 discuss which is how protection clusters can engage with the national human rights institutions. And it is a very also special occasion for us because apart from being a webinar, this is also an event when we officially launch the guide, the practical guide for field protection clusters on collaboration with national human rights institutions. And if you have not yet had a chance to have a look at it, we will have a brief presentation about the guide, but I would also like to ask my colleague, Peter, if you can share the link to the guide in the chat. So you already know how those webinars work. We have a maximum one and a half hour together, it will go by very fast, but we hope that we can really get most from it a lot of interactions, examples to be shared. So please do use the chat function to ask any questions. We will be constantly monitoring it and also share examples that many of you have also from your respective field experiences and protection clusters or national human rights institutions. I also think those who already shared questions ahead of the event, so this is just to reassure you that we have taken good note of those questions and we will then ask them back to the panelists right after the presentations. So today we have very distinguished guests with a lot of experience with us. So as I mentioned first, we will start with a very brief presentation of the guide. So my colleague Lobna will be presenting it and then we will give the floor to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions Representative Katarina Rose, who will share with us her thoughts on the importance of collaboration between protection clusters, national human rights institutions and why this link is really an opportunity for more synergies. And then we will hear more from the field. And we are really lucky today because we have colleagues from Philippines, both from the protection cluster in Philippines, and we will hear from our colleagues Linse and Alpha, but also from the National Human Rights Commission in Philippines, where Commissioner Karen will really give us the full picture of the collaboration between the protection cluster and National Human Rights Commission and a real example from the field. After that, we move to another region. We move to Africa and to Niger and Claudine from the protection cluster in Niger. We share with us the good practice example from Niger context. And then of course, we will open up for questions for your comments. As I said, other examples, and I know many of you have also a lot of experience on the collaboration. So please don't be shy and share this so that we can really maximize this event and be as useful to all of you as possible. So very exciting agenda. I hope we will really get most of it and this dialogue will continue even beyond this event, of course. And we look forward to being of support to you as the Human Rights Engagement Task Team going forward on this topic. But let me stop here so that we can really start the discussions and I give the floor directly to Lobna. If you can please present us briefly the guide, the outline and its structure. And thanks to Peter who already put the link in the chat. So for those who don't have yet a copy of the practical guide, you can download it now. Thank you. And then over to you, Lobna. Thank you, Valerie. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, I guess, to everyone. I am calling from New York, so it's early in the morning here. Happy to give you a brief overview of the guide. I picked just a couple of you highlights just to get us all on the same page and get us started. I'll talk to you about three key things. One, why are national human rights institutions a unique partner for protection clusters? And then we'll talk about possible areas of collaboration. And finally, just the key considerations, which is all covered in more details than the guide, but it's just nice to be all on the same page. Peter, can you give us the next slide? Yay, thank you. So what makes NHRIs a unique partner for protection clusters all over? There are four key areas or key reasons for that. First, because of protection access mandate and competence, right? So NHRIs, they have to promote basically the protection of human rights. So that puts them automatically in line of the protection cluster mandate. They usually have a wider geographical access than any of the protection clusters. And they're here after relief. So they or after protection clusters are not there anymore. So it makes their strategies or if we work together, it makes the work more sustainable. Their mandate is very interesting because they're usually both linked to state institutions, but they function in an independent manner. So that makes them very interesting and positions them in a very unique place to work for for being a partner for the protection cluster and competence. So usually they would also or often they would have the capacity to take on individual cases, to monitor cases in detention and also to facilitate access and deal with issues that are faced by ITTs on the ground that the protection cluster in many cases cannot do. So these are reasons why they're they're a unique partner. Let's go to the next slide. Thank you, Peter. Areas of possible collaboration. The guide mentions a number of areas of possible collaboration and the guide goes into details for each of them. I'm just giving you a brief overview. So one of the areas is data collection and monitoring for sure. Another area is access or basically monitoring in areas where there's deprivation of liberty. Monitoring of voluntary return and sensitive cases that they would have access to that the cluster often wouldn't. Again, given their unique positioning, they have the ability to advance certain legislations and policies that would help. And finally, yeah, let's go to the next slide and see more more areas of possible collaboration. Injury engage gender and diversity approach are are happening when we engage with NHRI. So these are more, here I'm talking more about areas where the protection cluster can also help, right? Where the protection cluster can add value through the work together, strengthen the protection in general situation, but also the protection cluster can advocate for the establishment of NHRIs in countries and operations where they don't exist. They can also work together on issues of various policies as well as emergency preparedness. Now finally, I want to talk to you about key considerations that the guide mentions to keep in mind when working or collaborating with NHRIs. And they talk about formalized channels of collaboration. So that's one of the things the guide goes through is how to formalize channels and how these formalized channels can can set set the tone if you want or set out who does what basically. So we can agree in formalized channels about common areas of work, the roles and responsibilities, but also issues of confidentiality, do no harm and other approaches. When implementing activities together, part of the work would usually include capacity building and training for some of the institutions, at least if they're new, if they're starting, and then we can work more