 Good morning, everyone. Kashif, can I just verify that you can see the presentation? Good morning, Ryan. I guess I can see the presentation. Thanks. Okay. Hello, everyone. I see that we have a good number of people now. Our AOR colleagues are here as well. Kashif is here. So we'll probably start our introduction of the webinar now, because we have quite a bit of information to get through. But good morning, everyone. Welcome to the morning session for the GF2.0 webinar series for the Protection Cluster and AORs. This is the morning session, but the afternoon session is the exact same. So don't go to that one, unless you love GF so much. You want to see all of this twice. This session was created because during our IMO training in Nairobi in July, it seemed like there were still a lot of outstanding questions. And we have also been continually receiving some clarifying questions about the basics of GF2.0. What does it mean for us as Protection Clusters and AORs? Does this change our methodology and just general confusion? So we're hoping that through this webinar, we can give you a good foundation of what GF2.0 is and what it means for you as coordinators and IMOs. And so this webinar will be recorded. The presentation and the recording will be uploaded online. So if any of your colleagues aren't able to make it, but you think it's relevant for them, if you can feel free to send this to them. At the end of the presentation, there is going to be a list of resources as well as directions on who to contact for what issues, if you need assistance. So that will be there in the presentation that will be on our website after this webinar as well. So since we have a bit to get through, let's go ahead and get started. So really quick housekeeping. I mean, I have everyone's microphone muted, but in general, keep it muted so everyone can actually hear me and not, you know, a random phone call or something going on in your office. You can if you want to post whatever questions you have in the chat, I will try to read them. I will say, depending on how long the webinar lasts, we may not be able to answer all of them, but you can always email any follow-up questions to myself and Kashif or to your AOR focal point and we'll make sure that we get your questions answered. As I mentioned before, the session is being recorded. We will send out the presentation and the recording probably through email to everyone who we can or at least a link to the recording and we'll also be putting it on our website. If you want, if you have a question, feel free to put your name, position, and country in the chat because that helps gives us context. Sometimes you may be coming from a country where the Ocha country office or the Protection Cluster AORs have changed, you know, maybe a standard or something specific is happening, you know, and so that will help us give a better answer. Okay, so just a really quick overview of what's going to be going on during the webinar. We're going to be reviewing what CF actually is and specifically, since I know many of you are IMOs, we're going to also be looking at the actual workflow for Protection Clusters in GF 2.0. What information is going where and what are the outputs? We'll review the analytical framework and in the analytical framework we will be reviewing how GF calculates its overall pin, its intersectoral severity, and then finally we will be looking at the new analysis platform that GF 2.0 has. I know there have been a lot of questions about that as well, but obviously this is protection specific, so although I probably about 70% of the webinar is GF 2.0, the final third is about like Protection Clusters and AORs ourselves. What are our actual inputs? You know, what is our context and analysis and what does it have to do with GF and also where does our own pin severity and joint analysis go into GF 2.0? And then finally we will review further support and resources if you need some extra help after this. Okay, so if you have somehow found your way into this webinar and do not know what HPC is, a really quick overview of why we have GF 2.0 in the first place. So GF is part of the humanitarian program cycle as probably everyone knows. It's a part of the production of the HNOs and HRPs and this is important because the HPC is what guides policymakers, donors, and also all of us as country operators in recalculation and decision making. To be very clear, GF 2.0, and this includes pin and severity and this is very helpful for you to keep in mind as a cluster. It is used for strategic prioritization. What this means is the information that you need to be using is going to be helpful at a strategic level. That means sometimes you may not have a perfect clear image of what is happening in every single part of the country you're operating in. That's fine. This process is meant to be used for strategic level decision making, not so much granular operation decision making, and Hugo, yes, the presentation will be shared after this as well as the recording. So some of the big parts about the HPC is that we probably as production workers and AORs should have a lot of experience in is there's a lot of joint analysis of primary and secondary data. Urgent needs are identified in key areas and then there is analysis on how these needs interact and where they have compounding effects. So all of these HNOs then go into what's called a GHO, the Global Humanitarian Overview, and this is the collective scale of humanitarian challenges worldwide. And then this is what is determining for the most part huge amounts of resource allocation from donors. That's why it's so important that you fully understand the context and the needs of your operation in order to better inform donors. So in GF 2.0, the goals of on top of having a useful analysis framework, what was GF 2.0 kind of pushing towards? So it has been a two-year process, there have been consultations, there have been redesigns, many testing. A lot of our operations like Somalia and Columbia have experienced these tests. There has been partnership between UN agencies, donors, NGOs, and INGO specialized agencies all under the auspices of the grand bargain. One of the biggest ask, especially from donors, was that GF is a global standard that is able to estimate humanitarian needs and protection risk at a global level. So because, as I mentioned before, the HPC process is what is used for decision-making and response analysis, it was important that it was an actual global standard that could be understood across operations. So another part of the framework is they wanted