 Okay. Thank you very much. Dear colleagues, guests and ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this end of year event on behalf of the global protection cluster and the permanent mission of Sweden. It's very inspiring to see so many colleagues both here with us in the room in Geneva and also joining us online. Today we have participants registered from over 80 countries around the world representing a diversity of regions and languages. And I think this truly speaks to the relevance of the topic we are here to discuss today, namely access that protects. Later on in the meeting, Samuel Chung, the GPC coordinator will officially launch the GPC agenda for change on access that protects. And we will hear more about the work that GPC has undertaken during 2022. To first, better understand how increasing access constraints around the world are impacting protection action, but also secondly to look at what can be done to address these challenges. Now to kick us off, let me begin by saying a few words on the Global Protection Forum and then comment briefly on Sweden's humanitarian strategy. Sweden was an active participant in this year's GPC's campaign on access that protects. We participated in the Global Protection Forum in October and were greatly inspired by the interventions made from colleagues in the field who shared their extensive experience and knowledge. During the forum, we heard excellent examples of how protection actors work with communities to support community self protection capacities and how an inclusive humanitarian system strives to ensure that all protection actors are recognized, valued and supported. So turning now briefly to Sweden's humanitarian strategy, our strategy highlights the importance of mainstreaming and focusing on protection outcomes. It aims at reducing the risk of violence, threats and abuse for crises affected people. The strategy guides our work and support to humanitarian crises around the world. We support partners and actions that mitigate threats, reduce vulnerabilities and enhance capacities for self protection. The strategy also includes objectives related to safe, unhindered and sustained access. Wherever possible, we work with humanitarian diplomacy and across humanitarian development and political sections to advocate for humanitarian access to populations in hard to reach areas. We believe it's crucial for organizations to have an access mindset and a consistent approach to accessing more people in need of assistance and protection. We also need to raise awareness of the humanitarian principles and compliance with IHL to increase protection of people in need. So in short, Sweden is very pleased to be co-hosting this important event together with the GPC and its broader network of protection partners. So in today's meeting, as I mentioned earlier, Samuel Schung, the GPC coordinator will officially launch the GPC's Agenda for Change on Access that Protects, highlighting the policy and practice change priorities that have been developed throughout the year together with protection experts, both frontline practitioners and also policymakers. We are also pleased to be joined by participants from OTSHA, NRC, ICRC, the EU, the UK and the US and others in the room. All these are key protection allies who will be invited to share their reflections, priorities and commitments in relations to access that protects and the agenda for change. Finally, this event is also a great opportunity to come together and reflect on some of our achievements as a protection community, but also to highlight what needs to be done moving forward next year. Sweden will, among other things, follow up with the YASC on the review of the YASC protection policy to see how we can support taking forward some of the recommendations to make protection central to all humanitarian action. So with these introductory remarks, I thank you for your attention and I now turn to Ms Gillian Tricks, UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, who will officially open this event. Well, thank you Hannah and greetings everybody, both those here in the room and the many hundreds who I can see are participating online. I think certainly for the last two years, this event has been virtual, but nonetheless I've always enjoyed being part of them because there's always a sense of vibrancy and engagement by all of you in this key question of protection of people in need of international assistance. So thank you very much for joining us and thank you in particular to Sweden for co-hosting this event with all of the partners that you've described. Of course, you've all been working together through the Global Protection Cluster over the last year and it's an opportunity, I think, to take a little bit of a stock of where we are, the world that we're facing and the challenges. And I'm very pleased indeed that you've you've picked up on the point that without access it's difficult to provide protection. So thank you. I have not I must admit read the new work that's been produced for action, but I will do so. But I think that it's picking up on a key blockage and deterrent to being able to deliver protection in practice. And of course, it's protection that lies at the heart of all work in the humanitarian sphere. This last year has really continued what we've seen over many years and that is a continuing rise in numbers of people in need of international protection, a staggering protection crisis globally that mounts as we speak. This year at the end of 2022, we have more active armed conflicts than at any time since the end of the Second World War. A conflict induced internal displacement is at its highest level in a decade. The Global Protection Cluster reports 150 million people estimated to be in need of protection globally. And with the United Nations Refugee Agency, you may be aware that we have reported or the High Commissioner has personally reported 103 million people forcibly displaced and in need of protection. But another statistic that perhaps gives a sense of how how this is evolving is that this year alone, the UNHCR is dealing with 40 crises, protection crises and emergencies. 21 of them new in our history now more than 70 years. We have never faced numbers of this kind and emergencies of this number and variety. All or many of them of a particularly protracted environment in which some of the traditional protection solutions that UNHCR has worked for are really no longer possible. We of course have seen a very significant decline in resettlement places rising again this year, but also the difficulty of returns in safety to places of conflict. We're also of course talking about the climate crisis, which is likely to deliver even more millions as the as the years go by. But nothing of course can really alter the reality that most of the protection crisis, in fact overwhelmingly, they are driven by conflict, although we expect to see that conflict increased with with the climate crisis. I had expected by this time at the end of 22 to be talking about the social and economic impact on vulnerable people of the COVID pandemic. But of course that really underpins many of the vulnerabilities and protection needs that we continue to see. But of course we we haven't been talking about it so much because we've we've seen the war in Ukraine and other crises, huge humanitarian crisis with 6 million displaced in the Congo. The civil war in Mozambique continuing the war in Ethiopia. And of course the continuing humanitarian crisis for the Rohingya having having fled from Myanmar and an inability to resolve the need for many millions to return to Syria and countries like Turkey continuing to sustain a huge burden. So it's a time to rethink if we we every year at UNHCR we produce more figures, there'll be more emergencies next year they'll be higher numbers, we keep on doing it. But we're not solving the problem, and it is time for some refresh thinking, and if protection is at the core of our work, then access in order to achieve that protection is critical. So I'm really very personally very pleased to see the thinking that's gone into this this new initiative. Of course in these crises we've seen some some silver linings. And one is that we've seen a very great increase in our reliance and understanding the importance of local humanitarian groups, particularly local women's groups who were of course responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and who are