together. So again, the guide that is shared in the chat shares information and more details about all of these key issues. It goes into examples and more details on how to work together, but at least I gave you an overview about why it's important to do it in different key considerations to keep in mind. Back to you, Valerie. Thank you so much, Lobina, and this is really an appetizer for you to look for more details in the guidance. You can find the link in the chat. It's all posted on the GPC website as well. Excellent. Thank you so much, Lobina, again, and we will now give the floor to Katarina from Ghaneri. If you can please share with us your thoughts on this topic and opening remarks. Over to you, Katarina. Thank you so much, Valerie, and thank you all. I'm really delighted to be here today at the launch of the guide for field protection clusters and national human rights institutions, and perhaps just to start with a few words to who we are. So my name is Katarina, and I work for the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institution, or GANVI, which is the global network bringing together all national human rights institutions from all parts of the world. And we work closely with our partners at the UN and civil society and also through four regional networks, including in Asia-Pacific, Africa, Americas, and Europe, to really serve as platform for our members, national human rights institutions from all regions, to share experiences and expertise, to identify collectively what living up to the past principles really mean in practice, and to ensure obviously also strong and independent institutions through our international accreditation process. And today we have around 110 NHGVs worldwide, and 84 of them are credited what we call with A status in full compliance with the Paris principles. And but really also let me start by thanking you, Valerie, and all colleagues from the Global Protection Cluster Task Team for this initiative, and also for the partnership over the past years with GANVI and NHGVs. And it's truly wonderful to seeing so many join from the field in particular. And it's really a critical time for us to meet and to discuss and reflect how together we can work to protect those affected and promote and protect their rights by using the complementarity of our mandates. And really more than ever the challenge, as we see also from the news and reports, the challenge is so urgent to build societies where human rights, underpin behavior, legislative and policy development and decision making throughout our communities. And really in that process was also so well discussed already by the previous speaker in that process, NHGVs have a very central role and critical responsibilities. And in many places around the world, including at times of conflict and facing real danger, members and staff of NHGVs across all regions have demonstrated the contributions that they can make in monitoring developments, investigating and documenting violations, challenging authority to respect human rights at all times, engaging communities and providing protection for individuals, and also offering constructive advice and guidance to those who hold power. And perhaps I can just delve a little bit into more detail as to how NHGVs fulfill this protection mandate, because that may be of particular interest to those here with us today. So, all NHGVs have monitoring mandates and activities. They monitor the situation on the ground and they do so with special attention to affected populations and groups that may be at risk, including women, children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and many others. Some of them also have a specific investigative mandate and many also have a mandate to monitor places of deprivation of liberty, including under up cuts and handle complaints also and facilitate access to justice for victims. NHGVs also has been said before they have a strong advisory mandate, the advice state institutional, the ratification of international treaties and instruments, but also then provide legislative and policy advice to ensure compliance with international human rights norms of both existing laws and also policies in in the making. And very importantly, based on their monitoring and investigative activities, they also report their findings and recommendations to national, regional and international bodies. For example, parliament, UN treaty bodies, they also engage with the UPR and thus really can serve as a bridge between the international standards within their national framework. And this of course is the evidence and information that NHGVs can provide and report is of course particularly relevant in relation to conflict and post-conflict situation, but also very much in terms of for early warning. And just to give an example, and I heard someone is joining from Kabul in the past months, the chair of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Sarzad Akbar, at the invitation of the UN Security Council, for example, has provided council members critical information on the ground from a human rights perspective, including in relation to affected groups and has made recommendations to their protection. And of course, the UN has recognized this very critical role of the UN when states adopted the Paris principles now more than 25 years ago when the UN continues to call and provide support to all states in all regions to establish strong and effective national human rights institutions. And their role, of course, has also been recognized under goal 16 on peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice, as being one of the indicators for progress under this goal. And however, and I'm sure that those in the ground will be very much aware of that, is that for NHGVs role to promote and protect human rights, particularly those of affected groups can, of course, only be effective when supported by sufficient level of responsiveness from state authorities and from other actors, in addition to a strong mandate and powers, adequate funding and capacity also for the NHGV to carry out its mandate effectively and independently. And these preconditions, however, are often challenged by the sensitive context in which they operate and often also NHGVs themselves may face additional specific challenges, such as security issues, being unable to access also territories but also threats for their own staff and operation. And I wanted to pause it just also to mention that really particularly we're in trend more recently for us has been that several of our members have been subject to threats and other acts of intimidation as a result of the activities, the mandated activities that they conduct, for example, conducting investigations into and documenting human rights violations and calling to account. And of course, the state has the primary responsibility to ensure here a safe and enabling environment for all human rights defenders, including NHGVs, but this is certainly also a responsibility that is clearly shared by all of us by the international community at large. So, as January, we're working closely with all our members across all regions with our regional networks and our partners, including at