it to be more people-centered analysis. What's relevant for us, and we discussed this quite a bit in Nairobi, one of the biggest things is that GF now has a lot more flexibility with different types of data that can be input into it. And that's especially good for us because many times our data is not quantitative data, it may not be household level data, it may be qualitative, it may be reports from the field, for example. It may be reports from a local civic society or a local NGO. These types of data can be used in our analysis. Now, GF 2.0 is quite a bit more streamlined than the first GF 1.1. There isn't as much calculations and algorithms that go into its final numbers, which means that it's quite a bit more simple. And I hope that that kind of starts to allay some of the fears. I know that GF 2.0 is new to a lot of you and may seem like it's more difficult than what you have been working on, but I am pretty confident that once you understand how the framework actually works, you'll be probably more happy with it. There's a lot more collaborative analysis in GF 2.0. There are joint analysis workshops where things like the overall PAN and Interceptorals have already are decided upon. This collaborative analysis is very similar to when the Protection Cluster and AORs come together to determine overarching PAN and severity as well. So just to look at it really quickly, what are the similarities? The context shock and impact as far as setting the scope, this is exactly the same as what you're used to. Most of you have probably already done this part of GF for this cycle. It answers the same key questions. We were looking for strategic prioritization. So how many people are in need? How severe are their needs? Where are they and what are the drivers? And then for severity, there are still five levels of severity. The differences are sectoral needs and analysis has their very own modules. So sectoral needs play a much bigger part in GF 2.0. That means your inputs of AOR and protection severity and PIN are much more important than it was previously. There is no mathematical formula for Interceptoral severity. It is decided in a joint analysis workshop. Interceptoral severity does not include sector specific indicators. Another big piece which we'll get more into is the severity scales are interoperable. And I think this has maybe caused a bit of confusion between OSHA Contrafficers and Clusters, so we'll make sure that we review this today. And then another big change is severity and PIN calculations complement each other, but are not linked. They were previously, they are not anymore. For the protection cluster, our severity and PIN currently are linked. It may or may not be the same with AORs. The analysis process is much more collaborative than it was previously. Like I mentioned, it's very similar to when the protection clusters in AORs have their own joint analysis. Data need requirements have been loosened. You can integrate lots of different types of data, which you could not do previously. And there is also an online analysis platform. So looking quickly at the framework itself. So there are three modules. The first is very similar to GF1. So this is the contributing factors in scope. Many of you have probably already completed this module actually in your current process. It's probably the most simple to understand. We will go more deep into these three, but as a quick overview. The second is sectoral needs. So this is new. It integrates sectoral needs in the process. This means that GF2.0 is both the sectoral and the intersectoral framework. I'm pretty sure the GF acronym has changed. It's no longer joint intersectoral analysis framework. It's joint and intersectoral analysis framework. This is based on feedback from the field that the sectoral process and the intersectoral process were two different processes that were that was just adding work for two parallel processes and when they wanted them to be more integrated. So in this way, our sectoral needs are a part of GF now. The third module is quite similar to what has been what we had previously as far as what the outputs are. It's just how we reach them are different. So it has similarities because it concerns pin and severity, but what is different is now intersectoral severity and overall pin are a combination of sectoral inputs and conference of evidence. So we will review this later in the webinar to dive deeper. Normally this involves three. Ocha prefers three, but most likely two to three joint workshops. The first is the initial analysis. So this is standard. Everyone probably knows this process. If you've been a part of HPC before, this is when the scope is chosen. This is when there is initial analysis. You start looking at what are the actual shocks and impact? What admin level are we going to use? And you can start to prepare your methodology for that year. The second workshop is your sectoral analysis. And this is where we actually have our inputs. This is where you will have your protection and AOR pin and severity, and you make sure that they are interoperable with the other sectors. What this means is we know that severity level five is complete sectoral collapse. So when you choose a severity level five for protection, are you truly choosing a sectoral collapse? So this is just making sure and verifying that your methodology fits the actual definitions of things like severity or people in need. And then the third module, which is the third partner workshop, is when the intersectoral pin and severity are calculated. Most likely what will happen in some operations is module two and three will be in one workshop, not two, because three workshops may be too large of a burden for clusters. We don't know yet because we haven't had the chance to see how this works, but we'll see. Also in module three, it's when you have your final outputs, right? You'll have your intersectoral severity, your overall pin, but also your linkages between sectoral issues, your analysis, and this analysis is what's going to be driving the HNO. So this is something that I have created, so this is not necessarily exact to your country of operation, but I hope it gives you a general idea of how this works. So we have our three modules that I've explained at the bottom. On the top, you have your protection inputs. So during module one, when the scope and context is being decided, what you need to be using during this time is your context analysis, and US protection clusters and AORs should be some of the champions of context analysis and protection analysis. You should