in the absence of access from international players are actually playing a significant role in providing support for survivors of gender based violence, numbers of which of course continue to rise. But also negotiating at the local level, typically with principles often with government officials to ensure access to schools for children living in an environment of active hostilities. So we are learning to place much greater emphasis on local communities to ensure that more of the funding goes to those local communities and that we can support them in delivering where they can. But it is clear that we are not keeping pace with the increasing scale and the complex nature of protection risks globally. We have as broadly speaking similar funds this year as we had last year, but the reality is that the needs are massively increasing. And so we are unfortunately in a position of going to countries that we most want to persuade to understand the principle of responsibility sharing and solidarity. Those countries we are actually going back to as host countries to say we have less funding, less money to support them, which is a very, very difficult argument for us to make. But returning then to the the phenomenon of lack of access, we are seeing this in many, many contexts and I understand we have 32 protection cluster operations, which are active globally. And they're all ones in which we see profound constraints on our ability to provide the humanitarian aid. And there are a number of examples, but one of the ironies is that the groups or communities that are most in need of protection support are the ones most likely to be inaccessible for life saving assistance, the hardest to reach. And sadly, this appears to be by design with access related restrictions as part of the strategies adopted by parties to a conflict, the aim being deliberately to harm civilians and to prevent protection by presence, which we all know is so critically important. And there are many examples and you'll all be very familiar with them. Of course, Ethiopia in in integrate the inability to get access to that area to the Ukraine recently a greater level of access to reclaimed or or liberated areas towards the east of Ukraine and trucks starting to with food and and winterization equipment. We've seen particular constraints impacting protection in Afghanistan. And one that of course is is particularly troubling is the restriction on the participation and movement of female staff by the de facto authorities. This is an example again of policy induced access restraints impacting the ability of protection actors to provide safe and confidential services to women and girls in South Sudan. We see subnational and intercommunal violence bureaucratic impediments and physical restraints such as flooding that an unprecedented level poor road conditions, and all having an impact on the affected populations. The protection cluster has established or reestablished a mobile protection working group to mitigate these challenges and to ensure a more timely delivery of protection services to how to reach areas in Nigeria. Again, access to relief assistance and protection communities living under the control of non state armed groups is extremely limited. We are attempting through the access working group through our partners to move forward to understanding how we can better ensure access in those circumstances. There are good practices that are successful stories that emerge from these operations and we do see change in some areas. But there is a dire need to explore how access constraints affect protection to understand it better and to find approaches that will ensure that access is effective. So this year, again, I really do applaud the work of the of the protection cluster. It's absolutely vital and it's a very consistent with the global compact on refugees, which talks about a whole of society, a whole of you in effort to ensure that we have access to protection. So I'm again congratulate all of you who've worked on the agenda for change because change above all is what we need because we cannot we cannot sustain the current magnitude of the of the challenges to protection. So thank you very much and I will now pass if I may to my colleague, Samuel Chong, who is the coordinator for the global protection cluster, and he will doubtless provide you with many more details about how this work on access is going to progress. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Jillian for your framing the issue so well, particularly how well it resonates with the mandate of UNHCR and we also know that it resonates very well with all humanitarian agencies around the world on this and thank you also Hannah for your words of welcome and also to the government of Sweden also for setting such an example on supporting humanitarian aid and protection around the world. Thank you very much. On behalf of the global protection cluster and all our areas of responsibility. I do want to take this opportunity to welcome you all to this year's GPC closing event. Our event today wraps up a year that was full in many ways. On the one hand fully occupied as Jillian mentioned because we have more active armed conflicts today than anytime since World War two, but also full because it's been full of critical reflections on how we achieve protection together and how we can collectively move the needle toward better protection responses around the world. Core to this and one which the GPC has geared our efforts through a year long campaign has been on this issue of access. The GPC's campaign has been about finding greater complementarity and impact between efforts on humanitarian access and those to strengthen protection for and with people affected by crises. As part of this the GPC has pursued a range of conversations consultations and dialogues about these linkages between these two issues. These include a series of three different round tables across the year, one with technical experts at the global level hosted by the Overseas Development Institute. We had a second one with frontline practitioners hosted with a center for competence on humanitarian negotiation. And there was a third with member state representatives hosted by the UK's Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. We also organized the Global Protection Forum just this October around the theme of access that protects with 12 sessions convened by a range of protection actors exploring different aspects of how access and protection can be further globally as well as on the ground. The forum really reflected the collective efforts of 50 key protection and access partners they contributed to and shaped these sessions they brought together participants from over 135 countries in this year's forum. Now all of that work has culminated in the development of this agenda for change on access that protects, which we are very pleased to launch today. Now the agenda for change it centers around two main priorities. The first priority is protection as a collective objective and outcome of access efforts. And the second priority is around sustainable and quality access for protection. Our recommendations for a collective way forward begin with the following. On the first priority, to embed protection as a collective objective and outcome of access efforts, we strongly believe that protection should be at the core of existing access mechanisms at global and country levels, and particularly through access working groups. This includes actions such as further incorporating access strategies with explicit protection aims. Another important area for action relates to protection actors being active and predictable partners alongside the humanitarian country teams in their access engagement. It's not about creating separate processes or mechanisms but rather seeking complementarity and linkages between access and protection focused mechanisms and actions. In 2023 will we commit to encouraging the systematic participation of protection clusters and access working groups, ensuring we systematically provide an analysis of the impact of access constraints on people in need of protection. But also we commit to working collaboratively with OSHA and others to track access constraints, which are impacting protection actors and services. Furthermore, we believe that to change behaviors, reduce harm and contribute to improve access, we need to strengthen the capacity of relevant protection actors on engaging