the UN, to support our members in their important domestic work and build growth and strength. And we continue, of course, central to these efforts is for us to strengthen NHGVs to be effective and independent so that their work can be used to the advantage of rights holders in as many jurisdictions as possible. And with us, very much welcome the guide for protection, field protection clusters on engagement with national human rights institutions, which I think really so clearly sets out the core mandates and the activities of NHGVs. And so powerfully also offers concrete suggestions on how field protection clusters can partner up with NHGVs, engage with them to protect those affected. And with the launch of the guide today, we warmly encourage you all to make practical use of it in the national context in which you operate and to consider engaging where you have not yet done so with the NHGV in your country of operation. And I really think today's event is a really important platform for us all to share these experiences and expertise to reflect on good practice, which we are going to hear from the following speakers, and identify collectively how is it that we can use our complementary mandates and the potential and full power of our partnership at global level, at national level to support protection for those affected and really also drive change on the ground. So many thanks again for our hosts for this really important and timely initiative, and I really look forward to the discussions. Thank you. Thank you so much, Katharina, for this wonderful introduction to our event, but also already highlighting some of the key areas of collaboration between national human rights institutions and protection clusters, and also giving it the framing how this is important at the national level, regional, global level, and how to do it in practice. I would like to also respond to the question in the chat from Vicky. So yes, indeed, we will be recording this event. We'll be sharing the link to the recording, but also summary from this event and the presentation. So you will receive that as a follow up of this event. And I see more and more colleagues joining also to other colleagues from Afghanistan, based in Afghanistan. So a special welcome to you who managed to join us in this extremely complex and challenging situation. So now we will move really to the field realities and the examples from the ground. And to start, I would like to invite colleagues from Philippines, Lindsay and Alpha. If you could give us an overview about your collaboration with National Human Rights Commission in Philippines and some of the good practices you have put in place. So over to you, Lindsay. Thank you so much, Valerie, and good evening, colleagues from the Philippines. So we'll be sharing with you the engagement of the protection cluster Philippines with the National Human Rights Institutions here in the country. So next slide, please. Okay, so UNHCR as the protection cluster lead within the humanitarian country team at the national level is currently engaging with the Commission on Human Rights or CHR. It is a national human rights institution in the Philippines which was created under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It entered into a project partnership agreement with UNHCR to strengthen its mandate in IDP protection in its identified core areas, the Mindanao regions, the five regions in Mindanao and the region in Visayas. At the subnational or the autonomous region, UNHCR is the co-lead of the protection working group and Mindanao Virtual Protection Coordination Platform known as the MVPCP. It is currently engaging with the Bangsa Moro Human Rights Commission known as BHRC. It is a parallel body separate from CHR, which has jurisdiction over the Bangsa Moro autonomous region in Mindanao in the Philippines. It was created under the Bangsa Moro Organic Law and institutionalized by virtue of the Bangsa Moro Autonomy Act number four, which was signed into law on January 14, 2020. It succeeded the Regional Human Rights Commission and now abolish autonomous region in Mindanao. Next slide, please. On engagement with the Philippine NHRIs, the protection cluster is focused on the following thematic areas. First off is on the legislative advocacy. At the national level, CHR has been our partner in implementing advocacy activities and the passage of the bill. Right now, we have this four versions of the bill being filed at the House of Representatives and at the Senate, the two versions of the bill. Next thematic area, next slide, please, is on protection monitoring and reporting. CHR IDP monitors and vocal points at its regional offices in Mindanao conduct monitoring missions at times, training with other protection agencies to assess the human rights and protection situation of IDPs at the displacement sites in camps and in host families and communities. The findings or the monitoring reports of the CHR IDP monitors are included into reports and thematic bulletins of the protection cluster, which are being published in the protection cluster website of the Philippines. The third point is on capacity building. CHR provides support on the conduct of training and human rights issues in the context of internal displacement as well as an advocacy strategy on the passage of the bill. Fourth point is on coordination, CHR has been actively and consistently participating in the Mindanao virtual protection coordination platform meetings, where it provides updates on the situation of IDPs that have been displaced due to armed conflict and natural disasters in the five non-barm areas regions in Mindanao. So for the sub-national level or autonomous region in Mindanao, over to my colleague, Alfa. Thank you, Lindsay. Good evening. Colleagues from Kotobato in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in the Philippines. So my colleague, Lindsay, earlier mentioned about the Bangsamoro Human Rights Commission, which is a newly established debauchery, but let me just bring you a few years back in 2012, the Regional Human Rights Commission of the now abolished Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was actually the human rights institution that was mandated to monitor and protect human rights in the autonomous region. So during this time from 2012 to 2019, the RHRC participated in the established interagency protection coordination mechanisms or the BARM, the Protection Working Group. Right back in 2019, it was already being led by the Ministry of Social Services and Development. And when COVID came, this Protection Working Group was now transferred to a virtual platform. So then RHRC was also active in other protection mechanisms that focused on sector-specific human rights concerns, such as children's rights with the CTFMR. Also, RHRC was supported by UNHDR, among other protection cluster members on capacity development, information management, trainings on the guiding principles on internal displacement, protection monitoring, and coordination. So there was a time when the RHRC was itself a convening coordination platform known as the Bangsamoro Human Rights Network. So this HRI, the RHRC, was already deemed dissolved upon ratification