be knowing what is going on in your country of operation. What do the population groups need to be highlighted? What are the shocks and drivers? Are there special needs that are not being highlighted? What are protection issues that have remained hidden or not being highly likely should be? The first module, when you have that first session with OCHA clusters and other partners, when people are choosing your initial parameters, this is the first time for you to start advocating. So we may have our standard population groups, such as IDPs, refugees, returnees, non-displaced people, standard population groups, but perhaps there is a different population group that needs highlighting. You may advocate that we may not have severity and PIN for this population group, but they still need to be highlighted in the scope for us to make sure that they are being written about in the HNO and we're planning something in the HRP for them. So this is the time for you to be using all of that protection analysis that you have been using and using it in the GEOF process. And this goes not just for the protection cluster, but for AORs. AORs, you have an equal voice in the scope setting. You should be using this time to be highlighting those issues. Now, module two and three for RMOs is much more common ground that we're used to. So module two is where we input our actual sectoral needs. So the general process is child protection, mind action, GBV, HOP protection. We all have our own methodology and processes for how we reach our PIN and severity. We then have a protection joint analysis workshop that makes sure that we're all agreed upon everyone's methodology and how we reach those numbers. That creates the AOR severity and PIN as well as the overarching protection PIN and severity. And the overarching protection PIN and severity will be that top line protection part of the HNO. So then that sectoral input is then given to GEOF module two. And that is where we will look at the severity levels one through five, make sure they fit the definitions, where we will look at the PIN, make sure there's interoperability of PIN there. And then finally, those inputs then go into the third module where the intersectoral needs are chosen. Now you'll see here I have severity and PIN methodology. As we will go deeper into how overall PIN and sectoral severity is decided, it is important that you understand the methodology with how this was reached, which actually puts for the IMOs and coordinators quite a bit more important importance on this protection joint analysis workshop, because it's going to be really important that we understand, let's say a mine action PIN or severity was what was chosen to match the overarching protection PIN and severity. We need to understand why mine action has such a high PIN or a high level of severity, because that's going to be integrated in those intersectoral needs. This is also where you will be having supporting data and context analysis. Supporting data, once again, this doesn't have to be an MSNA. This doesn't have to be data that you used to calculate your severity and PIN. This could be a field report, for instance, this could be a focus group discussion that was only in two or three admin areas, but was not, you know, used across your country. All of that's going to come together in a convergence of evidence that determines the intersectoral severity in overall PIN. Okay. I'm looking. I don't see any questions so far. Just introductions. Great. Let's dive into the actual framework then. So I'm going to go through five pieces of the analytical framework, and we're going to look at these three modules. The first is module one, which is going to determine the key drivers and characteristics. Module two is going to be point two, more interoperable. I will get into what interoperable means, and I think this is a piece where there has been a lot of confusion. So I think it's really important that we go over that. And then module three are the last three points, three, four, and five. That's going to be overall PIN, intersectoral severity, as well as final analysis as linkages and patterns. So module one, I mean, this is kind of repeating a bit of what I mentioned before. This makes sure that the key shocks are defined, specific population groups are highlighted, and the scope of analysis is jointly set, and that everyone agrees on the scope. So this is the chance for you to make sure that phone or groups are highlighted, for instance, that we need to, for instance, you can see access in Somalia. So if humanitarian access is a large piece of your analysis to make sure that you're doing some type of analysis on access. Obviously, sometimes the scope is ultimately defined by the humanitarian coordinator or the resident coordinator but this is a chance for you to begin advocating if you think that the HD should be highlighting something that they are not. This is the chance for you to engage in advocacy to have that changed. So this is used both in the preliminary analysis, but also in the final analysis because through the process, things may have changed, the context may have changed. So this is going to be informing kind of the base, really the narrative of the HNO. So over as far as interoperability, part of the idea of GF 2.0 is to have a greater importance set on sectoral needs. To balance this, this means that us as sectors all have to understand and make sure that when we say, sorry, level three, that also means the same type of level three for food security, for instance. So it has to be interoperable. And this is where you're going to see global references for people in need in global references for sectoral severity. That does mean that at country level, these can change, but if they change they have to change for everyone. And I think part of the confusion that has happened between Ocha country offices and clusters is this interoperability estimation of sectoral needs. But I don't want anyone to be very stressed about this because you have already done this process. When you when you are calculating your sectoral needs and AORs or protection clusters say these areas are severity level four, and there are let's say 40% of the countries in severity level four, you're going to be slightly suspicious and say I don't know if there are extreme sectoral deprivations in 40% of the country that we're working on right now. And you go through and you look at these phase definitions and you make sure that they align with what the data is telling you. Because as you know, sometimes you may only be using three or four