 Hello Helen, thank you so much for doing this again with us. Hi Mohan, hello. I guess I'm going to give you the floor and you can go ahead with your presentation. Great, thanks very much. I hope the internet connection is okay from here in Cameroon. So I'm going to just talk through one specific chapter and how it's been related to some of the work in the field that I've been doing. So for me, from the professional standards, I focus on chapter six, which is managing data and information for protection outcomes. That's partly because I'm working for the Danish Refugee Council and that's something that we're very focused on in terms of our protection work. And it's also just something that's very much of interest to me, both in my previous positions in Myanmar and in other places. And in my current work where I'm deployed with the DRC emergency team, which they call IMPACT, where we do startup operations and emergency surge, as well as some gaps that are in here and there. So at the moment, we're starting up the anglophone crisis response in Cameroon. But a lot of my examples will be from me in Myanmar, I'm afraid, because I've been there for quite a long time. So I wanted to start off with, hopefully it's coming through, okay. Yeah, I wanted to start off with standard 6.1, which is protection data and information management must be carried out only by skilled and trained staff using appropriate information management systems and protocols. So this is something that was a real challenge for me and for my teams in Myanmar, partly because of the context and also just because we were running a very big operation across multiple states. So what we did coming in was we worked on developing standardized questions, standardized questionnaires. We had to really think about the methodologies for collecting protection information in our case through protection monitoring that would be appropriate. Because, for example, at that stage, the government at Myanmar was requesting official approval for anything that looked kind of too much like a regulated assessment for a survey, and that approval process could have taken years. So for us, we wanted to look at what would be suitable in that environment. So we work mainly on key informant interviews, focus group discussions and direct observations, and then use that to triangulate the information. But in order to do it in a quality way, we work through training teams across different states, training them in how to use survey CTO and then in how to connect that to Power BI, which has been amazing. And the teams loved working with it. And then also importantly, setting up an information sharing protocol, because something that we noticed with a lot of our teams, experts, nationals, was that people were kind of leaving hard copy papers on desks or they were transferring files through multiple different laptops with the same flash drive that maybe got viruses on it and things like that. So we wanted to really kind of stop that happening, and also regulate how people were communicating through Facebook, through WhatsApp, etc. So here's some of our teams in Northern Shan who were working on the survey CTO app and collecting data for protection monitoring. So then from that, we kind of built up this system and hopefully this gives you quite a good idea of what I was mentioning, which is collecting that information from the communities through survey CTO, downloading that file, saving it in the protected Google Drive, the only limited number of people had access to, putting it through Power BI to create this kind of analytics and then from there into our platform where we could showcase trends. But just sort of obviously this is the process, but the reasoning behind this was that we were going to use it for response and for advocacy. And we did that in terms of response, we were using that to create our proposals. So for example, we had a lot of trafficking cases that were happening in different states. And so we were using that to confer with the livelihoods team and put together joint proposals with protection and livelihoods where we could provide awareness on cancer trafficking and options for families in terms of alternative livelihoods. So we were doing kind of both things concretely at the same time. And we also use this to do a quarterly briefing with our with some of our donors and other partners in the country to try and raise those issues that were coming up and see if they could support not necessarily through DRC of course but through any organization that might be there and suited to try and respond. So that's 6.1. Then for the next, for the next point, I was looking at 6.5, which is that protection actors must gather and subsequently process protection data and information in an objective impartial and transparent manner to avoid or minimize the risk of bias and discrimination. Management of protection data and information must be sensitive to age, gender and other factors of diversity. So I've kind of focused on the first section of this, which is about having objective impartial information and minimizing bias and discrimination. So I think anybody that's run protection monitoring activities knows that this is super challenging in any environment really. And I certainly found the same thing in Myanmar. So just to give you an idea here, hopefully some nice pictures, here's some of my my teams going through Rakhine state on some protection monitoring visits. So yeah, it was a huge challenge in Rakhine, for example, where you're only by law, you can only hire people who are not Rakhine or one of the other ethnic groups of Myanmar. And then sometimes the kind of feedback you'll get after protection monitoring visits is things like the Rohingya or they would say Muslims are having a perfectly fine, they can go anywhere they want. They just have to use the backwater ways because in the front of the village is a checkpoint. So you have to sort of translate that into, well, actually, there's some pretty major restrictions on movement and, you know, this is what's happening as a result. For example, in Kachin state, we had areas controlled by the Kachin Independence Army, and a massive amount of support in the community for that armed group and for the associated agencies like the Kachin Independence Organization, for example, which is the kind of political group associated with them. And so you would ask in the government controlled areas, what are the protection issues, and maybe your teams would say, oh, well, there's been forced recruitment happening or there are places where people are being used as human shields. And then you ask what's happening in the non-government controlled areas and the response would be, no, there are no protection issues, everything's perfect. Of course, we knew that wasn't really the case. And I mean, I don't have the perfect solution for that, to be honest, but the way we partly got around it was training. And the other way we partly got around it was triangulating the data collected. So using key informant interviews in a slightly unconventional way, I guess, mostly in order to gather that sense of information rather than that person necessarily being an expert on a particular topic. So not taking phones through checkpoints, directly doing the protection monitoring ourselves, so having a bit more oversight over our teams. Yeah, I mean, there were no perfect ways, but that was some of the ways that we use the professional standards to try and improve the quality of our work. The next one I highlighted was 6.6, which is protection actors should, to the degree possible, keep