and negotiating with duty bearers and armed groups. This has to include strength and understanding of how protection actors can influence and encourage armed groups to comply with norms and obligations. Overall as the GPC, we commit to also supporting the capacity building and skills and strengthening of those who are involved in this, whether at the front lines or in other capacities, through partnerships, through specialized agencies, through whatever role they may have in protection negotiation. We want to make sure that cluster coordinators are actively engaged when it comes to developing and advancing joint access efforts. From the second priority, which is about sustainable and quality access for protection, we have to recognize that it's not about one off or heavily restricted access. We need sustainable and quality access in order to reduce protection risks. In many contexts we need to invest in community led protection, better supporting the unique role and expertise of community groups in making access to protection a reality on the ground. At the same time, we'd like to support and bring back the core concepts of protection by presence in principle and in approach. Reducing protection risks cannot be done effectively without presence, active engagement and advocacy in solidarity with affected communities. Sustained and quality access is also needed to inform advocacy and humanitarian diplomacy. Our access efforts must result in protection partners and the humanitarian community being there where it counts. This is necessary to be able to understand and identify protection risks, make referrals, monitor, tailor our interventions to those living through the crisis. Where this is not the case, there's the need for better data and evidence to understand these constraints and their particular implications on protection actors and services. Advocacy efforts, including those through humanitarian country teams and through member states as well, provide a key opportunity for protection actors to consistently emphasize what we need to be there where it counts. Importantly, such efforts must also seek to tackle the underlying assumption that raising protection concerns or advocating for the rights will inevitably hinder humanitarian access or result in negative repercussions for the delivery of programs. Each of these two priorities represents an aspect through which the Global Protection Cluster, together with protection clusters on the ground and other stakeholders, including humanitarian country teams and access working groups, can move the needle on the kind of sustained quality access that is critical for protection. They complement and align with existing initiatives, they bring forward the overarching concept of protection that all humanitarians share. So we are committed at the Global Protection Cluster to working closely with a range of partners, stakeholders, partners and allies to take these priorities forward. Speaking of partners and allies, we're fortunate today to have a distinguished group, each of whom have very important and critical roles, mandates, and critical perspectives on humanitarian access and protection. Online, virtually, we have Aurelian Boufflet, Chief Policy Advice and Planning for OCHA. In the room to my left, we have Christian Cardone, Chief Protection Officer for ICRC, and also to my left, Cecilia Roselli, Director for NRC Geneva as well as the co-chair of the Strategic Advisor Group for the Global Protection Cluster. So what I'd like to focus on now is a conversation and to really dive in deep with these esteemed colleagues in terms of their reflections on these matters. So if I may, Aurelian, may I start with you? We've talked about the assumption, the perception that addressing protection concerns or advocating the rights will inevitably hinder humanitarian access or result in negative repercussions for the delivery of programs. Our opening question for you is, is this myth or reality? And in either case, how do we turn the corner on this important issue? Aurelian, over to you for your reflections. Thank you, Sam, and good afternoon to you and good afternoon to everyone. Sorry, I'm not in the room with you, I'm in New York. And thank you also, Hannah, for Sweden's continued support and continued push on protection and access issues. Now, to answer your question, Sam, is it a myth or reality really to your perception? Is it a reality? Certainly no. If you look at some of the organizations that enjoy the best access, they also very often some of the organizations that push the most on protection issues. Having said that, there is a perception still that access and protection cannot go together and we need to fight that perception. I think there's different things we need to do, we can do. The first one is pretty obvious, we need to engage or invest in access negotiation and in engagement with artistic conflict on access and protection issues. It goes without saying, but it's not systematically done today and that's why the ERC and Woodsharp are investing a lot and have made access one of the big priorities for the strategic plan to come. We need to become more predictable, we need to become more systematic. We need to bring the system together really for this dialogue with artistic conflict, non-state, and state parties to happen on access, to understand who we deal with, where we come from and to try to influence that. That's the first one. The second is really, as we leave this discussion on access, we need to be very clear on what is the objective and in particular what is the protection, objective and protection outcome we're trying to achieve. And here too, I don't think we are today where we need to be on that. I think the protection review, the IC protection offer an opportunity to change a bit the way we approach the protection discussion in parties, the way we conflict by focusing on risk, by focusing on outcomes. And I think if you approach protection from that angle, it necessarily also trigger discussion on what kind of quality of access you want and you're thinking in your negotiation. It triggers a discussion on how close to communities you need to work and how close you need to be engaged with communities in order to perform on protection. And maybe my last point will be about also the need to improve the way we manage the politics of access and protection. We understand that it can be difficult for leadership on the ground and teams on the ground to have certain discussion with parties to conflict. We under a lot of pressure with the access of protection. So we need to have a global level that really support the leadership on the ground to manage the politics of protection and access in this country. And we see this happening in some countries. I think Ukraine right now is a good example where we see, for instance, the ERC and the humanitarian ground really being well coordinated on both access and protection. I'm not sure it happens all the time. We need to have a leadership on the ground that has a political cover to have this difficult discussion. That's also one of the recommendation of the ISC protection review. So that's something we need to make progress on in the years to come. Thank you, Aurelian. Can't agree more on your reflections on that and how we can indeed make it a reality, both in terms of protection as the starting point, the trigger for how we look at these access discussions. But also, as you know, the importance, particularly in concrete situations on the ground, how we can provide that type of political cover for leadership on the ground to make those critical decisions together. Perhaps I can move on to Christian, if I may, with another question along these lines. As one of the world's chief protection mandate agencies, what insights might you have to share with us on dealing with protection activities being perceived as sensitive, as well as lessons learned on keeping a foundation that humanitarian access is an obligation under IHL? Your perspectives, please. Thank you very much, Sam. Thank you very much for the invitation today and for organizing it. Well, I mean, it was clearly highlighted and mentioned in the introduction that despite, you know, a normative framework that has improved and I think we need to acknowledge that over the past years, violation of international humanitarian law and the fact that the protection priority to be pushing forward as in the agenda has become more and more