goes through the regional focal point. So you don't have to speak with multiple people in the global protection cluster so that simplifies already the process and then we have a constant dialogues with the regional focal point. So Vincenza and the other colleague of the analysis team they are in support. The advocacy team is in support. So on your side from the level of the operation you have one entry point but then we will work as a team to actually trigger the support and the time. The advice is the more we anticipate the better we can support. So anticipating doesn't mean having one month in advance but at least if we have one, two weeks and we know that our protection is updated it's coming. We can really, really, really support you properly and efficiently. Again, the idea and it's actually what we asked the graphical focal point is to liaise with all operation to map out in the PA use for 2023. So that is also is going to support all of us much better. And what you're going to see in the standard operating procedure is this graph and then also you're going to have a detailed set of steps. We developed this mostly if you need to engage and the level of operation you know your constituency partner here you are. So you can really try to develop a graph so you can show what are the core steps and these four steps basically are assuming what we just discussed. So the first part is basically clarifies that the decision stay at the level of the cluster in country and the coordination goes through the regional focal points. As you can see the regional focal point is the one that liaise with the other colleagues in the global protection cluster site to provide support when it's needed to provide briefly mentoring revisions and everything that you might need. And also it clarifies a second publish is quite important and which basically focuses on the fact that we're going to publish every analysis document. I mean provided that it's really quality and you want and it's a document that is important for the operation. So the only things we're going to do is actually to identify what we actually are going to publish as a protection on this update and what we are going to publish as something else. In those cases we're going to engage together we're going to on our side we will provide any advice you might need in framing the document. And but of course again the decision on what to publish how the dissemination strategy and if you strongly feel that the document should be a protection analysis update because you want to focus on risks. We are going to have a dialogue together and so we can really be flexible and accommodate every single process that you have in mind. And when we go with the criteria and then we will we will finish the part of the process. There are four core criteria for the publishing which are this one and also there are other core criteria that are more for quality, which you will find in the standard operating procedure. The four criteria for the publishing are mostly quite easy. One is that we really advise we have seen that a protection analysis update is stronger when the more it's participatory, not in the development, but at least you manage to engage all the constituency at the level of the cluster. Being a partner, being the AOS, being other sectors and other clusters. So really we have seen that a protection analysis data sometimes we develop in office with no much consultation also doesn't have the buy-in. So if we want to be stronger in engaging colleagues in engaging our targets, sorry, we really advise that and we use that criteria. That doesn't mean that nobody's going to chase to actually verify that you consult and so on. This is just the responsibility of the cluster. I mean it's just to the level of the cluster you make sure that this is done. Consistency, every is the limit of five protection risks. So since it has to be an update and it's limited in pages, if a document includes 10 or nine or eight. First of all, it's difficult to prioritize when you have too many. But in case there is a need for whatever reason, that will be another document. So we will call it something else. We will use it as something else. But to be a protectionist update, we will look into that. Then there are certain core elements in the format that should be maintained. So we just have a look. Of course, there is plenty of flexibility. We'll give you a couple of example now of a recent protection analysis update published for Afghanistan yesterday, where they had to adapt some parts. And of course it has to be adapted because the goal is that it's relevant. So the only things we want to try to do is to have a bit of more of consistency across operations. And the only element that is where we probably think that we would like to be more strict together is replacing what before was called the introduction. So before we had that introduction where we're just giving the account of the methodology of the approach and just some general situational inputs to an executive summary. This is fundamental often specifically when we want to engage donor and we want to engage actors for several reasons. The simplest is that oftentimes, specifically certain level of colleagues, they just look at the beginning. So the executive summary is the place, the first page is where to put what we really want to say. And second, it provides it can really be used as one page of fact sheet that you can share and that can help us out for the dissemination of the protection analysis update per se. We will see the detail of it, but the goal is that here I've been currently with what you have in the document. You provide very core elements on what happened in the context situation, something very, very important that actually is having a strong impact on protection. They identified protection risk, of course. And then two top line recommendation that as we will see later can be either part of the recommendation that are at the end of the document or to core advocacy messages. So something really important that it has to be addressed in the period. I will make reference to the period all the time. So the goal is that instead of putting general recommendation or general aspect, we need to focus on recommendation or elements for the period. So you can really use them much more operationally. So it has to be very linked with the dynamics in the country. As say the four criteria, the goal is that the, I mean, by the use, I think that they're going to become much not quite natural, but at least at the beginning, the regional focal points are there to support. So for everything you