 Climate change is expected to increase displacement of population in the future. Today, people are already displaced by climate change. One person is being displaced every second by disaster. And we also feel that climate change and conflicts are interrelated. Droughts, for example, in Syria has played a major role in the trigger of the current crisis. And when you ask people why they move, it's usually a combination of environmental factors and conflict factors. So it's all interlinked. So UNHER has a role to play because we have major experience in displacement management, but also we have, I mean, in the case of climate change, you can really prevent and reduce this displacement. And that's why we're here. We're here to help states, to support technically states, to help them prevent and reduce future displacements. It's amazing to see how human mobility issue has been in the draft text in all the versions so far. So we are very pleased with that. However, it has always been endangered because it's either under brackets or as an option. So far, it's addressed under the Last and Damage article. And this article is endangered because it's a very political, sensitive issue. So far, both the agreement and the COP decision include human mobility and as well as the preamble, which has a reference to migrants. So we will be supportive of having option two of the article on loss and damage preserved because this is where the mention of displacement migration plus relocation is. And in the draft COP decision, there is language on human mobility under brackets and we hope these brackets can be removed. From the very beginning, we were clear that climate change, human mobility should be under both adaptation on loss and damage because there are so much you can do to prevent displacement. You can increase the resilience of people so that they remain with the leave. You can encourage migration and dignity if people have to move and you can plan for relocation in dignity with participatory measures, including communities in order that people are moved out of our way, but that their human rights are preserved. So far, there is no mention of this issue under adaptation. I think it's really a pity, but in the loss and damage language, there is this planned location migration mentioned. So you can bring back these adaptation issues in the loss and damage itself. And the frontier between loss and damage and adaptation has always been very obscure. So it's not like everything is being separated forever. So in the past, we only had a reference in the COP16 in Cancun and then in Doha on this issue of human mobility. And that's why it's vital that it is addressed now in the COP in Paris for setting up the next years of climate change regime in a way. It's amazing how the work of interagencies through the advisory group, working all together, bringing common messages to delegates has been powerful because now in the text, the way it's framed is usually using our language that we've been recommending. So it's good because we are not like lobbying, but we are more advisors of states. And I think it's well perceived. It has built trust. Also, we can see how the media are interested in the issue and how many side events happened and how good the speakers are and they are all saying more or less the same things. So I think the issue now has gained a lot of visibility and credibility and it's unavoidable that it needs to be part of future climate change regime. Okay, I can speak clearly about the cooperation between IOM and UNHCR. ILO so far has not been so much involved with the advisory group and the UNHCR-IOM collaboration, maybe more with IOM, but not so much with UNHCR. So it's amazing if there is one issue UNHCR and IOM are very well working on. It's the climate change, human mobility issue. I think we have realized we are really complementary. IOM is really dealing with migration and dignity. UNHCR has developed guidance on planned relocation and is more on the protection aspects when displacement occurs. So we are very complementary. And I think in this field of human mobility and climate change, you can see it's cross-sectorial. So that's why you need all the agencies that has worked on one of the sectors to be involved in the policy. And so this is what the advisory group is trying to do. And I think it could also involve more actors in the future, such as ILO, OSHA and other actors that has not been so much involved so far, but could be more involved in the future. So it's really important that on this issue we all work together because we all bring it a part of expertise and a part of the solution that needs to be coordinated in order to identify what are the gaps, but also to avoid that there is duplication that is not helpful.