indicators to calculate that initial severity. Sometimes you're not waiting those indicators either. And so when you run those actual quantitative calculations, they are not giving you an accurate picture of what's happening on the ground. And so you have to go back through and adjust your sectoral severity. Maybe an admin area that was indicated to be phase level three is actually more severe. It should be phase level four or five. There's complete collapse of services in this area. Maybe it actually is not as extreme. Maybe it has changed since that data was collected and it's actually phase two, and that it's stressed more than there's actual elevated deprivation. So when OSHA is asking for your interoperability, what you need to just understand and know is when I calculated my pen and severity, was I using these strict definitions or was I not? Because ultimately the definitions that they will have for a severity level one, two, three, four and five, these are already definitions that we had as a protection cluster and as AORs because our guidance was the one that fed into this global reference. So don't be too concerned when they are asking you to make sure that your numbers are interoperable, because if you have followed your own guidance, if you have made sure that the indicators and the severity levels that you have chosen are aligned with the definitions that you have been using, then you're okay. Because ultimately what this is trying to do is to make sure that if you are choosing a sectoral collapse phase five and food security also has phase five, that those two are communicating to each other, because this is a huge red flag. And if there are two sectors that are in phase five, intersectionally that's probably going to be a phase five as well, which is going to be highlighted on the H&O and HRP. So module two is really two things. The first is you are simply submitting your inputs. You are submitting your severity in your pen. And secondly, you are making sure that that severity in pen can speak to other sectors. That's it. It's actually probably out of three modules, the most simple module if you have calculated your severity in pen correctly. So overall pen. So for our veterans, this will probably sound very familiar because it is just max pen. That's it. You have your admin areas. The sector that has the highest pen is then chosen. So this process is a quantitative process. Okay, everyone, I have plugged my headphones in. Great time for them to stop working. Please let me know if you can hear me now. All good. All right. Okay, great. Thanks, everyone. So moving on really quickly. So ultimately what is happening here? Yes, some time to absorb the mosaic figure. Yes, I guess that they didn't want to call it max pen because we had already used that previously. So we had to come up with a new name. And so they called it the mosaic method. So ultimately here, this process is a two-step process. The first is you take the max pen from whichever sector has the highest pen. And then secondly, what happens is depending on what that pen looks like in relations to others, there may be flags. And that's what we'll go to next. So flags are not necessarily a bad thing. So do not worry if mine action or child protection or the protection pen is being used and there's a flag on it. All that flags mean is that there is going to be a review to make sure that it fits. And this is just a way to make sure that our quantitative aggregations make sense. It gives us a human eye to review the data, which is something we should be doing anyway. So you can see the types of flags that are here. So you may have a flag if there are sectors that have missing data, just to make sure that everything is okay. You may have a flag if the difference between the first and the second highest pen are a 30% difference, because that's huge. And you want to make sure that there isn't a data error or calculation error for that difference. Similarly, between the first and third, there's a 50% difference. And then also you can see pen greater than 90% of the total affected population. And then finally, if there is a 100% change from last year, then that's going to require some human level review. So there can also be manual flags. Let's say I would suggest if there are specific areas that you know are hotspots, for instance, that you know are special areas that require human review. This process is a time for you to look at it and just make sure that people in need fit what you think is going on on the ground. But overall, I mean, that's how you calculate overall pen. You will notice it is not called Intersectoral Pen anymore. It is called Overall Pen, and that is because by just taking the max, we are not truly calculating an Intersectoral Pen, really, methodologically. So the methodology working group was not comfortable with calling this an Intersectoral Pen, because it is not truly Intersectoral with the max pen methodology. But as you can see, I mean, the process is quite simple. You will submit your overarching protection pen. They will review it. They'll take the max from whatever sector. You will then review all of those that have flags, and it's done. So this process for Overall Pen is actually quite straightforward. So Intersectoral Severity, which I know has been a source of confusion for a lot of people. So just to be very clear on what Intersectoral Severity is, I mean, a big change that we have been able to do in GF 2.0 is integrate protection risk into Intersectoral Severity. So the definition is now it represents the degree of humanitarian needs and protection risk that populations face relative to agreed humanitarian standards. So when we are calculating Intersectoral Severity, it is good to remember that we are calculating Intersectoral Severity, not protection severity. So your goal is to not try and make sure that the Intersectoral Severity is the exact same as your protection or AOR Severity. It is calculated based on overlapping sectoral severities, and then similar to the Overall Pen, there are then flags. After that, the ones that are flagged are concluded and decided based on a convergence of evidence, and we'll get into what that convergence of evidence process is. But just like how you take the max pen, we start our Intersectoral Severity in a similar way. But really quick, this is the area level description. So when we are looking at interoperability, you know, if you're looking at your protection severity levels, you want them to generally align with this as well. We won't spend too much time on that because we have a