need, but also us, I mean, from the IM side, the chance and colleagues can support, but also from our side, we can really support and help you out in envisaging how to actually go about the protection analysis. And adapt to specific situation. In the rollout, one of the things that also we planned is to have a third webinar. So the next webinar next week will be in protection risk, but then we plan another webinar around the end of April. And in that situation, what we would like to do with all of you is just to get used to the guidance, get used to the formal processes and we will have a full entire webinar of feedbacks. So to get a sense from you, if there are any specific situations that are complicated to use or if we have to adapt something, so we have to elaborate new guidance. So the idea is that we do a process piecemeal and we look actually we learn together from from your use. And on the process. And that's all of it. Now I would really like to stop and pause. So even if you don't have, it would be great to hear if you have any questions or reflections. But even if you have, I have a question for all of you if you, how do you see it, you know, from your experience or if you have any past experience on protection analysis update, and you think that the guidance will help or not. Please don't be shy. And if you can jump in, that would be great. And then I will pause a bit and then we can go on the step by step. Be I start. I don't know if let me know my camera. Good morning everyone and thank you Francesco for the presentation. I was engaged when I was the classic coordinator in Iraq, when we had that thematic power that days was back in the day was the legal one, which was a very cumbersome process but it was just the beginning of all the power process right so I think in these simplified guidelines would make the process way easier. One, and it's very clear it's very nice the fact that you put it visually right who is responsible etc so my. It's not a concern, but I think it's something to be mindful of we will, I mean I shared this invite and I see some of the colleagues of the strategic advisory group in Ukraine actually attending this session which is very very good, because it's the point to make it a consultative process. And it doesn't necessarily mean that you know everybody needs to agree but at least there is a common understanding what I might find it that maybe we can we would need a bit more of your support in explaining again the process and getting that higher by in. It's because of some of the difficulties that we have in country here in Ukraine to navigate a different priorities among a ours, so I like the fact and I would stress that again here that it is. The definition of 15 protection risk it's been discussed agreed upon with the walls because that would certainly give us the leverage with the colleagues here. Also because I mean it's not to diminish the other operation but here you know in Ukraine everyone wants to showcase the why they have their own needs and what we miss oftentimes is this interconnectivity of a protection risk response and corresponding response which is ultimately what we want to showcase to donors and to key stakeholders so. Maybe just to stress that point and you will hear back from from Ukraine operation very soon and we might ask specific support from the GPC to make it very marginal bottom up but in terms of the we are all on the same page. And maybe one to I will follow up with Julian as the focal point for for Ukraine but I will certainly we certainly have the plan to launch a power consultation process very soon but then I'll I'll share that information with with relevant colleagues over thank you. Thank you very much Claudia I noted down and I will react quickly but I just leave space for other colleagues if you have any maybe adding up to what Claudia just mentioned because it might be a concern in other in other countries or if you have any other question or doubt or reflection. Well let me react then and maybe this trigger a bit of discussion or thank you Claudia that's. We want things that we had clear when we were working on the guidance is that no guidance can simplify entirely a process for the country because the situation in operation entails a lot of things entails politics and balances of roles and responsibilities or priorities and the situation is so fluid. Then it may have to change so that's absolutely taken without without mentioning the country we have been doing that in in the testing of these guidance with a couple of operation where we had actually dedicated session between us cluster and you are coordinators to actually go and having a really open brainstorming or what all are the priority of the table and try to guide in a way of a way of prioritizing so what our message is that prioritizing doesn't mean diminishing one against the other. That's the core message so prioritizing means just be stronger in the way we present and which sometimes is the weakness we have because we really want to present everything and protection is quite a particular sector for that and and by presenting sometimes one by presenting everything we diminish what we want to present so. And that narrative honestly in other context where we had sensitive situation it worked well because and the fact that there is also that we work very very strict very very closely with the you are to define it to have the definitions and of course that were discussion on the 15 risk they don't reflect specifically the you are. They don't have specific area of the you are but the goal was yeah because one risk for us is not important even if it's not a reason there is a specific area of work on a you are extremely important to have their perspective and their analysis to understand the multiple factors both in terms of driver and impact. And is that what we try to share you will see the definition even if some of them are specific gender based violence is gender based violence. But if for instance even gender based violence there is another risk which is the Nile of the social opportunity which is a core violation also gender based violence and there there is a specific linkages to involve to be colleagues. And also when it comes to child protection we didn't just focus on the tree that are more child focused risks. But also we look at attacks you will find other elements on now child protection concern consideration might have to be lead to other risks. So absolutely happy to support. I think maybe one good thing would be look at the definition and try to understand and a bit the guidance and then happy to line up