complicated. That's a fact. And unfortunately, that's what we have again realized in past months. When you talk about protection, specifically when it comes to ICRC in armed conflict situation, obviously you're talking about sensitive matters, sexual violence, the way hostilities would be conducted, the way prisoners of war are being treated, obviously very sensitive issues as we all know. So I believe that, you know, the way conflicts have been evolving and the current environment that we are facing is also pushing us to put into question certain things and kind of challenge a bit some of the things we've been doing for years, including when it comes to very basic protection standards, there are things that probably do not function anymore. And there are things that actually function well and should be reinforced. And if I may just list what I believe are the first, the things that should be maintained and actually reinforced very basic stuff. But the first one, which actually for all of us, I guess, protection actors is the basic one, it's the access to affected population and I would even say the proximity to affected population. Despite the fact that this can be sometimes, unfortunately, too often complicated. There's still many ways where we can have that more proximity and not through many intermediaries from from the ICRC experience at least the way and when we can have certain protection results and outcomes. It's actually when we manage to have ourselves the access directly to the population affected. And that's, I would say, a first one that can be reinforced and that sometimes is probably not explored enough. Talking to everybody to all actors that have an influence in conflict setting will obviously help the access you can have will obviously help the protection work you can do. And as we know, sometimes we put certain limits to that. But we believe that more than ever, we need to talk to everybody, wherever they are, whoever they are. Al-Qaeda, Islamic States. These are interlocutors that have a certain influence sometimes obviously as we know on communities, on areas and as protection actors, we need to engage with all these actors, making sure that at some point there can be an impact and that we can hopefully change certain behaviors. I always like to give the example of Afghanistan where the current authorities in particular have had a very good knowledge of the ICRC and the work they do in detention because of the many years we have spent in Afghanistan and in other places of detention that we have had to visit and which allows us today to have a good access to places of detention under the current authorities. This is just an example I wanted to flag and another one which I believe can be reinforced, it's confidentiality. And let me be very clear that confidentiality doesn't mean that you remain silent. Confidentiality means that you're not reporting in front of the media what you have witnessed, but actually when you are in front of the parties to the conflict, you actually express very clearly where the problems are and where we believe that there should be improvements. And obviously the neutral, intermediary and independent humanitarian action which will always be obviously guiding principles, allowing us to build trust with parties to conflict. And if you allow me some to complete on maybe where we need to adapt, where possibly there are things that should be put into question and challenged. I think the first one that we are working on also under your leadership, it's what are we talking about? What protection means in particular today in this world? When do we do protection? What are the humanitarian activities that actually contribute to protection outcomes? It's a real issue that probably will need further work and to be clarified. Pragmatism, yes, you mentioned in your question international humanitarian law obligations. But at the same time, I think we've also all made the experience that lecturing parties to conflict on only the law doesn't necessarily work. So we need to also make sure that we remain as much as possible as much as possible pragmatism. Digital, there will be the risk and opportunities associated to digital sphere risk obviously related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech that we know well and which have further impact on population affected. And then you have all the opportunities as protection actors that we can find in the digital sphere, all the information that can help us building also our report and documentation of protection issues. And last but not least, I think it's consistency in a world where obviously you are constantly observed and making sure that you are constant in your approach and what you are exactly developing in the field. I think that's absolutely key if you want to maintain a certain line and keeping and hopefully improving your access. Sorry. Thank you Christian for those reflect if I can ask you a quick follow up question do you think in our lifetimes do you think protection will always be viewed as sensitive or is there any way where it cannot be viewed so sensitively. I think it will always remain sensitive. I mean, wherever you are. And again, in a conflict setting those issues, wherever you are, as I said, in Afghanistan, in Ukraine and tomorrow somewhere else. These are issues that obviously are highly sensitive and highly emotional. And that's the reason why again, back to the confidentiality and the way you treat this information. I think this cannot be kind of a mainstream activity as it is for a water project or a health project. And still there will be sensitivity. So I think that will continue to be a challenge. And it's fine and it should be accepted like that. Thank you. Thank you. We certainly well receive your suggestions in terms of areas for reinforcement but also the opportunities and areas that we can also improve. Chachili if I could move to you. Our agenda for change calls for quality and sustained access, not just one off not heavily restricted. And we know that this is needed for the types of protection work which require trust building engagement delivery of services. What do you think are the key factors that can bring about sustained and quality access and how can we work together to make that happen? Thank you, Sam. You invited me before to go a little bit off script, so I will take advantage of that. And it's my pleasure to be here with you and represent NGOs which are the backbone. I would like to say of the coordination infrastructure that the global protection cluster represents but also the access working groups are at the field level and operational level. It's also my pleasure to be here because we caused the end of year event two years ago when we launched the report of breaking the glass ceiling to highlight the needs for funding for the protection sector. And I think we have made a long way since then. So it's really great to hear that from Mrs. Triggs earlier mentioning the need for thinking a little bit outside the box and have a fresh view of protection. I think the work that has been done this year to connect access and protection is a statement of that approach to look at rethinking. And it's really great to see Ocha also contributing to this debate as a testament again of the need to work together at making sure that there is complementarity between access and protection here in Geneva, but most importantly at operational level where the needs are overwhelming us. So now to your question actually you asked me what are the key factors to ensure quality and sustained access and I would like to reflect on two main elements. One is training for increased negotiation capacity. And the second is the working together element that you hinted to in your question. The leaks on the ground are highlighting that access negotiations can access negotiators at the operational level very often feel poorly equipped and not having enough and sufficient tools to balance the broader access objectives with protection from violence considerations and they face huge dilemmas and really challenging decisions to be taken at operational level on a daily basis when they have to decide if to between and negotiating for access for food or life saving assistance or providing information and being more vocal about violation of IHL and effective violations to the individuals and communities that we try to assist. So we really have to do better to providing our teams with the