lot of other slides to get through, but you can review this in the GF guidance as well as this presentation after we send it to you through email. But so for severity, the first thing that happens is all the sectors submit their protection severity, and then a calculation is done on one to five, depending on what those severity levels are. And we did this because even though it is not a perfect correlation, there is still, we ran a lot of analysis with the Center for Humanitarian Data, and there is a lot of correlation between the number of sectors at high levels of severity and a high level of Intersectoral Severity. So this is going to give you a preliminary Intersectoral Severity. As you can see, Catastrophic would be you need at least two sectors in phase five and at least four of others in phase four. Similar for phase four, you need at least four sectors in phase four or worse. And this is going to kind of give you that initial piece. This is very helpful, like let's say if you're working in a country, you are, you have agreed that your scope is on admin level two, and you have 150 admin level two to go through. There is no way that you can go one by one, do 150 in a group with all sectors present and agree upon individual severities. So this is to give you that initial calculation to help the process. So I mean, stage two, similarly, I mean, you have your initial severity, but then there will be a series of flags that require, you know, a review, similar to the overall pin. So the areas that receive flags are the following. Any sector in severity phase five, and this is because if an admin area is in severity phase five, that is complete collapse, that is a humanitarian emergency, and is one that needs to be verified. Because if you were using severity phase five in your HNO and HRP, this means that this is an area that has already collapsed where irreversible harm has already happened and needs the highest level of attention paid to it. Similarly, if you think that there are, severity is not aligned with outcome indicators on life threatening and irreversible harm, which you will review, we will also flag that as well. And then manual flags as well. So once again, I mean, similar to Penn, these flags don't mean that there are errors. It is just saying this is something that needs to be highlighted and make sure that it's correct. Okay, so stage three, for any of the admin areas that have flags, there is something called a convergence of evidence. Now what this is, there is different guidance that would be provided. All the clusters are in a room together. There is a severity that is flagged. You have to use what that intersectoral severity is. There will be domains of assessment, life threatening conditions, irreversible harm, sectoral deprivations, and contributing factors that are then going to help you choose which phase to be used. This is also a time where you can bring in supporting data as well. So let's go through a bit quicker just because I want to make sure that we have time for questions and other things as well and the protection piece. So if we're going through outcome indicators, the most relevant, let's look at life threatening conditions really quick. I mean, so this is going to be death or imminent risk of death, malnutrition, epidemic prone diseases. A piece that will be quite relevant for us is irreversible harm to physical or mental well being, dignity and or livelihoods. So you can see that one of the new things that we have here is IHL or Human Rights violations. This is very new and we're still working with OHCHR to make sure that they are involved and are able to provide guidance on this. This will be a time for you to bring in supporting evidence. Let's say an admin area is severity level three, but you know that there are massive human rights violations or there is some type of protection risk or protection needs that acquire this admin area level to be raised to a level four after it's flagged. You can bring in whatever sort of evidence that you have to try and advocate for that. So this is, I mean, similar when we have the overlap and depth of sectoral deprivations. This is kind of what has chosen the initial severity. So that is looking at how many sectors have a high level of severity. And then finally, there are general descriptions of contributing factors that have to do with shocks. So as you can see, these are quite vague. They're quite open. This is meant to be a collaborative process with clusters. And this is why it is important that not just IMOs are involved in this process, coordinators should be involved in this process, experts should be involved in this process, effective population groups should be involved in this process. This is a time for you guys to discuss and make sure that these issues are highlighted. Okay. And my presentation decided to skip through all of that, but let's restart. So really quick on the analysis platform. I know there have been some questions about it. So ultimately, this analysis platform is quite new. So please be patient with your Ocha colleagues as they use it, as they continue to develop it. What's going to happen is in order to help craft the narrative of the HNO, Ocha is normally going to be the ones inputting this data. And then there are going to be visual prompts that are generated and they kind of facilitate joint discussions. So after you have had your intersectoral severity and your overall pin calculated, there are going to be different maps, different graphs, et cetera. You're going to be looking at what sectors have the highest severity. You know, you're going to look at what sectors have the highest pin, et cetera. And this is going to kind of facilitate joint analysis, which then is going to hopefully create and develop a more thorough HNO. Many times, HNOs are almost just like a Wikipedia page of the country's history and context. We're trying to have an HNO go deeper than that to actually look and compare between sectors to actually look at needs at a more thorough and deep level. Okay. Now, to move into the presentation. Sorry about it. Your presentation is not showing on the screen. Oh, sorry. Let me reshare really quick. There we go. I will go back really quick just so you can see this slide. There isn't too much to see on the analysis platform slide, so luckily we haven't missed too much. But you can see that there is an analysis platform that will be used. But I want to move on really quickly because I know that many people are here for the actual protection inputs specifically. So what do we, what do you need as