and support. But we know that that also will be an exercise to do together is not something that we expect tomorrow to have all the perfect protection is defined. But it is a good exercise. So that I will be my reaction plan is so happy to follow up and I don't know if you have a reaction. But that's one particular area that what we try to do with the guidance to address. No I mean I think it's it's perfect. It's just this way of really trying to make sure that it's a multi sectorality of protection right because it is it's not one. As you said one child protection on GBV of mine action affecting only one thing but it's really much interconnected in protection. And so I think that it will certainly follow up requesting support if needed to from your side and colleagues side to have that this particular discussion with the AORs here in country should we should we need so. Yeah. The other element which is something that's in the middle long term we will have to all together to see how to do it better is the engagement of other sectors because there are sometimes we want really our protection is to showcase the linkages with other sectors where we can be stronger. If we manage to provide recommendation that actually can engage I don't know full security health or education or the sector in the moment. So and then we so far we didn't develop a specific guidance on how to do the consultancy process because that's really dependent on the country. So that's also something we can look at together. But in the definition is we I mean we really focus on the internal consistency but they are already pointing to the need of engaging certain sector for specific risks. And because so we can really start providing a wider account on the all the inter linkages. Thank you. There is any other doubt question. Or reflection. Any other colleagues from any other operation that. Because we're next session we are going to really go into chapter by chapter. So there's a reason that I want to just get opposed not to basically give you too much information at the same time. Otherwise I can start and then maybe what I can do since we're going to go chapter by chapter I can present a chapter stop. And then your reflection and go and go on. If it's OK. There is any maybe give me thumbs up if you think that we can continue or. If we have to go even back to certain aspects. Amazing. Thank you. OK, so on the step by step part. What I thought it might be interesting is actually to discuss with you the rational behind the chapter. Because it might not be perfect but at least to discuss really openly with all of you what was our rational in actually shaping it so we can really have your direct feedbacks. So let's start from the executive summary. So the executive summary is one page and this will be very strict. We cannot be one page and two line on page 39 one page. This is extremely important for the dissemination side of it for the focus side of it and so on. And also that linking was what we were discussing with Claudia really help us out in focusing and maybe give you also an elements to with your constituency to say OK we really have to focus on two things we want to say. So that's a bit the goal. The first part of the executive summary is providing main context update. So the idea is not to read that is not to represent all the context analysis but is actually to visualize that one to core changes situation that recently happened that you really, really, really want to showcase to let you know. Donald's partner colleagues. I'm going to understand the impact of risks here example that is the one you're going to find in the sample and as you can see from the example. I don't know if you can see it clearly but the first paragraph is more situational. So in this Republic of Sorami that it's a fake country that we develop that is bring a family that is severe drought conflict. I'm sure it's something that it's basically multiple compounded drivers. But then if you can see and if what we actually suggest is that try to be specific on certain regions. Sometimes we focus too much at country level while we are realizing now what exchanges with Donald and colleagues that they would like to see. Not that the overall situation they might know the overall situation but they would like to have from us protection cluster as zoom in specific region. So here the example is see what are the since January 2022 recent conflicts in these five regions and other area. A couple with flooding in this other area at this impact. So it's an example but that's where the situation update should be focused should be if you don't have a general situation update you can use a zoom in specific regions. This should help in then providing here just the least of the five to five risks because the risk identified as priority. Just the least because then the situation update can be very much linked with the risks. So I can clear to a reader that what is actually such a baiting why and also it can give you an account of why you prioritize that. So you might have a six risk that is very strong and very continuous. And maybe here you can see that there is no for instance gender based violence. I may not be a specific one. But another one maybe there is a conflict. There is a company children. There's a high rate of company children here is not between the priority but maybe it's an important aspect. But then this will be found in the analysis linked to other risks because maybe it's related to attacks. So it's not the fact that it's not priority. It is not going to be there. The third element here is where we suggest to flag core urgent recommendation core urgent action. That is what we call it urgent action needed. So here you can build either in the recommendation section or what you have in the recommendation. Or again you can develop the protection on this update. Think of two core strong advocacy message and to include the strong advocacy message here. And what we suggest and we will actually delve into that later is to always put a timeline. That is extremely fundamental. Sometimes when we ask for a comment when we ask for something and we put a recommendation just put in general. What we suggest is this is the protection analysis update. Let's say of March it covers between January and March. If this is not done by April we will expect this. If this is not done by the summer we will expect this. So it doesn't mean being specific but it helps in actually be much stronger in advocating. And again it can be either the same recommendation from the recommendation part or it can be a call to action or specific advocacy