 through guidance, remote support, missions, and taking on issues with other clusters as well as OSHA at the global level if required. So I repeat we can do guidance, remote support, missions, and taking on issues with other clusters as well as OSHA at the global level if this is required. In order to use all our brains here and to ensure coherence we have agreed that all support we give in this process is done collectively by the protection cluster including all the AORs. So you will find in some operations that child protection AOR global IMO is on mission but to support the protection cluster and other AORs and vice versa and other operations. Now, on the substance of the matter regarding the HNO, I have four key messages to you before I hand over to Dree. First, we're surprised to see the OSHA guidance sent 10 days ago or two weeks ago. However, we are supportive of the overall OSHA direction, but this guidance went out without consultations with us and we had to react to it. So we've taken two tracks. First, we have worked with OSHA and other clusters to rectify the note that they have sent. And I would like to announce that we are in the process of revising it and it will be re-send. That was our first track. The second track is we didn't want to leave the confusion lingering until OSHA note is re-send, so we have developed our own note that we sent to you last week. We guarantee that the OSHA note that will be re-send next week will be in line with the note that we have sent previous week and we're presenting today. So for the protection cluster, the note that we have sent last week is final for this year. That's important to note. My second message is that, of course, we are overall supportive of OSHA direction to have a strong inter-cluster analysis in the HNO. We actually see this as beneficial from a protection perspective because it can allow to have protection more at the center of the analysis through four parts of the HNO. One, through the summary of the humanitarian needs chapter, through the crisis impact and a human solid protection chapter. So let me be very clear. We must have a protection chapter that is well done. We also need, as a cluster, including AORs, to be active and driving force in the protection elements of the intersectoral part. That is important. We would like the centrality of protection to be featured among others through the protection pin. So we encourage you and support you to ensure that the protection pin is featured on the first page of the HNO next to the people in need of mental and physical well-being as well as living standards. So we really would like the protection pin to be among the top descriptors of how we are portraying a crisis. It is very important that the protection pin is the same in our sectoral chapter and the intersectoral analysis. And it should be calculated by the protection cluster, including the AORs. In collaboration with the interagency space, but what we do not want is to have a protection pin in our chapter that is different than a protection pin in the intersectoral chapter. They have to be one and the same. So it's very important that our protection pin can actually be desegregated by physical mental well-being. So if you have million people in need of protection, we need to know how many of those are in physical and mental well-being need, as well as living standards need and others. Also, where the capacity is, the protection pin should be desegregated by AOR. And that would be helpful in terms of advocacy and in terms of planning through the HRP. Finally, it is important to reiterate that the work you are doing on severity and pin done together cluster. So work with the indicators, sit together, but also bring on other clusters where it matters. It shouldn't just be us, it should be also including other clusters and the interagency sphere where it matters. At the global level, we're really working together as one team, as you would see from the missions and from the guidance and from this webinar. And we really are keen to support you to do the same in all field operations. With this, I close the first part of the webinar and see some questions starting to come in, put in more questions. And I hand over to Dream, who will take us through a step-by-step process of the guidance for 10 minutes. Over to you, Dream. It's not here, it can just... It can... The voice won't... Don't worry. You sure? And meanwhile, can I please ask everyone to keep themselves on mute and if possible also to disable the video function, please. Do you want me to share your presentation? Yes, please. Hi, everyone. This is Dream. I'm the information management officer for the GBV AOR. And if you have trouble hearing us, please just leave a message in the room. And also we encourage you to register your questions while we go along. Okay. And just a few seconds, we're going to pull up the presentation. We'll be using to explain the step-by-step guide being shared with the field. Can everyone see the presentation? No, not yet. All right. Just give me one more second, please. It's working. All right. Okay, great. Okay, you do the presentation together. So, again, everyone for joining us in this webinar. So, in the next 10 minutes to take all of us through the step by step on how we to estimates the protection people in need as well as AOR people in need. And the framework of a severity analysis. And I'd like to open the session by giving an overview of the data environment. So, I'd like to say there is no single guidance that can be paced into all operations. We're all different in our nature, our magnitude of the problem. And as well as in data environment, some of you can have quite rich data environment. You have a lot of assessment and the census data available. Some of you could have none. So, bearing in mind that still needs to be tailored and textualized in your own context. So, what do we mean by data poor and data rich environment? I'd like to give us a few in a lot of the operations you might encounter. The following assessment or data or reports, you might have a multi sector needs assessment. So level being carried out. In a national international level, you might have a displacement tracking matrix carried out at level. You might have monitoring that's carried out by ourselves and our partners. You might have food security cluster as well as WPVAM. Consolidated food security assessment. You might also survey such as DHS, MISC in a pre crisis on an ongoing crisis setting. You might have other data source that available, including our own response and service mapping data. And in many countries, you might have none of them or you might have them. This is what we mean by data rich or data poor environment. So, as a start, all of us should already know, or at least needs are what assessment, what information was survey and what data are available in your context. And following by brief introduction, potential environment for a severity analysis would be enabled in a data rich environment. And vice versa would not be quite possible in a data poor environment. And we'd like to talk a little bit in both of these environment, what would be our people in need consideration. So, first of all, we always, always consider an overarching and contextual indicators for people in need in both of these environments, all of the options. What are they, including these, for example, starting with an overall displaced population that that could include your IDPs, refugees, returnees. And your overarching protection concerns are in intersexual indicators such as security incidents, issues related to legal framework, safety issues or humanitarian access problems. You can leave in besieged area or hard to reach areas. You could also