 The raging protection problem we face today is a knockout time and again of too many people, often the same people too many times over too many years. And these layers of exhaustion make these families really without a buffer or capacity to react. And that pushes them to go into harm, on top of the harm, the initial harm. And we see people leaving their homes, working in slavery conditions, marrying off their girls, children dropping out of schools and youth joining armed groups. And it doesn't stop there. I think then comes what I believe hurts the most, which is invisibility. Million of people go through this abuse in total solitude, wondering if anyone knows, if anyone cares, if they matter at all. And this invisibility of survivors is not only a feeling, it is actually the escape route of criminals and men with guns. It's this invisibility from one's community, from friends, from humanitarians, from the justice system, from political solutions. And that crushes. So the question becomes, how do we collectively in the protection sector and cluster combat this invisibility? And first, we must see. That's how you knock it out. You see. Then you have to tell. And then you have to do something about it. So in these shifts, I would like to look at, are we seeing enough? Are we telling enough? And are we doing enough? On the seeing, I think we're largely doing much better, thanks to the technology and social media. But too often, those who need to be most seen are most hidden. And this is where we need to invest more collectively in engagement with community as an area of focus, but also bring back that powerful and simple notion of protection by presence. We need to invest in that. We need to be there. So part of the job is that we have to be there, but part of the job is also to get out of the way. Communities do have a voice. They don't need to be given a voice. We just need to listen to them. And an Afghani human rights defender said last week, stop talking to us in the corridors, but make sure that we have a seat on the table to tell the story to make decisions. So this is the first shift where we need to focus, seeing more. Then are we telling enough? No doubt we have improved. Yet one of the few precious things that people are left with in a crisis is their stories. We can't let that also be taken away from them. So we need to be courageous in telling the truth, always the truth. And that takes courage in an era of politicization of aid. We need to be more courageous, but we also need the system to systematically stand by and with the truth tellers. That's an area where we need to improve more. Now are we doing enough? I strongly believe that protection response is one of the most professionalized and predictable responses in the humanitarian sphere. It's anchored in a strong body of laws. It is recognized as central both vertically and horizontally. It is the gold standard of any humanitarian intervention. And protection response has mature and professional bodies of action. We have standards, we have projects, we have expertise. Don't look further than the GBV and the CP areas of responsibility. They get the highest scores, super professional. It's also effective and concrete and linking to peace and development work. Also don't look further than housing, land and property and mine action. We are ahead of the curve in this famous nexus. And this protection drive is rewarded, Gronja. I believe this year we have received the highest amount of resources for protection response ever in the humanitarian response plans. We have high focus of protection in the pool funds. We have stronger mainstreaming in the other sectors. And we have solid attention in international diplomacy. So it is working but far from what is needed. And I would like in this forum to suggest four matters that we need to improve in. And I would like to challenge all the sessions to address part of them or all of them. First, protection and humanitarian coordination system and structure needs a review and an evolution to catch up with the field reality. It's 16 years old, it's time to evolve again. Coordination should be based on issues, not mandates. In operational areas, not maps, led by local frontline responders and guided by experts. We need to evolve our system. Second, there are several specialized protection areas that require increasing collective predictability to become as accountable as the areas of responsibility. We have four areas of responsibility, but we have many areas of protection that require specialization. So these areas have strong actors and maturing alliances, reference groups, entities to address them, but require support, commitment and investment. And we need to grow in the areas of specialization of protection. For example, we need to address protection needs of the young persons with disability and the elderly. We need to counter trafficking and modern slavery. We need to work more holistically on changing the behavior of armed groups, mental health and psychosocial support, protection risks in digital space, engagement with community and legal assistance. These areas need stronger focus to have collective accountability in them. Third, protection response across all operations is today ready to operate an extra billion dollars worth of additional humanitarian peace and development services. We've planned for them this year, we're ready to plan for them next year, yet these resources are not there. These resources should come, the majority of which should be guided and operated by umbrellas of local actors and women-led organizations. We need to move, we're ready, let's make it happen. And finally, circling back at your opening remark, Gronia, humanitarian access negotiation should be transformed to systematically open space for protection by presence and protection services. In addition to the access of trucks that we have, we need to adapt our negotiation to put programs mostly done by NGOs at the center. Let me close by saying, in an area like protection full of passionate people, the leader is not the person in charge. We don't take yes for an answer, we don't take no for an answer. This kind of hierarchy of I'm in charge doesn't work. Leading in protection means having the courage to go first, to trust first, to take risks first, to leap forward first. And we in the global protection cluster, and I'm sure in the AORs, will continue encouraging this model of leadership. The future of protection response depends on opening the space and attracting a new generation of such leaders. So you all come and join us.