a cluster? Let's say you're an IMO and you're a coordinator. Great. You have a better understanding of GF 2.0, but what does it mean for you? So here's what you need. You need your severity and pin. You need to have met with your AORs to determine your overarching severity and pin. This is going to be an agreement with your cluster and AORs. AORs, you yourselves are going to have your own severity and pin like you always have in HNOs if you have an AOR that's activated in that country. And then, as I mentioned before, you're going to want to be able to have explanations on the methodology and process of how that severity and pin was reached because that will be important in Module 3. And then you will want to have resources, any quantitative and qualitative data for you to use in joint analysis. And that can be any data that's relevant. And then ultimately these are kind of the basics that you need to be prepared for GF 2.0. As you can see, it's really not that much. It's just making sure that you have your severity and pin, that you have your context analysis and that you're prepared to engage. So next, for some reason, my slides keep on sharing for some reason. It doesn't like me that much this morning for some reason. But let me reshare because next, we have AORs with us. We have Anne Marie from Child Protection, and Adish as well from GBV. I wanted them to say a few words because I know that we have AOR colleagues who have also had questions. So if first, if I can have, I want to make sure if Anne Marie is still here. I don't see her name. Let me see. Oh, she is. Great. Hi, Anne Marie. If you want, could you please introduce yourself and then also kind of review and contribute accordingly to what we discussed? Thank you so much. I don't know about others, but I have trouble hearing Anne Marie what you're saying. Anyone else confirm? I think there's some issue with her. Mike, so probably if Brian, you go ahead. Well, while Anne Marie fixes her mic issues, Adish is also here. I also know that we have GBV AOR colleagues in here as well. Hi, thank you. So my name is Adish. I'm the GBV AOR IM for the Eastern and Southern African region. So thank you, Brian, for giving us the opportunity to be on this presentation, which I think is very important to reassure all the AORs, not only GBV. I won't talk or speak for only the GBV. I think all the AORs may have a bit of stress regarding the JAF. So this kind of presentation is very important to, I think, to clear out, clarify whatever is not understood or any confusion that may happen with everyone. I think from an overall perspective, the JAF 2.0, with regard to the AOR's relationship with protection, there's not much any change. I think I wanted to reassure everyone on that. It's a clear process. Nothing changes in terms of the calculation of our PIN, nothing changes in terms of our severity analysis as well. And then overall, we just want to align with the overarching or protection PIN. This is the same type of work that we have done if you have been used to working in the AORs or subplasters. I think this is very straightforward. Of course, you have your meetings together to finalize the figures, calculation and methodology used, but that doesn't change really. Where we have a better saying though is on that first module where we're looking at the, in that JAF 2.0, is the context analysis, the scope of analysis as well, where we're really looking at what should be put in there, what we're looking at in terms of population, in terms of admin level, in terms of the crisis, looking at the context itself overall. I think this is where, and Ryan said it clearly mentioned that this is where all AORs should be present to really push forward where we could have been missing something and make sure that we're not leaving any elements or people behind with regards to that context analysis. So this is one part. And then at the end of that, the intersectoral PIN and severity, we still need to be in there. Both, I think, coordinators and I am an expert, as you said Ryan, this is the one part as well where you can work on any nitty gritty that would have been missed. Make sure that we have a strong analysis and proper needs overview that is finalised after that. Otherwise, I'm okay with anything else to add. I think one of your most important for us protection overall in all AORs, I think one of the most important slides that you have in your presentation is the protection workflow, the one that you created that shows every steps and shows where we do sit with regards to our work, especially for the IMs and the coordinators as well. I think it's a very interesting workflow showing every step. So thanks. Yes, thank you, Adish. And yeah, I'm happy to hear that the workflow graph is helpful. I'll probably continue to work on it and maybe it'll be something that we can have easily seen and shared on our website. I will use it and I will quote you. Thank you. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes, perfect. Oh, perfect. Sorry for that. No, I would just echo what you already mentioned with Adish. It's just that nothing has changed. It remains the same for all the AORs. For drug protection, we use the same methodology. I think what is important here with the new GIF is that we need to be more coordinated to know more about what we want to highlight in terms of protection risk, in terms of needs to work all together and also to contribute to this overarching protection, severity and pain with a very comprehensive understanding of what are the key risks for protection. And as you also mentioned, the context is really important. The context analysis, we need to be sitting in all the discussions at intersectional level. Make sure that we bring our voice there and then also contribute to this analysis, which is the contextual analysis, but also this of the overall pain at intersectional level. I think it's really important that all the AORs and the overall protection, we sit at the table and we take part to these discussions. I think that's it. It's on my side. Perfect. Okay. Alan, we're making good time. I think I'm going to answer your question now before we move on, but just really quick. I mean, so the top-level key message from this slide is pretty much your methodology for pain and severity has not changed. So please don't, especially AORs. I mean, for the protection cluster, as some have seen last month in Nairobi, Kashif has created updated severity calculations for household-level data that's not required for us to use this year. And so we are continuing to kind of develop