skills, the tools and the confidence that they need to tackle these impossible dilemmas. And while we know that each negotiation is unique and different and each context requires specific knowledge and understanding of the dynamics on the ground that there are indeed some basic elements that we can provide them to ensure that we get the balance right when we take these decisions and we should start by directly addressing those topics when we provide access training, when we provide better coaching to our staff and when we provide better supervision to our field colleagues. As part of NRC principle humanitarian access work, we have invested a lot of time and energy thanks to the donors that are here in the room today that allowed us to develop training modules for the broader sector. So we have trained us of today more than 1500 negotiators at field level, and we have also developed a learning tool that allow access to a wide variety of actors and organizations. And we have been very careful in making sure that all these tools that we are providing are inclusive and we are prioritizing participation from our local staff and from local organizations and communities because we strongly believe that that is where you can make the difference. So going back to the working together, which I think is another important element to take into account when we are faced with negotiating with armed actors, when we negotiate with local authorities that sometimes we are also aware that might be implicated in perpetrating the violence that we are trying to address. If we are united, if we are using the same tools, if we are adopting a collective approach in engaging in talking in communicating with them, we are way more stronger. Even if this is obvious stated here, it is not obvious at the country and operational level. And we have plenty of examples where we have not been able to act together and really have that coordination effort applied on the ground from the different actors and agencies that we represent but also not favored by the structure that the system is currently implementing. So I really hope that this is the beginning of a conversation, including with our colleagues to make sure that this coordination is fostered. Thank you. Thank you, Cecilia. I can't agree more on your your important points that you made the right on that issue of impossible dilemmas that our colleagues in the field are facing. It's a strong point of resonance for me. I'm wondering for the several hundred colleagues online and those that are in the field around the world, do you feel like you're an impossible dilemmas and how do we break that circle that cycle of being in that way is obviously a capacity to building on negotiations and but also again that sense how do we how do we how do we get out of that and and also maybe just to echo your point on the first of all hats off to the NGOs who formed the backbone of the global protection cluster is on the ground around the world and we know in terms of issues on negotiation the impact that is felt from the NGO community there in that real question. How do we pick up on those threads of really we've talked about working together when rubber hits the road on negotiations collectively on the ground. How do we make that happen more particularly as impacts protection. Maybe we can move on or alien we're going to come back to you if, if you'll allow me. When we discuss humanitarian access and this this really picks up right on that last question, not as an end goal, but a means to fulfill the broader objective to make people feel safer be safer and protect their dignity and rights or alien from your perspective. How do you see this moving forward, and when would you say we've done enough to reach our objective or alien over to you. Thank you, salmon. Yes, I'll allow you to come back to me. Look, I mean it goes without saying that we're not we're not negotiating access for the sake of access. I think the question is when you have access and what do you do about it. And I think here we need a bit to to step back and reflect a bit of the business within. What is our mission. I mean it's really to what principle of humanity protect the life and health of people respect for human beings and if you you go back to that. The consequence of that is that really corporations have a kind of protection objective how the protect it's a protection mission. We within so and if you analyze the knowledge that suddenly the opposition between really on the one hand and protection on the other hand doesn't make sense anymore. The belief becomes really an instrument of protection outcome and it needs also to inform access engagement and discussion you have I mean including in terms of quality of access sustainability of access. So first we need to clarify that I mean what we all striving for ultimately is for people to be safer for the lack of people to be protected for the humidity to be respected and our really cooperation is to to serve that goal we're not in the business to to quote the nineties of feeding the well dead as we used to say now is that an end point. I don't think there will ever be an end point I mean these are really complex environment and complex issues and will never manage to put together the perfect response certainly not but there are a couple of things. We can do to improve the situation and where our efforts need to focus. Christian said we need to talk to all actors so of course I mean and also said it in my first intervention that's that that's a starting point with our restrictions. But under the new agenda, there's some very concrete steps we can take. And first we need to make sure that protection actors on the ground protection classes on the ground really feed in access discussion that protection data protection analysis really inform access strategies and access discussion. It can be as easy as making sure that protection clusters participate in access working group which to my knowledge is not always the case at the at the moment. So that's reviewing and rethinking how we measure success in the response and really try to give space in this in this assessment to protection impact and protection outcomes. The question hc and hc to the shoulder as themselves and that we should support them in asking them is at the end of the response I mean are people safer. Are the rights better respected and and here I'm not sure when we we we measure success we put the service to question that the center of an edit some countries have started doing it so for instance there's interesting things going on in Syria. We're really a success in terms of access are measured also according to the protection impact and outcome, but I think that's more the exception today. Then it is the resource so here they are good lessons to learn which brings me to my third point is really to capture what colleagues on the ground are already doing and the good work that is being shaped in some places and what are some of the lessons learn we can draw. What are some challenges and things facing how we can support them. I think that needs to be also a third area of investment now and to conclude. All this makes sense only if we start working a bit differently and engaging definitely with communities. Christian mentioned the need to work very closely with community in the process of communities and I completely agree to that. I think it's also we have a reflection on the kind of engagement we have with communities in many contexts. The wrong truth solution report that was just released is pretty damning for the way communities feeding the response and whether we meet their needs including in terms of protection. So we need to reflect on how we make the communities participate in the response including on the protection. Element and how we get out of what I would summarize maybe quickly but I think it's a telling how and actually once for me that we approach our committee engagement like a customer satisfaction satisfaction slowly and I think we need to get out of this. Of this dynamic to really make them actors of the response and that the full sense of the ERC's flagship initiative to discuss with HTs and teams on the ground on how we can better engage communities including to achieve protection outcomes. Thank you Aurelian. For those reflections can't agree more that access is not just for access and I look forward to working with you on how we can measure our success even better and really centralize