of the Bangsamoro Organic Law. And this Bangsamoro Organic Law established a new government known as the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region. And its employees, that of the RHRC, were on holdover capacity until the end of 2019. So by 2020, next slide, please. By 2020, a newly created human rights institution in the autonomous region known as the Bangsamoro Human Rights Commission was established through a regional or a subnational legislation by the Bangsamoro Parliament. So right now, given this transition from RHRC to BHRC, we are still at the very early and initial stages of collaboration. So currently, we are planning on a three-part training series for the staff of BHRC. These three parts will focus on foundations of protection and human rights, skills building, and will also include information management support. And the other support will be stretched out in the coming weeks. So we're still at the planning stage, given this very early stage in the existence of BHRC. So that is all from the barm over to Lindsay for the last slide. Thank you. All right. Maybe I can take in the last slide on our key takeaways. All right. So the challenges on the protection cluster engagement with HRIs right now is still mostly on mobility restrictions. So what happens is that the HRI utilizes secondary data from official sources for purpose of baseline data given the difficulty in accessing the field. So it also refers cases or concerns with government agencies or organizations. And there's an opportunity, given the circumstances, to make use of community-based networks that were already existing and organized under a project from 2018. So at the barm, only one of the three BHRC commissioners have been appointed. Well, on opportunities in the barm, agencies with protection mandates are open and receptive to external support from protection agencies and the protection cluster. And the ensuring productive partnership by the government and the autonomous team with external actors, whether it's humanitarian development, has been identified as part of the 10-point agenda of the Chief Minister. So just two lessons learned from our side is the importance of aligning the support that the PC is going to give and the messaging with the mandate of the organization. So for example, IDP protection is always a couch in terms of human rights protection. And this also dovetails into our having a shared understanding of the terminology used and just being aware that sometimes there's a difference in the language that may be utilized by the NHRI compared to what we are used to as protection or UN agencies. So that there ends our presentation. Do let us know if you have questions. Over to you, Valerie. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Alfa and Lindsay. I found very interesting how you share both the national level picture as well as the subnational. And also it's quite longstanding engagement you have had between protection cluster or protection working group and the National Human Rights Commission, which is very strong in Philippines and how it has evolved also over time and to what are some of the good practices as well as recommendations, which I from my field experience feel are very relevant to other colleagues who are online and in different operations and protection clusters. So thank you again very much, Alfa and Lindsay. And we will now hear from Commissioner Karen in Philippines, who will complement this presentation with the perspective of Philippines Commission on Human Rights. So over to you please, Commissioner Karen. Thank you so much and good evening from Manila. I'd like to share my presentation. Of course, congratulations on the launch of the practical guide for field protection clusters. And I hope we're able to convey the best practice or the good practices that we have had in partnership with the protection cluster in the Philippines. Next slide please. And that's the title page. Next slide. Well, since we're in a pandemic, then we might as well concentrate on that as well. But just suffice it to say that as a national human rights institution, we feel that we are strong because of the fact that we are entrenched in the Philippine Constitution, which is generally called a human rights constitution having devoted a particular chapter on social justice and human rights. And could you press the I think there one more? Yes. And these are the policies that actually make it a human rights constitution. Next slide please. So when it comes to the engagement with the protection cluster, next slide, we are mandated. We have a specific mandate to monitor state compliance with international treaty obligations. And of course, these are based on international human rights laws and principles related to human rights protection, including in humanitarian contexts. In the absence of a treaty on the protection of IDPs, the Commission relies on the UN guiding principles on internal displacement or OMPID as guidance for its work in protection of IDPs. But we all know that all the laws and principles, the standards are there contained in various human rights treaties. And we know that OMPID just crystallizes them into one guidebook or one set of document. The CHR adopts a human rights based approach to human and humanitarian protection. And where vulnerable communities are included in decision making processes, particularly in programming of humanitarian support towards achievement of durable solutions. This approach also underscores the unique role of CHR as a national institution, as we heard earlier Katarina talking about the characteristics and the principles related to national human rights institutions. And it means that unlike other humanitarian actors, the Commission has a mandate to hold government and non-government humanitarian actors accountable for their actions or inactions. The Commission also adheres to the humanitarian imperative of supporting all persons in need and observes the humanitarian principles of humanity and partiality, neutrality, and independence. And of course, a do no harm, the principle of do no harm. Next slide. The CHR actually conducts protection monitoring activities in displacement areas with particular attention to Region 8 and Mindanao as we've heard, except of course the Bangsamora Autonomous Region where we do have a collaborative role with the BARM and of course the human rights mechanism there. These activities include human rights assessments in camps, areas of displacement, investigations as we heard, of human rights violations, and documentation of human rights situations in those areas. We also focus work on advocacy building, as we have heard, and information dissemination. The CHR has been using mobile text messaging and social media in sharing information with communities. And we also craft key messages on protection of persons of concern. Policy advisories are also created and are shared with government and non-government entities. The Commission also refers IDP issues to local government units and the protection clusters. And we also issue report on general situations of IDPs in the country that has found its way in many fora, including of course national bodies