message. Again looking at one of the example you're going to find in the sample. Here in the sample we actually in the context we saw that there has been a law approved that actually is banning organization to work for instance. So here we say that if there is no specific work to actually amend or to react to this law then it's going to be impossible for us to provide certain response to specific areas. It's just one example but just to tell you how it links with the context. Then there are two elements that are related to the severity which we try to be a bit more rational also learning from experience. Sometimes we add the protection analysis update published in November with the severity map that you use for the H&M HRP of the December of the previous year. So there has been 11 months in between. In 11 months a lot of change happens. So here what we suggest is always trying to include a severity map but either to have it the most updated. So if you develop one for the H&O and then you are doing a protection analysis update in June, re-update the severity map because that will really help in maintaining constant dialogue. And also then you will anticipate the work for the next H&O. So the idea is also that instead of waiting the end of the year it simplifies our work. So some of the work you can do for the protection analysis update can actually simplify the work for the H&O. But even if you don't have that and you want to include the oldest severity map. So even if it's been passing one month, we included another suggestion which is putting a table at the end of the executive summary where you could even between the discussion within the SAG or extra judgment and so on, provide an outlook of where the severity change in the different promises in the region compared to the latest one. So the idea is that we provide, we show, so that has been the severity map, the severity that we identified several months ago. In this update we have been noticing that, for instance, like in the example, in Manura, in Solbey and in Raimi in these three regions there has been an increase. So they moved from severity 4 to severity 5 and at least provide a visual account. So again, we know that this exercise really depends on the capacity on how you organize your work. So this table is there, as I suggested, and we can try to start working together. So the goal of the executive summary, it both provides an update, but it links up with all the work you do on severity H&O and everything in one go. So this is what happened and we think it's important that the reader pay attention to, you know, even specific areas. These are the risks we identified and this is how the situation is changing in terms of severity. And these are the two asks, the two allergen actions that we really think as a protection sector they should be addressed. So we think that it's quite simple in the testing more or less work. We realized that sometimes you might have meat of introducing some different graphs or inputs in the executive summary and that's totally fine. I give you an example, as I was saying before, on Afghanistan, they recently published yesterday, the new protection analysis update. In Afghanistan, there is a ban in January to female worker working in NGOs nationwide. So the colleagues in Afghanistan decided to focus the protection analysis update on the impact of the ban. So priority risk related to the situation that the ban has been creating. So here they just replaced the initial severity more with an initial stage of how the operation are actually constrained. So some graphs, some information. So total flexibility, but the core aspect, the situation update, the highlight of risk and the recommendation we always suggest to maintain them and we can really work together in making sure that it actually makes sense for you. Let me pause here on the executive summary. I will have two questions. One is, do you see it complicated? There is anything of it that you see it's impossible to do in your operation? Or if you have any specific reflection? And then we can move to the next chapter. Is all clear? Sometimes up in case you don't want to intervene. Thank you, Claudia. So even feel free to pose me. Thank you, Stuart. Please come in. Yeah. Hey, everyone, Stuart. Sorry about that. I was trying to react with a thumbs up and not raise my hand. But if you want to have a reflection now that you are here. No, it's all very clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. It's early. No worries. No, thank you for coming. I'm trying to be slow. You know, Italians can speak very fast. I'm trying to be slow and I hope I'm not overwhelming you. Okay, so let's go to the context. So the first aspect about the context is really to be simple, be focused, I would say. So oftentimes we tend to actually provide this long analysis of the context. Stuart, I'm going to ask you a question. To be, we have this longer, longer, longer section on the context that honestly in many operations, maybe we repeat things that are known. So we really try to, first of all, limit to three pages as you can see so that can really help you out in focus. And then the message is that there is no need of providing the overall story of the context, but really what is really, really important to showcase to understand protection risk analysis. So that can also help you reducing the protection risk part. We can introduce some elements there and then it can turn and it cannot be reduced in the second part. Thank you. So that's the first point. Since for the one of you that are aware of the protection analysis framework and you are actually applying the protection analysis framework. The protection analysis framework actually guides in a very good analysis of the context. So if you manage to do that in your operation, it's good to use that for this operation. Otherwise for this it's good that you combine both quantitative and qualitative. But my suggestion or our suggestion is that you really engage your local areas. You know, sometimes we really rely only on data and while the context updates specific at the sun region can come with the knowledge we have and our colleagues in the local areas they have. You know, we have had this conversation in one of the operation where we really have three, four strong field offices. We didn't have data because the situation was very, very complex, but we had a lot of qualitative good information what was happening. So you can really shape on that. Don't be afraid of using that's where also that maybe this can also help you out in the engagement in making sure that you have the buy-in and the