our own severity and pain calculation to make sure that it's evidence-based, make sure that it can use different types of data. So that's something that sets in development. But for the most part, for this year especially, please know that how you calculate your pain and severity is not different. And if, for some reason, I think we have received a couple of messages saying that Ocha has told you that at the global level, that it will give you guidance on how your pain and severity has changed. But ultimately, I think that's a misunderstanding. I think that's a misunderstanding of Module 2 on the interoperability. So how you reach your severity and pain has not changed. Maybe you will look at the definitions of severity and make sure that it fits your calculations. But the actual methodology itself has not changed. So Alan's question. So the current guidance is that an AOR pin and target cannot be higher. That also means the opposite. I think that means protection cannot be lower as well. We often phrase it that that AOR pin and pin cannot be higher than the protection pin, but that goes both ways. A protection pin cannot be lower than an AOR pin. And this is why you have your joint session. If an AOR pin or severity is higher, for some reason, the protection sector either needs to raise their pin or severity or the AOR needs to lower it. That's the current guidance. I'm not really able to predict if that guidance will stay. For the pin, it's important that it stays because of how the overall pin is now calculated in GF. I do not think that currently we have a methodology that is thorough enough where that process is flawless. That's why the analysis session where everyone sits at a table is so important. Because currently, I'm not 100% sure that we have perfected pin. I mean, severity, I think, is a bit easier, right? Because it's a scale of one through five. You all get around a table and you talk about does this admin area fit the definition of these severity classification phases, and you can come to a consensus through that. Pin is a bit more complex in how it's calculated, but I hope that we will further develop that methodology to make that easier. So for the last two, if it's okay, I'm going to finish the webinar. There's only a few more slides, and then I'll try to spend the last few minutes answering these questions, and that way if people have to leave the webinar at the hour mark, they can. But just to resume really quick, review this one more time, your actual methodology for this year has not changed. You can continue forward without stressing. So we almost just kind of recreated a similar workflow. If you had to define the impulse that you're giving, what are they? You have your protection severity, your protection pin, your AOR severity, your AOR pin, your methodology explanation, your own context analysis, and your own supporting data. And then looking at it in that similar workflow, you do your context analysis in module one and three. Your severity and pin are part of module two, and then in module three is where you will have your supporting data, your methodology explanation, and your context analysis again. So in the end, what you need is an understanding of your context, an understanding of our work as a protection cluster in that context, your sectoral inputs, and then you must be prepared to engage those sectoral inputs and protection rest during the analysis workshops. Nor, yes, we'll share the presentation after this, don't worry. Okay, really quick, finally, and you can click these links when you have the presentation. So for further resources for sectoral, you have our HPC homepage. So this, there are a ton of resources on the HPC homepage for the GPC. It was just recently updated by Kashif. It has all of our guidance. You also have myself and Kashif, you have your IMOs, and you also have your AOR focal points. Intersectoral, obviously the GF2.0 website, there is a lot of technical guidance there, but there is also FYI, there is a GF2.0 expert for your country. This link that's here on the presentation will take you to a dashboard that shows who is the expert for your country. So them as well as the OCHA country office should also be able to answer GF2.0 questions that you have. Who to contact? I mean, ultimately, of course, we're here to answer any of your questions, but for the most part, if your question is about GF2.0 methodology or process, or the scope of GF2.0 specifically, your OCHA country office and your GF focal point should be your first point of contact. Obviously, we are here at the global level to resolve any disagreements or confusion between you two, but hopefully the OCHA country office will be able to answer any of your questions. I would ask, please be patient with them because this is also their first year that they're having to implement GF2.0. So they may not be completely sure either. But of course, as always, if you have questions about the protection sectoral methodology, how you reach your own pen and severity for protection, how do you conduct your joint analysis workshops between the protection cluster and AORs? How do you do proper context analysis? How do you do proper protection analysis? Obviously, the GPC and AORs are here to answer those questions. So that's the end of the webinar. We've made good time, so we have time for questions. I'm going to go through the chat if that's okay. But obviously, thanks, anyone who doesn't want to stay to hear the answers to questions. Thank you so much for coming. I hope that this has answered a lot of pressing questions that you've had. Obviously, we are here for, if you have any follow-up questions as well. Let me go through the chat really quick. From Federique, we had some discussions on data and evidence in our operation. Adesh, I see you have answered some of this. Okay, so I can answer it generally as well. Maybe not for GBV information management systems or child protection information management systems. When you are calculating your pen and severity, you normally do this through indicators, and you have a limited number of indicators. I highly suggest that you do a similar process that we have done in GF 2.0, which is you have your initial calculation based on your indicators, and then there is a human review of that. Let's say you're using indicators such as freedom of movement, whether or not someone has identification in the ease that they get identification, and whether people feel unsafe traveling alone or something. These are three indicators that ultimately do not reflect the entirety of our work. Our