the person who provided information of the action that's been taken on their behalf and of the ensuing results. So in my experience, this is the hardest part of the process. And it's often neglected, which is a real shame. I have to say I had to kind of dig around for this example because I don't know that I've been great at doing this, but I know that the joint IDP profiling service that came to Myanmar in 2016, this is a picture from the activities they were doing, were fantastic. They did this amazing assessment of the camps in Sitway. And then they came back and produced a whole video, managed to set up and screen this video of the results from the assessment, how the process of the assessment to everybody that had been involved in it from the Rehensia communities. And it was extremely well received. The feedback they had was very, very positive. We were working in the same area. So we heard from people also the same thing. They loved seeing how the data was used, how that information was used. And what people were doing to try and improve the situation there. So I thought it was a, yeah, not I can't take credit for it, but I thought it was a fantastic example. The next one I wanted to highlight was 6.17, which is protection actors must ensure accountability for the processing of personal data and sensitive information. They must establish formal procedures for the data and information management process from collection to exchange and archiving or destruction, including coaching of staff and volunteers, monitoring of quality and supervisory mechanisms. So that was quite a long one. But I thought what would be interesting to illustrate this was the setup we did of the Primero system, which is the overarching system which hosts the Child Protection Information Management System. Plus and the GBV Information Management System Plus. So the new versions of the GBV-INF and CPINF. And what we did in Myanmar was we brought together our teams, asked them how they thought about the case management they were doing. They were gathering this information from people, but was it really being systematized in a way that would respond best to their needs. And what our team told us, and what we got from the surveys we did with our cases, was that the deadlines for follow-up were not always well adhered to. And that sometimes they could be delayed follow-up or the teams were not able to capture this very well and to check on this very well. And so we looked for a way of doing that for our kind of case management and we adapted the Primero system in order to do that. But before we were able to do that and working with this fantastic consultant we had, we had to really establish the workflow of who filled out the actual forms. What kind of forms were we talking about? Who was checking the forms? Who could sign off on them? What was the process of going from one stage to another? And how were we making sure that nobody was falling through the cracks? So we're in the process of rolling out that Primero system. It's a system that seems to be going pretty well so far and it's establishing more accountability for follow-up. So when you first log in, you can actually see, okay, what are the cases that I should be dealing with today? And has my supervisor highlighted any cases where I should be following up immediately? And so hopefully that's also having the impact of greater accountability to our cases, which was, you know, the idea behind improving the system in the first place. So, yeah, and you can see here the picture which is from our training, who, this is a photo from one of our teams, Facebook, because they were bragging about loving the training for learning Primero. So the final one I wanted to highlight was 6.7, which is that protection actors should be explicit in the level of reliability and precision of the data and information they collect, use or share. So for this, what we're trying to do in the area where I'm working now in the southwest region of Cameroon is set up an interactive directory of services. So it's that kind of standard idea of service mapping, but hopefully in a way that is a little bit more precise about updating data and easier for us to share and for other people to use so that people in the communities feel that they have more access to that information and are able to make the best choices for their situation. So it's not a perfect system, obviously, you know, in terms of making referrals, we do need to look at how we would, you know, different systems in place to make sure of the safety of referrals. So this is what we're looking at the moment. This is amazing Boyer where I am at the moment in Cameroon. And then hopefully you can see that this is the kind of system that we're considering using. Let me just share Google Chrome. So hopefully that's coming through now. It's basically like a directory engine system. So we would be able to put in the types of systems available, other types of services available, sorry, so a health service, what location it would be at and do under key words. This is not the service directory, but just an example of the kind of system we'd like to use. So yeah, I think that's everything for me. Any questions? Thank you so much, Helen. That was great. I want to ask you two questions here. The first one is, in the protocol you put together, did you distinguish between different apps? I mean, did you have different level of data protection depending on the app? In the ISP, yes, we did. So, yeah, we pretty much banned any kind of information sharing of any protection information at all, you know, identifiable, non identifiable, just everything was totally banned for Facebook, because Facebook has really low levels of data protection. So it's not encrypted, and it can be easily viewed by anybody. And I mean, probably you're aware that in Myanmar, Facebook was, you know, really, really used to stoke hatred and to stoke violence. So we wanted to kind of totally, totally shut down Facebook usage. And then we did distinguish between that and say WhatsApp or Signal. Signal has obviously got the highest level of data protection. So if people needed to send very secure messages, we would suggest through Signal, just making sure that their phones also had password protection on them. WhatsApp is okay. I mean, it does have, you can do encryption end to end, but it's also possible for people to access if they, you know, if they're really looking, let's say. So yeah, we did put in, we put in different procedures for those different types of communication systems. Then my second question is if you can go back to the last slide you shared at 6.7. Have you started using that system? And how is it working? So we haven't started using it yet, but at the moment we're looking into different systems. So, yeah, one of the things I was really hoping to ask from the webinar, if it's okay, is to see if anybody has any systems that they've been using, or any, like, good practices for service directories, interactive service directories, because I would love to hear. This is just one that we're looking at at the moment, but very open to hear from people who have amazing ideas that they've been using. I don't know if it's possible to put my email address somewhere online to be able to contact me. Sure. Sure, absolutely. All right. All right, that was great. Thank you so much, Helen. I don't know if you have anything else to add? No, I think that's it for me. Thanks very much, Mohamed. Thank you so much for giving us the time again. Sure, of course. I hope you have a nice rest of the day. Thanks very much. Okay, bye.