that around how risks are mitigated how protection violations are addressed in terms of the core of measuring the humanitarian relief around the world. Christian can I come back to you. Question for you. We have said that protection is in negotiation. What can we learn from the ICRC on how best to support these negotiations. Who can support how can they support, whether it be on the front lines or at the level of humanitarian diplomacy as well over to you. Well maybe the first remark is obviously I can share the ICRC experience but in that specific field I believe that there are efforts to share experiences among protection actors. But actually we should do much more and I see colleagues in the room here where we attended recently different meeting with different protection actors and there is a probably a new dynamic there that can be reinforced when it comes to ICRC within our own family and movement Red Cross and Red Crescent there's a lot to do there and sharing experience including in negotiation including in doing protection but that goes beyond the Red Cross Red Crescent movement obviously with many of you. As experience I mean what we need and what we've seen in many occasions in conflict setting again is that you need to set a legal framework before starting the discussion you need to make sure that in front of you the parties they do understand what's the legal reading and what's the legal framework and this is what we do as the moment a conflict start that we will remind the parties of okay these are the basic rules that are applicable in that specific setting and this is obviously key because it will be key all along the interaction and the dialogue you have with the parties including on negotiation aspect and protection related matters. Do no harm obviously we're not there and I think Aurélien alluded to that also at a different occasion. Anything you do anything you negotiate obviously cannot and should not and we unfortunately have example where it was an issue but cannot harm or worsen the situation even more. And there yes the community based protection or community approach is absolutely key and this is not only the case for distribution of food this is not only the case for water and health project but also for protection. We need to know what are the mechanisms that are being put in place by the community to face protection issues. We all are investing in that in a way or another in recent years but we probably need to do much more there and see especially when we're talking about difficulties of access obviously the community will play there a very important role that we probably underestimated in recent years. Patience in negotiation I'm not learning anything new to you but obviously probably as protection international actors. It's not with you know rotation of every two three years that we necessarily would understand really well an environment that we will actually build really a trust with the parties to a conflict. It may sound like a very practical details but it's an important one this is long term issue and if you want to gain again and reach some protection outcomes and results you need to look at this on the long term and that goes also with internal matters. Perception probably what many of us including us ICRC is definitely facing and which will continue to raise question the way you are perceived which remains very much Western in many of our organization and there there is definitely many more efforts to be made to reach a certain change in that. That will continue to be key and that will continue to affect the dialogue you can have with states with armies but also obviously with non state armed groups and just to conclude my answer if you allow me some. Which is very much linked to the first question you asked me but at the end of the day you know that there are all these practical issues that that we can improve there are obviously what we cannot control and which depends very much on the environment and the parties we have in front of us. But there is also a lack of investment in that specific field. As simply as that I mean I can tell you that these are issues that we also face in our own house and which I believe is being faced in in many of our organization if at the end of the day we also really want to see progress. We need more investment we need more protection delegates in ICRC we need more people who speak the specific language to make sure they can have an influence and actually build trust with a certain group or with a certain state. There are lots of investments on all the other issues of the humanitarian field but that one has been neglected over the last years. So these meeting are important but at the end of the day and I know we have donors in the room this is definitely a field where investment is very much needed. Thank you very much and I hope everyone has also heard that I'm again given the immensity of protection concerns and challenges in front of us. Are we investing both at the field level at the at the top level throughout to make sure that we can have success in this area. Did she live back to you. We're going to come back to this issue of the communities. And I do want to ask you about the the capacities and leadership of communities and getting that balance right or our agenda calls for recognize these these capacities but also adds these words with strong backing. Community capacities with strong backing and given your experience bearing in mind the complex deteriorating environment and when it comes to access. You know what do we need to bear in mind if we want to make the capacities and leadership of communities poor to our priorities for change with strong backing as well over to you. Thank you the first word that comes to mind is complementarity because we really have to find a way to complement each other. And I would like to take this from the perspective of an international partner that recognizes the leadership role of communities in negotiating for access in particular. And the importance that we have to put in identifying how we can ensure that our efforts are really complementary and not overlapping or overshadowing the interest of local communities. Earlier this year together with the Save the Children we did some explanatory research to better understand how international NGOs could support community led negotiations so what I'm going to say is coming from that research and not from my own internal reflection. And to start with, I think it's important to note that it's quite common for communities to negotiate directly with armed groups or on access with with local authorities or with the military. They negotiate the general freedom of movement movement access to services they negotiate for specific groups that might have been prevented to access certain services, but they also negotiate for their safety from from violence and in some cases this can be really challenging and difficult for them. We have a couple of examples that we can build on from Colombia and South Sudan that I think are particularly interesting. South Sudan is also very particular in an interesting example where I think we have shown that working together we could address challenges in terms of managing and revamping the protection cluster because I think a joint mission conducted by UNHCR, GBC and NRCD. Together I really believe that made a difference on the ground. So going back to community led negotiations what is important to keep in mind is that they very often are continuous and consist of complex and very often changing dynamics and interaction between the communities and the actors that they want to engage with. It's also important to acknowledge that sometimes communities may decide not to engage with armed groups and we need to respect that decision because it's very often based as we do on extensive and continuous context analysis. There is a role to play for international NGOs to support community led negotiations and we have to approach this with care and being intentional when we do that. So we have highlighted three key principles that we have to keep in mind when we do so. We must take a do no arm and conflict sensitive approach that was already referred to earlier by Aurelien and Christian. We must build trust and long term relationship with communities and that calls for a continuous presence on the ground. So we really have to make sure that we are there not for six months, 12 months, but we are there