work is very broad, it ranges, and so just by using a few indicators, we can't always create calculations that reflect the reality on the ground. That's why you can run the initial calculation, and you can use supporting data and supporting evidence to make small adjustments to move a severity from level three to level four or from level three to level two, and then you just indicate that change and the supporting evidence to how you have received that change. But I see Adish and Maria both responded to that as well, so I hope that that's answered your question. Let's see, Naran? Ryan Ramsey has his hand up, maybe we can go to him first and then. Okay, one second, Ramsey. You should be able to use your mic now. Thank you, Ryan, and thanks for the presentation. My question was actually asked during our workshop, the Jive workshop, the intersectional one that we had a few, sometimes last week, and the process of sitting together with the AORs to determine the pain and severity among us, protection in the AOR is quite easy and understandable given the fact that we've done it for the past years, but it becomes a little bit complicated when you're dealing with other sectors. And I give an example, in a situation here in Nigeria, we sometimes determine our severity based on the protection incidents, the protection concerns, the insecurity, the human rights violations taking place in a particular part of the country. And so for protection, those could be key elements to consider in order to determine the severity ranking. But take, for example, health. They may not consider those factors in determining severity, but they may look at the number of cholera cases, for example, the number of disease are breaking a particular location. And those locations are based on the fact that you have high population in those areas that are leading to more health related concerns. But for us, those places may not have serious protection concerns because we have relevant civil authorities in place. We have humanitarian partners in place that are providing those protection responses, unlike those areas where inaccessible or how to reach where we have serious protection concerns. So in this case, how do you determine joint severity when you have different areas of concentration, when you have different areas, I mean different factors that are used to determine your severity? So this question was not quite clear, but I think maybe you guys may have had some much broader. Yeah, you broke up a bit. Great. Yeah, Ramsey, you broke up a bit at the end, but I got the general question. So yes, it is a bit difficult, of course, right? If it was easier, it wouldn't have taken two years for us to even reach this point, which is a framework that isn't even truly complete, right? And intersectoral severity is something that has been, I think, difficult for many years. Ultimately, but I don't want to go off to a philosophical jump. So pragmatically, you have to look at what the intersectoral severity definitions are for this. And that is one point. And the other point is you have to trust the other sectors that have reached their severity levels that they have done in a correct way. That's why we have the interoperability portion. So that's why when we look at intersectoral severity, we have to look at the definition for this and say, okay, for health, this is a four, for protection, it's a two. In general, does the area have, on this case, a high strain on basic services, for instance, an unsustainable reliance on negative coping strategies? And you as a group, you trust your health colleagues who are experts in health when they say these things, or health should be trusting you when you say, listen, there is an inability for people to meet their basic needs, their basic protection needs. There is irreversible harm that is happening in this area from a protection standpoint. That is kind of how that conversation works. But yes, it is not easy. Preferably, Ocha should be properly facilitating these conversations. But depending on who your colleagues are, that may not be properly facilitated. I would say we as protection and AOR actors, we have the most experience with these kind of conversations. And so many times, we're probably better prepared than other sectors. Other sectors, such as food security or wash, are very quantitative heavy. They run their calculation, and then it's, you know, alas, it's done. So the process itself is still, it's not easy, as I mentioned. It is complicated. But really what you have to do is you have to go back to things like these area level descriptions of the severity scales. You'll go back to, as I mentioned here, these kind of outcome indicators that will look at irreversible harm, life-threatening conditions, et cetera. And they will kind of give you points of reference to decide. I hope that helps. I think there was one more question. I'm trying to read it quickly. Okay, so, Naren, I mean, if you're still here. Yes, so protection risks are highlighted in the Intersectoral Analysis. I mean, how this happens in PIN though? I mean, it will be reflected in PIN ultimately if it's reflected in the Protection PIN, correct? I mean, because since PIN is the max taken, it's going to be whichever sector has the highest PIN. So the PIN may or may not change when you're integrating protection risk. And, you know, that may then affect that overall PIN. But ultimately, I think protection risk is affecting the narrative and the analysis much more than I would say PIN. I mean, PIN is not too affected by the integration of protection risk. I think we are still kind of developing our own methodology on that as well. But okay, everyone, let's see, Christelle. I mean, okay, so, Christelle, how does you have 2.0 defined sectors with clusters? So this is a cluster exercise. So when people say sectors, it's another word for clusters. I think they just say sectors, in case GF 2.0 is used in an area where clusters are not activated. Islam, yes. So the global definitions are in the part of the presentation. And then there will also be links to the technical manual for GF 2.0 that have the definitions as well. But I think that's everyone's questions. I see no hands raised. Thank you, everyone. I will probably end the recording here. And then if you have questions, I'll just stay in chat for like 5 or 10 more minutes. And if you have questions, you can add them here. But thank you, everyone, for coming. I hope this was helpful. If you love this presentation so much, you want to see it a second time, feel free to join us in the afternoon. Thanks.