such as the parliament, and also of course it has made its way through our treaty reporting, our submissions, and also in our diplomatic briefings at the national level. Next slide please is the protection cluster of course is made up of government and non-government entities. And we view this as a venue to mainstream our advocacy as well as to refer to issues that surface from the Commission's monitoring activities. The Commission sits in the different subclusters of the protection cluster, both national and local, and I said primarily in Mindanao, where of course we lend the human rights-based approach or the human rights perspective in discussing the issues. We also check the substantial aspects of humanitarian response and communicate our findings to the cluster for consideration of the body. And when applicable, we receive reports from the protection cluster as well on human rights issues where monitoring and investigation and or investigation could be conducted. So we sit in at least three, the main protection cluster, children, women, and we are now sitting in what we call the subcluster on gender-based violence. Through the support of UN organizations such as the UNHCR, UNICEF, UNFPA, the CHR was enabled to have extensive reach to stakeholders whose issues are regularly referred to by the cluster. And then next slide, I believe this is my last slide, is what are the opportunities that we have for our collaboration. Of course, joint monitoring in IDP areas, formalized referral structure between the CHR and the main service delivery office or agency of the national government, which is the Department of Social Welfare and Development. And this should be in the context of the protection cluster efforts and then of course independent investigations of human rights issues in displaced areas. I'm going to stop there and be happy to answer questions if I can answer them. But the ladies from the Philippines can also answer as well. Thank you so much, Commissioner Carendt. And I must say I feel very inspired by the good practices you shared and the big variety, I would say, of the involvement of the Commission on Human Rights in Philippines from advocacy to protection monitoring to reporting to active participations in the meeting. And you have it all. So I would be interested to hear even more details. But thank you so much for this overview. And I'm sure also that in the questions segment during our event, we will come back more in details on some of the aspects. So thank you so much again to you and also all colleagues from the Philippines National Human Rights Commission. Very good. Colleagues and we are now moving to the last presentation, please. Going to another region, as I mentioned, we will have Claudine from the protection cluster in Niger who will share with us some good practices from Niger context. We have listened to your requests that it would be great to have also some language variety. So Claudine will present in French. The slides are in English. Peter will post the French version also in the chat for those who would prefer to follow in French. And we have also my colleague, Anthony, who will provide a very brief summary also in English for those that feel more comfortable with English. So over to you, Claudine. And thank you for sharing the experience from Niger. Yes. So essentially, we have a protection context which is characterized by human rights violations, mainly by armed non-state actors. There is also a limited access to IDPs, which creates this situation of panic for civilians because of all these human rights violations. And in turn, this also causes IDP return movements. Fantastic. Thank you. Yes. So Claudine will be sharing four good practice examples, the first one relating to participation in meetings, the second relating to support and follow-up on advocacy, the third one concerning capacity building, and the last one relating to challenges in engagement with NHRIs. Yes. So the example Claudine just shared is a case where there were some disappearances that were reported and the protection cluster was advised with these disappearances directly seized the NHRI and the NHRI was able to conduct an investigation and include the findings and conclusions in their annual reports. We can also have investigations that confirm the facts. Even the National Human Rights Commission manages to conduct surveys and these surveys are linked to the reconnaissance of the facts. And here, we can give an example. Recently, there were cases of allegations, of military who came to the Niger to support the government, in the case of J5 Sahel, and these allegations were based on sexual violence, where we did a plundering near the National Human Rights Union office, who in turn touched the National Human Rights Commission, who investigated the cases, who confirmed the different cases, and then, after the surveys, after the confirmation of these cases, we saw the J5 Sahel, we saw the ministers of foreign affairs of these Chadiens, who started to communicate in recognition of the facts that the different military and also the measures were taken for the sanctions of these different military. Anthony, if you please. Yes, so, yes, pardon me, so the NHRIs are actually the protection clusters are able to reach out to NHRIs directly or through UN agencies and with their advocacy, they can see investigations launched, which result in admissions of the facts that are on the ground, the facts on the ground. The example Claudine gave was regarding allegation based on gender based violence, and there was advocacy that was conducted to the Human Rights Committee, the Human Rights Committee reached out to the NHRI in Niger, and the NHRI confirmed these allegations, which resulted in reporting through, sorry, I missed that last part, I got disturbed from a colleague who came to sign, maybe Valerie, if you could just complete that last part. So the advocacy resulted in a very effective coordination with the human rights mechanisms, and it's a good practice that is going also to be repeated. And you have also all the details in the actually French slides, which are posted by Peter in the chat. Over to you, Claudine. We can also point out a documentary that had turned the National Human Rights Commission in 2018, which, in any case, called the population and the authorities to respect the protection of human rights, the protection of internal displaced people. And these documentaries until now continue to be used to sensitize the authorities, as well as the population for respect of the rights of internal displaced people. So a documentary was produced by the NHRI, which was filmed in 2018 to advocate for the protection of IDPs in Niger, and now this documentary is being used to raise awareness to authorities and to the public as well. So the NHRI was invited to workshops that were organized by the Protection Cluster, and this helped protection actors to know how to reach out to the NHRI and to use their services. And they also invited their director to a class, and I'm not sure I got the name of what the class was, but. We can finish with the last slide where we drafted an action plan with the National Human Rights Commission, or maybe