for a predictable future. And we must respect communities decisions to engage or not engage, engage with us or without us. So I really think it's important that there is a component of respect. We have identified four specific contributions that the international NGOs can make in support of community led negotiations. The first one is to support a community cohesion and representation structures. We have noted that representation structures within communities are extremely important and that can increase the likelihood and success of negotiations because they give the legitimacy to communities to really push forward for their requests and their needs and allow them to speak with their counterparts with which they have with whom they have to negotiate and dialogue with with a different level of assertiveness. The second, we think that we could contribute building individual knowledge and negotiation skills and I've referred to all the training tools that we have developed for the sector as a collective good for everyone. Third, we could provide practical support. Let's not underestimate the importance of some benefits and logistical contribution that we can make by simply providing a neutral venue for communities to meet or providing transportation or means for communicating. And fourth, we can participate in the negotiation process. As I said, I mean, it has to be a decision that is taken together and jointly with the communities. So the importance of complementarity is key. And I would like to conclude maybe going back to one of the points that Christian was making earlier about the importance of communities, putting people at the center. There are, in my view, very interesting and brilliant initiatives that are undertaken within the Interagency Standing Committee. The ERC has the flagship initiatives that are being launched. The question is how to make this happen? How to make this happen with the resources that are available at the moment? I really think we have good ideas but we need to operationalize those ideas and we have to do it with an investment. So I really like the point that you made at the end because I really think that if we are serious in willing to change the system to put people at the center, we need to invest in doing it. Thank you. Thank you. And I hope this agenda for change is about showing that we're serious about this investment but also we're serious about operationalizing these. So thank you also for such concrete reflections as well as recommendations on this important topic. Chichili, if I could just thank you. Christian, if I can thank you and Aurelian, thank you as well for your valuable insights during this. We started this as a reflection from key allies and partners and I know it starts here but also includes many of those in the room and those that have joined online. So really, really want to thank you guys for your valuable remarks. I know we can count on you as we move forward with this agenda for change. Maybe I could turn the page now and we'd like to move on to hear from some of our member states and donor partners who will play an instrumental role in also helping make this happen. You've all accompanied us on this campaign throughout the year shaped the process. And once again, we thank you for your continued support. If I could give you give the floor to a few of you who have joined us today to for some perspectives on how we can build this collaboration together and where we see some opportunities for this agenda for change. If I may first call upon the European Union, please. Thank you, Samuel. The EU was already very happy to host the mid-year event of the GPC and we are very happy to be here at the end of your event. Let me start by acknowledging on behalf of the EU and in this context, more specifically, ECHO, the big importance of this topic. And as speakers have been illustrated, access being a precondition for safe and effective humanitarian work, it's a necessity. And of course, humanitarian must engage with all parties to negotiate access and to negotiate ideally sustained and quality access. And the same is of course true of access for protection, with protection being in our view a life-saving service. This is something I believe we all of us in this room share, but it's important to recall this. And of course, access for protection, as the report has simply illustrated, is at times even more difficult. And it has forced us as ECHO together with partners in different theatres to look for creative solutions of providing this protection work rather low key of doing integrated programming to hide protection components with the rest of, with assistance or doing rebranding. Of course, this is not enough and a lot remains to be done, both in protection generally as the recent protection review illustrated and on access for protection. And for this reason, as ECHO we very strongly welcome the agenda for change. And there were quite a few steps suggested in there in the report and by several among you of how donors can support this process. Now, how do we as ECHO intend to help support this? First, we are committed to continue supporting the strengthening of the negotiation and advocacy capacities, not only of our staff, but also of partners as several of you underscore. And we are already financing the initiative of UNHCR and CCHN to improve the negotiation skills of partners and staff. We are, we have supported the development of the advocacy toolkit of the GPC and more broadly beyond financial support. We're also strongly supportive of the recent efforts of OSHA to enhance the central level negotiation capacity and make it available to the entire humanitarian system. Second, we also very strongly acknowledge the key role of the local and community actors as Cecilia has also underscored and their role is key on protection, especially in situations of constrained access. And we as ECHO are committed to further reinforce our support to local actors. We are now working on a strengthened policy on localization, which we hope to release in the next three months. And finally, last but not least, we are determined to continue helping with humanitarian diplomacy and with advocacy for access. And to do that locally as appropriate with authorities, but also to do that globally. And it is no big secret that access will feature very prominently at the second European Humanitarian Forum, which ECHO is organizing together with Sweden in March 2023 in Brussels. So to conclude, I do hope that the agenda for change will help make a difference to the people we serve. And we as ECHO are definitely there to continue supporting all of your work on this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Your messages and commitments are very, very well received. May I move on now to the United Kingdom. Thanks very much, Samuel. And I'm very happy to speak. Very pleased to see the launch of this agenda. As Jillian said, we can't sustain the trajectory that we're on at the moment. And for the UK, we feel that this agenda can really help. That's a really positive development for today. I also just wanted quickly to nod to another positive development. And two in a week feels quite unusual right now, but on Friday and with the adoption of a UNSCR on humanitarian carve-outs across sanctions regime. And I wanted to applaud US and Irish colleagues' leadership on that. I think the first point I wanted to make is just to echo other colleagues' perspectives on the importance of putting communities at center stage. All of this, and I think you've made a good start on all of that, Samuel. The High Commissioner's dialogue last week, I think was a fantastic example also. And from the UK, the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative conference as well. I think we need to recognize that so much of this discussion is, from a member state perspective, a political one at its base. And we need to get our decision-makers, including politicians, in the room with affected communities and with affected persons. It's not enough just to talk about what affected communities' views are and put that through the filter of the bureaucracy. We've got to cut that out and put people in the same room face to face with one another so that communities are genuinely at the center of decision-making. The UK is issued earlier this month. It's revised humanitarian framework and we've set out how important protection is as one of our three P's alongside prevention and