engagement of their constituencies. So at the beginning of the only core element that should be maintained is that at the beginning of the context session we introduce a table to provide five core figures. It might be by four, but five maximum. So the idea of the five core figures is my also not come all from the protection sector. It might be also core figures from something else that is important is relevant to understand the risks. So here in the example, these are all the examples you're going to find a sample. Here we put the number of IDPs related to droughts or IDPs related to conflict. So these two elements are fundamental because in the scenario that we develop in the sample, those are strong drivers and they compound the impact of the risks. One of the things that we suggest because it's we realize that is where many donor expect or they don't know they ask us not just to provide general numbers, but tell us what is the update. So what we suggest probably the first protection is update is not possible, but then when you start regularly developing them in trying to give more and more or less a sense of the variations. So we suggest to include the variation compared to the latest protection is update. So three months ago, six months ago, this was happening. Now this is the variation, but also the variation compared to the same period of the previous year. So that really can already this numbers give a really sense of the urgency of certain situation. So if you look at example, for instance in GBV, the total numbers. If somebody doesn't know the context doesn't tell much because the total number can be relative compared to the last 15 years can be high can be no, but providing the percentage tells something. So compared to the latest PAU, we have found an increase of 20%. But compared to the same period of last year, there's been basically an increase of 50%. So those are important aspect because then you can build also your narrative in the context afterwards with these numbers. So this really gives a sample and also maybe this is an area where you can also focus different PAUs in different moments with different data. One of the things we suggest and this is not coming from us. This actually good practice at some operation had in the last year and a half is that instead of using, we advise to use the protection analytical framework context analysis to guide your context analysis. But in shaping it in the PAU, instead of using this title of the chapter of the protectionism framework, try to use if you want to introduce some headings. To introduce some heading that already tells something. So we found that it's extremely interesting when the subheading already visualize a problem or a trends or something because then can catch the attention and even if someone is not going to read the whole analysis. So to show you a couple of example that you will find again in the sample in the scenario we developed, steady erosion of livelihood and coping capacity, that's already tells something. So in this period, one important aspect is that compared to the last there has been we have been identified an erosion of livelihood. So you can see this might be also from another set of that's one of the problematic that is some one of the driver someone on an element that it's actually compounding all the risk we identified. And then the second is a bit general but also it invites an understanding what's happening, warring impacts of poor governance and the disruption of community fabrics. So maybe everybody knows that it's a conflict. Everybody knows that this is an inter-communal fight in your context or in the context. But here what we are highlighting in the context that for us what is fundamental to understand is the disruption of community fabrics. That is what is having the major impact on the protection risk we identified. So again, in the contestation, why flexibility so we can be shaped any way or form beside the first table. And the only suggestion is to use the subheading smartly in order to convey messages for the visual, the graphs, the data and everything you want to include. We will try to work this year in helping you out with standards. But the idea is that that really is contextual. You all have different set of monitoring or set of data. So really use what you have. The only suggestion we provide is that in the protection analysis update, we don't want to provide a report. We want to provide an update. So if you have protection monitoring, multi-sector assessment where you have single questions, try not to include just the single question answer. So a graph that tells us how many women, how many men, how many children, how many specific groups answer to a question. So that's the only thing that we advise not to do because that is good for a report. But in the analysis, it should be something that combines. So if you have to report some data, try always to combine two questions or something, but no report on single data points as we say. And then try to include even graphs, maps that overlay or relay different factors to show some trends. You know, oftentimes it's better to show even a trend, even if you don't have a very strong monitoring mechanism, then just one single data. That is much more relevant. And then you can build, you know, narrative, you know, on that. And that's it. That's for the context. Again, let me pause one moment. If there is any doubt on the context part. Any question? Please, Macan. Sorry if I mispronounced. This is good. Okay. Thank you for this. Maybe I just miss one part that I think is very important for us as information managers. So it is about the variation last year and versus last year. And if we look at the figures here, the numbers, then what percentage period and year period stand for just to clarify, I just missed this part. Sorry. Yeah, I can clarify. So the percentage period is the variation compared to the latest protection is a bit. So let's say that you're going to produce a protection is a big now. So it's March and then one in October. So in October, you show in March represent this, but now we're presenting this with the variation of the two periods. So the value in March and the value in October. The percentage with a year is compared to the same period of the year before. So you're going to produce a pre-protectionized date in now, March 2023. And it's the comparison with March 2022. Thank you. My pleasure. And then, of course, there is one, thank you, Vincenzo, for the protection of the people in need. For the people in need numbers, there are two areas you will see it. We didn't delve into that, but