we won't have a lot to tell you at the moment because it's a draft, it's still a draft, it's at another level. But in the context of these action plans, we have planned a lot of actions to take in conjunction with it, on strengthening capacities, on sensitizing, on collecting data and monitoring data. And so in the next few days, it's really an opportunity for us to make them participate in several of the protection. So Claudine has just shared that a draft plan of action is being prepared by the Protection Cluster, and they want to include the NHRI for joint action on capacity building, raising awareness, and also monitoring activities. Back to you, Claudine. Yes, thank you, Anthony. In fact, I just want to finish with the challenges. It's true, we have challenges. And the biggest challenge we have found, for example this year, is this commitment of the National Human Rights Commission to the subject of practices perpetrated by the authorities, and practices that are contrary to the national law. So we cite the cases of returns of people who moved internally, where we saw that it was really difficult for the National Commission to engage, and we didn't really have good results, as we expected for the follow-up to these points. So one example, well actually the biggest challenge for the Protection Cluster is engaging NHRI on the practices that are perpetrated by the authorities. These practices are contrary to national law, and the most flagrant example is in terms of returns of IDPs. They don't really have, where there is a weak connectivity, they don't have enough connectivity to join the meetings. But when this year comes, we try to find out how to turn these challenges, how to bring our relationship. For the example of the weak connectivity, we have been forced, we call them to our Cluster meetings, to participate from our offices where there is connectivity, and we participate together. So we try to see these challenges, how can we bring the results to continue with them. Thank you, these are the small points, the small points that we have in collaboration. We remain open to all questions, as well as, do not hesitate if you also have other experiences. We are still enriching our collaboration with the National Human Rights Commission. Thank you. Yeah, so another one of the challenges that the Protection Cluster faces is limited logistical resources. And one of the main ones is weak or inexistent connectivity to internet for virtual meetings. And in times of COVID, they're trying to prioritize virtual meetings and it can be difficult because of these connectivity issues. One way they've been able to overcome this challenge is inviting colleagues to participate in their offices where they have internet connection and those colleagues who have internet connection participate virtually. And so they're looking to to involve the NHRIs as well to address these challenges. Finally, Claudine concludes and thanks all the participants. Sorry, she remains open to your questions and she invites all participants to share good practices, any other good practices they may have. Thank you so much, Claudine. Merci beaucoup. Thank you also, Anthony, and for being really the pilot in bilingual presentation. That's fantastic and Claudine, once the action plan is ready, we would really appreciate if you can share it with us. I'm convinced that it would be very, very concrete and useful example for other Protection Clusters as well. And I also liked how you bring it to very concrete collaboration points from the small points such as sharing internet offices to big ones such as advocacy with the military and other stakeholders. So it shows the array of collaboration and how you make it work at the end at field level. So thank you very much. And now, colleagues, we open up for questions. So I will start with those we received already either bilaterally, but please post here so that everybody can see or before the event. So one of the questions going to colleagues in Philippines, both from Protection Cluster and the National Human Rights Commissioner Karen, if you can give some examples on joint initiatives in the area of advocacy. And I saw Lindsay already provided some response in the chat, but I would invite you then to take the floor as well to provide more details. So this was first question. The second one is if it's possible to share some examples of memorandums of understanding established with the National Human Rights Institutions. So I would maybe ask also Katarina if you can provide some elements in this regard or other colleagues also online. If there is any possibility of support in terms of capacity building between National Human Rights Institutions and Protection Clusters, if there are any modules developed or possibility to share some of the materials. And then also an example or rather a question, what are some of the key challenges also and obstacles to collaboration between National Human Rights Institutions and International Humanitarian Actors from both perspective? So definitely if we can hear from Katarina, but it would be very interesting also from Commissioner Karen, your experience and we are here in really very frank discussion and of course it would be very valuable to hear from you. And finally Vasim, a question if we could go more in details in terms of the presentation by Claudine in the chair and how do you deal actually with the challenges that you mentioned? So we have received questions for all of the panelists. So I would invite you maybe if you feel to respond to some parts of the questions or those that speak most to your mandate and your work. If I may start maybe with Katarina then we go to Commissioner Karen and then colleagues in Philippines and Indonesia. Over to you Katarina please. Thank you. Thank you so much. I kind of just congratulate all speakers for really absolutely fantastic presentations and really interesting examples of cooperation, of experiences, of good practice on which certainly we can build also moving forward. Perhaps just quickly in response to the question around challenges and I think I've hinted to that a little bit in the presentation, in my own presentation and perhaps I can elaborate this a little bit further. I think first and foremost and that is not specific to the humanitarian work but more general is certainly to ensure that any device have the mandate, the capacities and also well resourced to be able to implement their mandate effectively and also independently without any interference from the state. And so this requires advocacy and this requires also support from partners on the ground paired also with advocacy at the global level and at times also this may also require some legislative changes into the enabling legislation of the NH device as to ensure that for example it can have an additional function or a strong mandate than currently foreseen. And certainly here the guide also sets out ways and opportunities and avenues for field protection clusters on the ground to engage in support of our efforts also as GANVI in helping ensure that NH devices are strong and independent. I think the other point is really also around as mentioned briefly some NH device really