prioritization. And like my EU colleague, I wanted to maybe just touch on three things from a member state perspective. We think that we can all contribute together. And you mentioned the third of the consultative roundtables that we were really pleased to co-host with you. So I think that conversation really, really helpfully highlighted a couple of these points. I think the first one is around how we can best use our diplomacy as member states to secure these protection and access outcomes. And I think a lot of that is about using our leverage, judging where we've got the right bilateral relationships, but also recognizing where we don't and where we need to work through third parties or regional players to address those barriers to access and protection. And as member states, we've also got a really important role at the multilateral level as well to protect the norms that underpin humanitarian access and ensure that those aren't undermined. I think the second point for member states is just to make sure that our investments do help to strengthen that capacity in the system and to take a long-term approach in the way that we target that support. And again, echoing points that others have made here. That means as well learning from specialists, the organizations, and great see Christian here for the ICRC, who already put protection at the heart of your sustained dialogue with parties. And I think we can learn as well from a bit of that pragmatism that you spoke about and how you do that, how do we put pragmatism into practice while respecting principles and norms at the same time? Again, it's one of these things it's easy to say, but the devil is in detail, and it needs to be super context-specific and community-specific too. And on that subject of core support, the UK keep strengthening collection action of humanitarian country teams to address barriers to access and to join that up with our support for collective advocacy by HCTs on system-wide protection issues. And a part of that is drawing on the analysis protection clusters, I think, as has been said. And then thirdly, finally, just to come back to this point, I think around how critical it is to recognize how political some of this is and to put both access and protection at the heart of our narrative on what it means to do humanitarian work, to recognize that this isn't solely about technical, technocratic changes and bringing different parts of the system together. It's also about thinking in a different way and articulating our thought in a different way. And that change in mindset is, I think, really needed right from the front line all the way to the Security Council Chamber and from the UK's perspective, I think the agenda for change can play a really important part in doing that. Thank you. Thank you to the UK, not only for co-hosting the past roundtable, but we look forward to that being a beginning for lots of collaboration in the year to come. Thank you for that. Finally, if I can move to the United States, who is online, United States, over to you. Thanks so much, Sam. Many thanks to the Global Protection Cluster as well as the permanent mission of Sweden for hosting this event today and for launching the agenda for change. And thanks very much to all panelists. I'm very sorry to not be joining in person. Given the staggering protection crisis around the world, we agree it's absolutely critical to take a hard look at how we can advance protection outcomes through humanitarian access initiatives. I think, you know, as you know, and as others have said, protection is a top priority for the US. We support the overarching priorities outlined in the agenda for change. And today we wanted to highlight just a few themes or messages that really resonated for us in particular. First, protection must be at the core of humanitarian access planning. We agree. Protection efforts and humanitarian access initiatives are mutually reinforcing and we really do agree that sustained and quality fund humanitarian access is needed to deliver protection to populations who've been otherwise been denied basic relief and services. I think conversely, protection focused actions can really strengthen access, particularly through community based action, as others have said, that enable some of the most vulnerable community members to be reached. As such, we support the GPC's commitment for protection clusters to more systematically participate in access working groups. And we're looking to forward to seeing that develop more. Secondly, as noted in the independent review of the ISC's protection policy implementation. We do view and agree that humanitarian leadership on advocacy must truly be expanded to include those thorny protection challenges that we see in the field. We appreciate the agenda for changes proposal that advocacy effort should tackle the underlying assumptions that advocacy will hinder humanitarian access or result in negative repercussions. And we very much look forward to the GPC's plan review of advocacy initiatives, especially in high risk context to understand the implications to access for protection actors and how they can be managed. Third, as others have said, local actors play an indispensable role in unlocking humanitarian access that protects. I think during the global protection forum, we heard really compelling examples of the role of community actors in negotiating access for protection and Burkina Faso in Yemen and Libya and elsewhere. And in our localization efforts, we really want to elevate the visibility of and support for locally led action in protection coordination mechanisms and processes. We especially want to solicit and build on expertise from community leaders, especially women and girls. At the same time, though, I think we do have to acknowledge the additional risks that local protection actors take on and realistically assess our ability to mitigate that risk. First, we're very interested to see what the GPC's community self protection task team will report as promising practices regarding community led negotiations, advocacy and protection. Finally, just to note the US proudly supports the GPC and we really do appreciate this year's investments in examining the intersection of policy and practice for stronger protection access and outcomes. On our part, like the UK, like the EU and like many others here today, we use a range of tools including diplomacy, public and private advocacy and financial support to overcome access constraints, promote principle delivery of humanitarian assistance and protect those motion in need. And we'll continue to do so and ensure that protection is a core objective and outcome in all of our efforts. Thanks so much. Thank you, Martha. Thank you the United States for also for your unwavering support of the global protection cluster. It's been appreciated. And also we look forward to working together with you on this access campaign. Let me bring this somehow to a close this very, very rich discussion and this launch of the agenda for change. First by once again thinking our panelists, Cecilia Aurelia and Christian for your insights, your contributions and also your ongoing efforts on the ground. Thank you to Sweden as co hosts for also this launch of the agenda and this year end event. And equally importantly on behalf of the global protection cluster and all of our areas of responsibility. I do want to thank all those who participated throughout the year on this campaign on access that protects. We invite you to continue to work with us with the global protection cluster with Ocha together who will co lead this initiative on implementation of the agenda for change. But also all those who have been able to participate to continue to build on the momentum in all of your endeavors in an all humanitarian situations around the world. I'd like to close maybe just by saying that protection is a negotiation. And as much as we like it. It may never be given away easily from the frontliners to the capitals, the national actors and the international, the coordinators and the implementers, the donors, the receivers. We thank you all for being protection champions in context around the world throughout this most challenging of years. Thank you all for your courage, sound health, peaceful end to this year, and an even brighter year to come. Thank you very much with that we close this event for those that are here we invite you for some light reception of like refreshments in the