in the executive summary, there is a table to provide the updates on the people in need numbers. But also in the context session, what we advise is that if it's relevant to the context analysis to put your data on the protection of the people in need, please include it. But what would be important, the farthest you go from the latest HNO, if you manage to have an update. So the goal is always to try to have a focus on the update part. So that's the overall message for your guidance. Use what you have as much as you can. So of course, there are people in need, but the more you move in time from the latest calculation you did, try to provide updates. So even if you put the number, the latest number you have, try to qualify what happened. Sometimes you don't mind the new calculation, but try to provide another thing. This was the number we had in the latest period, these and these happened. So we expect to be to have an increase or something like that. So the goal is, even in the context, and as you will see in the protection of the section to be, to actually provide an analytical update. Protection of the risks. Yes, Macan, please. So what you were saying here, just to clarify, is like we have to, if we develop, produce, then like we produce the severity map, then we have to estimate how many people could be in need at that period, right? Yeah, it should be added to have an update for the period. Exactly. This is what I suggest to you, Macan. I mean, the Covincenza and the colleague of the IM will support you on all that area. You know how to input to that. But the goal, yeah, it should be that. If you manage to update severity in the PIN for the time of the protection, that's the most advisable part. Yeah. Thank you for the question. Protection of the risks. Again, limitation in pages. Same goal that we have basically been repeating during the whole webinar. So we have to be focused to actually give you also another elements that the reason that you need to have a consensus, but at least to rationalize things. So here I'm back with me because we are going to have a specific session on protection risk next Wednesday, but here I will start actually guiding you on some elements. And so first of all, what are the five protection risk in the period? That's fundamental. So not the overall risk that our priority in the country, but what we have been defined as important to focus our attention in the last period for all in the period that covers the PAU. And here, I mean, I'm building again on what Claudia was saying before and show the engagement of partners that you are, because what we want to be better to show is the correlation of the different areas in corresponding to one risk. Because that really makes our impact stronger. We can show our joint programming, our overall programming or our joint action, how all of them are contributing to actually address a situation. And that's something that I think it's important for us, but also it's extremely interesting to donor to DHC to the partner because we can show really a new unique approach or an integrated approach to the situations. And then when we were developing the definition, we, I think we're quite aware that you sometimes you can't use the exact word definition in a context. There are sensitivities that is specific language that is using the context. So even if we have core definition, we want you to be sure that you have full space to actually do an adaptation. Okay, so the goal of the core definition and we will see the process on to do it next week is not that you take them and you copy paste them. I mean, if they are okay and they're relevant, you can do that for course, but you can really reflect with your with the partners, the SAG and the US on how that core definition translate in the country. The only the only elements that we provide is minimum elements when you are going to write a protection risks because protection risk are a form of violence coercion and deliberate deprivation. So to be a protection risk, there are certain elements in the language that has to be maintained. So a very simple hint, but you will find also in the guidance. The first one is avoid general formulations because those they don't give us the focus. So one that I found often is all forms of violence avoid that. I mean, probably there are all forms of violence in the country, but that also doesn't help in in showing where we want a priority. So really try to define specifically what type of violence you want to prioritize but then in the description you can you can because they are all interrelated. So try really to to be more specific or housing land and property as a general risk. Please don't include it because doesn't tell us what is the risk. If it's a problem with impediments with illegal identity or it's access to justice. So all is addiction. So focus on one that is core and of course in the analysis then you link with other with other forms of or other elements. The second. Hint I'll call it is in order to be a protection risk always try to include something that relates to the form of violence coercion and the delivery deprivation so it's a man made factors so. Wording like force denial impediments or of course attack recruitment is in this relates to to make your human factors. So try always in the definition to include something about that. And then the third hint is that we might some of you maybe are in a situation where the core problematic. It's on another side of food security malnutrition the impact of climate change. So there are situations that goes beyond protection and what we found that mostly in those situations sometimes protection get deeper ties because of course there is an urgent need to respond to something else. So our suggestion both to build our narrative but also to show the protection perspective on things is not to use the same sector title or problematic as a risk. So not know why food security but try to to to to focus on the risk or on the risks that are needed a driver that problematic or an effect. So always maintain a linkages of course with the situation but really focus on protection. The latest is the very general again it's like the first one. Let's not put conflict as a protection risk or ongoing violence or occupation. I know that my seem seeming and simple for you but we wanted to actually put some more some simple elements that can guide all of us in actually be more consistent in driving protection please. So even in those cases ongoing violence. What is the of that ongoing violence that is the risk is the attacks or the fact that there is a high rate of abduction