face security issues and also threats as a result of their mandated activities and I think when these situations happen or when at an early stage also when the NH device is being intimidated against I think it's really important for actors on the ground to come together engage with the institution, engage also with those at risk and on the thread and device here perhaps a strategy on how to address that situation that obviously follows the principle of do no further harm and ensures the protection of those really working on the ground. And then last but not least what GANVI has been promoting in terms of our advocacy for many years now is for the UN also really to open up meaningful space for national human rights institutions because really they often as we have heard also just now are the beholders of information that is absolutely critical that is authoritative evidence based and which is so important for the UN and the UN actors to receive and act upon based on that information and recommendation which are which are being provided. So I think it's also important here to come together and reflect on where is that voice where can we make that voice of NH device be heard at global level so that really meaningful we can have an impact on where decisions are being taken and recommendations made also from the UN mechanism the various mechanisms for this then also to help drive change on the ground and provide an additional authoritative voice to those operating on the ground. Thank you. Thank you so much Katarina for this quite exhaustive answer and I'm sure we can also follow up bilaterally if Vicky would feel we need to explore more in detail in this aspect. Maybe over to you Commissioner Karen now. Yes, thank you for the questions. Well some examples of joint advocacy that we've had of course with legislation but we can't say it's really good practice because we failed miserably the bill on the protection of persons in a internally displaced situation so it's actually vetoed by the president and that was I think around six years ago if I'm not mistaken six seven years ago and Alpha can can relate to that actually but the reason for the bill being vetoed was the fact that the lobby for the and this is just a frank conversation of course I just wanted to share this with you because we have to also take into consideration the source or the cause of the displacement and primarily in the Philippines and if you talk about Medanao the cause of displacement is really armed conflict local armed conflict and the lobby of the security sector was really that strong and that was the that was the well the discussions that came after the veto but the veto itself if you take a look at it was that the NHRI was given the authority to be able to compensate and to for lack of a better word Alpha can correct me if I'm wrong to be able to compute the damages and to award the damages to affected communities and that was found to be against the constitution apparently in their own in the executive's own evaluation of it therefore that bill was vetoed and we were all floored UNHCR at the time it was Bernard Kerblat who was heading it was really very very disappointed we were all very disappointed about it so I think that's that's a good good example in itself because it teaches us a lot of lessons but but the humanitarian community the human rights and the humanitarian community was really together in it but I think the the key there is that perhaps the lobby of the security sector was really that strong that's why that bill was vetoed and we're still at it we still don't have a bill that or a law that has been passed to actually squarely take a look at the plight of internally displaced communities we also issue advisories and these advisories from national human rights institutions are actually are actually well I'm not gonna say co-authored but they are they are processed together with civil society actors belonging to the protection cluster but also to our UNHCR counterparts and UNFPA UN women if it's on women etc. So what am I saying here perhaps the good the good practice is really to form themes to form dynamic themes and it's something that's that's quite valuable on the ground because it's not enough to just you know work with NHRIs you have to have a good relationship you have to have formalities or at least a meeting of the minds that you you want to be able to what's this this is your role this is our role and let's respect it let's create some synergies around it I'm the last point that perhaps I'd like to share is on the modules we do have modules on capacity building not only for those affected population but also for our own for NHRI people we do undergo trainings and we do collaborate with our partners on the ground I believe that we do have an online human rights academy in the commission on human rights and that's part of our human rights promotion mandate and I think in the coming months we will be able to upload that module on on capacity building on on internally displaced issues but humanitarian concerns in in these kinds of situations so thank you very much thank you so much Commissioner Carr and also for your openness about the challenges and explaining us really also a little bit of background and the different challenges and the realities on the ground so this is very valuable and I'm quite impressed by also the modules you mentioned and the online version so whenever it's available we would be really grateful if you can share that with us and if we can also further share it amongst amongst colleagues so thank you very much for that I would like to ask colleagues from the protection cluster Alpha and Linse if there is anything to add taking into consideration as well some years question we just came out in the chat uh um um let me just read it because I see it's in also on Philippines so where there are any negative uh fallouts for protection cluster partners due to their close collaboration with NHRIs in the Philippines or vice versa if no negative fallout for either of them then how were they avoided what conscious choices were made while deciding the collaboration to avoid these so a very interesting question I would also maybe like to ask Alpha and Linse if you can touch on that as you are complimenting the answer so over to you Alpha and that Linse probably we just would like to add on the legislative advocacy and so even though the IDP bill was vetoed in 2013 we continue to advocate for its passage and currently we're really requesting for key legislators at the congress to have a bilateral meeting with us and so we can also continue to find champions at the legislative body so that it would be pursued and even though the 18th congress or the current congress will adjourn next year we will continue to pursue or to find champions for the next congress and in relation to that we also conducted a webinar covering strategies on how to pass the bill and we have requested or the participants were CSOs non humanitarian organizations and even the IDP communities probably I will touch upon on the last question here were there any negative fallouts for protection cluster partners due to their close collaboration with NHRI in the Philippines or vice versa fortunately there is none it's because we're focusing on the centrality of protection and at the same time our efforts are really for the IDP community and then so far we do collaborate and and at times we also inform the humanitarian community about the findings and the reports of the NHRI and so far there's no negative impression of us being or having a partnership with the commission on human rights just focused on the protection mainstreaming and on the centrality of protection so that we will continue to serve or protect the IDPs or the affected population over to alpha for additional inputs yes thank you Lindsay and I just to add also on the question on negative fallout yes as Lindsay has mentioned there has been unfortunately I could probably attribute it to two things first is that it's a very low profile you know collaboration and partnership with the commission on human rights and mainly focusing really on the protection of internally displaced persons and so that brings me to my second point so there is this sort of I don't know from the side of the current administration a different way to deal with humanitarian situations vis-a-vis the way they are dealing with other human rights issues so it seems that for those entities working with CHR for the more on the humanitarian protection during emergencies it's not that objectionable in their part I also would like to address the question on some key challenges and obstacles to collaboration and how to mitigate I could think of two first is there's some challenge when new leaders or new commissioners of HRIs are not on you know the same level of interest or knowledge when it comes to protection and this might be because they came from a different you know background or they are more on the legal side as opposed to human rights or protection so it could be quite difficult because some of them could be you know convinced that for example IDP protection is not part you know of their mandate so one way to mitigate that aside from advocacy is to contribute to building their knowledge base on IDP rights as human rights so that fuller appreciation of what protection is and this could be done through you know sponsoring their participation in training programs for example the course on the law of internal displacement so which I think is really very useful in you know further opening up the conversation on what really is the role of NHRIs in protection. A second challenge could be on sustainability so currently one approach is to allocate resources for example from members of the protection cluster to support the engagement of IDP monitors within the NHRI so they are not you know organic personnel of the NHRI but funded through the project and this could pose some challenges for example when the the funding or the agency disengages from the operations so I think one way that this could be mitigated is integration into the funding or advocating for the inclusion of for example salaries of the monitors in the regular budget for example of the agency but of course this also comes with its own challenges especially when the status of the Human Rights Commission or institution is not very popular with the current administration so also the tools for monitoring so not just on the people but also on the tools and processes if they could also be integrated into the work of the organic functionnaires or the personnel of the commission so that even when the IDP monitors that are supported by the project are already disengaged then they could still continue so that is all from me and thank you over to Violin. Thank you so much I think Sameer got quiet comprehensive answer to your question Sameer but of course you can also continue bilaterally thank you so much Alpha and Lindsay for for those elements also to draw your attention that Peter posted a link to all the materials from today's session in the chat the presentations are there and I would like to ask if Claudine you would like to come in with some elements of response. Claudine, do you have a mute? There seems to be some technical issues Claudine we cannot hear you we no sorry I'm afraid we cannot hear you so if you have anything to add if you can put it maybe in the chat if okay for you Claudine okay colleague so I think unfortunately our time is coming to its end I say unfortunately because I believe it has been really substantive discussion with a lot of elements and definitely different aspects that we can go even deeper into and follow up on on the question also of trainings to add on the elements already shared by Commissioner Karin and to add also that Martina Caterina shared in the chat that there is another tool which will be upcoming very soon and that was that was drafted jointly between OHCHR UNDP and GANRI as well as the special reporter on IDPs which is about protecting IDPs a handbook for national human rights institutions so we look forward to having this resource as an additional tool to use also by field protection clusters and we are developing with Lobna and the human rights engagement task team also modules on human rights engagement for field protection clusters which are being piloted now before the end of the year so I speak also under the scrutiny of Lobna but we hope that by end of the year you will have as field protection clusters some modules and comprehensive package for you to to use it in your engagement including with national human rights institutions or commissions so this is also coming your way and if you would like to have some support in between before the end of the year we would be happy to connect bilaterally with you so how to conclude I would say that our final note of this webinar is that this is just the beginning because the guide the practical guide is now available to you for your use for you can refer to it as as a practical inspiration it doesn't mean that you need to take all of its elements in each context but you can pick what is relevant what is useful of what attracts your attention depending on your needs on the context in which you are working we would be very happy to hear from you how this guide has been useful or not or what you have not found in it so that we can always improve it's a living document as everything we produce because it's important for us that it responds to the needs you identify on the ground so we hope that this event has been maybe a little bit of an inspiration for you in different countries operations protection clusters how to take forward maybe stronger collaboration with your counterpart at country level and we hope that we will have another event in few months to build on the good practices and that you have put in place and practice in your respective clusters so thank you again once more to all panelists that join us today and also the many field colleagues we have received today from Sudan to to Afghanistan to Philippines of course Niger and many other countries and we look forward to being in touch and we will share a summary of this event of course with you as per usual practice thank you very much and we will connect soon bye thank you Valerie and colleagues thank you so much everyone bye thank you thank you everybody