what it is and then of course the part of general party can be in the complex. So the risk and then again in terms of shaping the balance included visual elements and everything full flexibility. So this really can be discussed at the level of your constituency with the data that you have. And with the same messages of before try to do correlation try not to use single data points. If you are a questioner or assessment that you recently done try to put two or two to three questions together. So again the same analysis stronger. And that's it on the risk anyway we're going to we're going to enter into that the next week. And but let me pause again in a moment. If there is any question on this section sometimes up in case. Thank you. The response section and here I would like to you to pay a bit more attention because we change a bit the response section and is where probably we try to put. The normally what we've been doing all the last year which is absolutely fine is to use what you already do in the country you have beautiful exercises and dashboard that actually show funding data programming data partners school and everything. What we realize that it's good that you keep that as a separate type of analysis document that you can use and you use the protection analysis update to reinforce that data. So you're going to present to donors your funding your funding data your programming data and so on and that's fine. But use the protectionize update actually to to point the attention to specific elements. So those specific elements are and it's been it's been more or less on a logic. First of all start with the progress made so start with the positive. Often time and that's been one of the common of couple of donors that we engage is that we always present a negative. You know we cannot do this we cannot do that and so but we are going to present that you're going to see it but start start with the progress made with and I can show you one quick example. So it might not be positive but it can be a progress we try to do these we try to inform that so here for instance in the second paragraph you will see in the first is about the partners and the people reached and so on. The second paragraph is in this scenario. We finally managed to have our first humanitarian exclusive or mass intervention in an area controlled by the rebels. Let's put it as fundamental it's progress it's something that we try to do and also showcase the efforts that we are doing as a second. And then you might have several mean one what we try to thought is if you manage to focus on the people reached them there's a good number because then it can be compared to the pin. This is the pin that we heard that is the people we reached the second is the access for protection. So we show the progress. But then we wish we say these are the constraints that we find we are fine. So these are all the constraints we're finding. So we'll call it access to protection because as you know we launched a global campaign and access protection. So the idea is also to start having the protection analysis update building to that. So they can be mutually enforcing and we can use also in our advocacy for the campaign. But for you what is important is consider trends and variation key events on situation but also again try to show some efforts. We found this constraint we found this modality we found this alternative but these are the constraints we are facing. Here is one example where we are saying that basically again it can be related to specific regions or to specific areas. So with safety and security is actually curbing our capacity in these and these other regions. And to conclude then is where you present the critical gaps. So we managed to do this. These are the constraint and these are the gaps that these constraints are causing or the gaps that we are at. They can be of many kinds can be funding. It can be operation. It can be access and always try to link it with the risks that you try to modify before. So here again related to before in another area. So one of progress is when we managed to enter with exclusive or an intervention in this area. But then the critical gaps is that another area we actually the partner who was working stop the funding and now we have a gap. Okay. And this is causing this and this and this. I was suggested it to be very, very focused on the on the regions if you cannot. I will move to recommendation because I see that the time is almost coming to an end, but please raise your hand if you have any doubt or question even on the response section. The recommendations. Of course, key recommendations. And that's that's that you is limited to two pages. So we also focus on key recommendation. We don't have this huge list. Because one of the goal and one of the suggestions that we would we will have to try to start using those recommendations as a roadmap also to be able to report what happened. Or also to actually try to have some accountability to the actors that we asked those recommendation to. You will see that the structure is quite this is quite fixed. Organize the recommendation by risk for the same logic. This is our analysis. This is the priority and this is our collective way forward that we see. You can consider many aspects. You can consider where it will the protection risk worsen by time. If something is not done. Will the modality we are using now have a negative impact or an effective exacerbation of the risk identified. Is there a recent trend that we identify this protection on this update that requires specific attention. So there are many ways of going about it, but try to focus on the risks. And again, this is from a best practice, but for us, it's very, very helpful in using the protection on this update is for each risk really focus the recommendation to a target. Okay. And for that, what we try to do with develop for general categories of targets that you can use that are those one that you see in the example. You can adapt the wording. So for instance, you look at the first group government authorities the fact authorities and parties to the conflict. If you want to specify government of or ministry of because it's part of one of course you can do it. These are general categories. So even when you have donors member states. If you really want to qualify the contextualize you can. Our only suggestion is that you maintain separate the four core groups. Because this really helps us out in building a collective advocacy. So on the level of the one of the efforts that we're doing on the advocacy side of the global protection cluster. It's actually to identify all recommendation that we do to governments to monetary coordinators, because for instance, if we managed to have all. The recommendation that we do to monetary coordinators and we can build a collective advocacy to another higher level. This is everything that we've been trying to discuss with my time coordinator in countries. That's the only caveat, otherwise it's fully flexible without the wording and some and and seeing it in another way. Basically the goal is that for each recommendation. You try to have always certain elements the target which discuss the linkage with protection of risk. Try to not put a general situation. We have to address and gender based violin in the country, but try to include an action and something to suggest what to do. A timeline, same discussion for the executive summary, even if it's not a detailed time line by the first quarter by the second quarter in 2023. So this recommendation should be enacted by in order to and that's made recommendation much stronger and compared to a general one. If you have a general recommendation for the country to make it stronger sometimes use locations. So we really have to prevent forced eviction specifically in this region in this region in this region because maybe those are the three region that in the protection of risk update the situation got worse. So we know that it's a problem of addiction the country level but in the recommendation since it's related to the period of the PAU, try to link it, look it up with that. And of course we always try to balance recommendation that are beyond the protection sector with recommendation for us because that also give a bit of accountability. We show that we are not just telling others, but also we are actually looking out to adjust our approach. And with this on the recommendation I finished this is an example, I will just look at the first one where you can see the linkage with the risk denial of access to services. The target advocate with the Ministry of Education to allow children who are missing some valid identity and civil documents to a role in school and participate in public exams. That's the action before September 2022. This recommendation of course you will have in the analysis something that says that if that doesn't happen there will be certain consequences. So this is just one example and we are going to find it in the sample. That's it on the step by step sorry that maybe was too much. We have five minutes to the time so I think I will skip this part unless it's important to just open if there is any question down or if reflection. Let me ask some of you, how do you see what is the most challenging parts of a protection analysis update and how do you see that maybe some of these new guidance can help you out, maybe if someone wants to have a quick reaction. Maybe I'll go again. Very quickly, very quickly, I think it's, I mean, it will help in the sense that it's way more structure and way more supporting in the in the thinking process right as you said the simple recommendation which I see that's from the report in Iraq, where the question was very generic and now if I had if we had that type of support earlier right considering also the different challenges would have made perhaps a bigger impact and better way of phrasing something that might be known to everybody but it needs to be phrased in a better way. Thank you, thank you. No, it's good to hear that. And also one thing that we realize sometimes to give a better support from the global protection plus the side that the more we try to target the recommendation the better we know who to engage. You know sometimes we have a moment that maybe we don't structure but maybe some of our protection plus the coordinator may have a meeting with the, I don't know, we'd see that with a specific donor with a specific actor in the next three weeks or for something else. If we know in your recommendation that something is related to that particular actor we can flag it automatically. So that I think I mean it's what we try to do try to actually make a better use of everything so thank you Claudio. Anyone else. I know it's early in the morning for many and maybe I've been too quick. I hope it was clear. The idea was to actually have a run through. We are going to this has been recorded so we're going to share it again so if you needed to share it with partners or with other colleagues in the country. That's the goal we're going to have a second session this afternoon. And of course we're going to have a follow up. So the idea was not to actually present and expect that you are able but the idea is whether the next month and a half try to plan your pay use and then we're going to have the next session of feedback and reflection why you're going to start using it. So from the practice we can actually discuss that together. Also if there is apologies for having done the session just in English. I mean for the participants we had to choose. But we are very much up is well to do specific session in either in French or in Spanish. Again, reach out to the geographical focal point this has been discussed so we can actually organize so the message is basically use this as an opportunity to reach out if you see any need. Okay, we try to develop the guidance but the idea is not that we leave you alone so please reach out and then we will try to find the best way of supporting you. We have been trying to sign the colleagues of the information analysis team that are very good and very, very helpful and everything on our side of the advocacy we can help you and if I can help you in understanding better the guidance and so on and so forth. I'm here for for everything. I will I will put my email in the chat. So it's okay. And if there are no further questions. We are three minutes to the time. I will switch off switch on the camera just to again and recon of the Francesco and say me and Vincent and happy and glad to support you in case of a supervision of an elaboration of the power. So we are here and just just this is just a quick message and thank you for reaching us. Because the person is the regional focal point and then we are. Thank you. As you can see, we're all excited to support you and we will try to do our best all the time. Thank you very much. So there is no further question reflection or reaction. I included my email in the chat. And I think we can we can close the session. Thank you very much. My pleasure and I can wish everybody a good weekend and everything else. Thanks. Thank you. Great pleasure. Thank you for your timing. Thank you very much. I have a great day. Thank you.