look at other overarching social economic and demographic indicators such as both that are living on the poverty line, female or children headed households, elderly with disabilities. You could also look at other clusters that would affect a protection consequences such as a food security, living food insecure status. And you could also look at your existing analysis of current response. And service activity and apps per location such as number of children's or percent of your children's with access to the PSS programs, mind contaminate the areas, presence of civil registration. And also you could look at the contingency plans based on the intensified actions. For example, in, for example, the liberation of besieged areas and as well as foreseen influx, for example. So this is what we talk about. This is what we meant by contextual and overarching indicators. And this is what you can, you can look into in this environment. So for the data for trees, this is probably all you would have. And moving to a more data rich environment. And we have the step by step by the which I'm going to go through right now that would enable you to to carry out this exercise. So for data rich environment with the assessment available. In your operation. First, we start by looking at a collectively together a selection of indicators. And we're asking all of us as a protection cluster and are together to look at these four types of indicators. Context or overarching protection indicator, which already mentioned, which going to be followed by a more detailed case studies and presentation from Somalia. And we will look at indicator specific to each a ours specific to other areas of protection and other classes indicator that affect protection. After the selection, what we will do is build friends table that enable us to to structure the threshold for each indicator, according to a different level of civility. So an example would be this. For example, if from scale 1 to 5, what will we consider the minimum problem to moderate problem to a severe problem. So we were able to structure the indicator on a scale by building different threshold. Do we have any reference for those indicators. Yes, so there is sheets that attached to guidance that's being sent to you are all the example indicators that we developed. But again, these all needs contextualize and adjusted operation. So next step after selection after selecting the indicators will need to classify and identify which humanitarian consequences it belongs to and also if it's a or specific. By doing that, very simply just use the same indicator. And identify and classify which of the humanitarian consequences it belongs to. So either living standard physical and mental well being, or if it's a or specific. After completing that. Next would be process the data and we try to. Use existing data to use the results based on the scale and reference table that we developed. And you're more you're likely to be used an Excel based consolidation sheets or tool. You'll be inputting a severity per location per indicator to your threshold. And if your data is not available in some of the locations, we suggest use consultation use expert judgment and knowledge to fill the gap. And it's critical for us to vet the results in the end, according to the ground truth. Your consolidation sheet will likely most likely look like something like this. So based on per indicator. A severity score will be assigned. In each location indicator. And then we'll present those indicators after testing with real data at intersexual level for validation. Sometimes this step could come a bit earlier. Afterwards, we calculate the severity score per location. Which would. From the previous steps. Enable us to aggregate a score. Each of the location. Last step, we will using the each of the severity score that we generated for each location for. Translating to the people in need number. So know that in this step. It will be a case by case. Identify in your country level of how to convert those scales to to the people in need. And an example of that could be. Of the, as many of the ultra sectoral guidance suggests your, your scale of 3 and 4 and 5 would be considered people in need. But again, on a case by case level is. Consulted and endorsed and validated by the country intersectoral forum and also HCT. Can you please mute yourself? That will be it. I'll be looking forward to answer some of the more detailed questions later session. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for the presentation. I would like to ask Christoph. Can you hear me? Good afternoon, everybody. Christoph here, the coordinator of the protection cluster for Somalia. I'm sitting together with this, which. Who many of you in. It's been deployed. In the context of this support that the global cluster is. Giving to the cluster. So it comes from the child protection. But it's very much helping the whole of the cluster and thank you. Colleagues in Geneva for the port and thank you Boris and very much for the support makes a big difference. I sent a presentation. Which is actually the PowerPoint, the few slides which I used yesterday with the meeting. And a schedule. So, of course, we had to devote time on this discussion and trying to have a consensus on a few steps. If I refer to the presentation that we had from. I would say we have completed step one of the process. So there's still quite a bit of work to do. And I was not able to yesterday to get to this on all the details that are required in this process. The slides show in particular the indicators that we have listed. For the overall severity scoring, the overall protection severity scoring of the areas, the districts in Somalia. Starting with a set of indicators to capture the magnitude of the crisis in terms of of population and displacement. I don't see if colleagues can see that there is, of course, the number of people displaced the percentage of people displaced compared to the population in the district. After the discussion, we also had a suggestion to capture in particular the number of people displaced by conflict. Just to capture a particular scientific aspect of the protection environment here, the armed conflict and the armed violence. We cannot see the presentation. Yes, I cannot see the presentation either. Is it something that in Geneva they can display? We will display just in a second, but you can go ahead. I'm really describing my presentation, but we have done. You can look at the details afterwards. Then we had indicators on, I need to see my presentation. Yes, I'm making a link with the severity of other essential non-protection sectors to many regards. We decided to have the severity scale based on the number of and the severity degree, the severity scoring provided by other knife-saving clusters, wash, nutrition, food and health. If these four clusters score the severity in a district, this will also be taken into account in our own severity scoring. To complement that, we decided to also include two indicators documented by the MRM, the number of attacks on health facilities and the number of attacks on schools. Then there is a third group of indicators measuring various things. Of course, we'll have to refer to access and this we're going to rely on the scoring that OSHA will be providing. But we keep the right. Yes, thank you. I'm on slide four already in my presentation. So that's the last group of indicators. I'm talking for the overall protection and there is many more indicators that the AORs are currently using. For their own scoring. So I was mentioning the humanitarian access scoring, which will be provided by OSHA, but which we will look at the access can be different for food security colleagues and for us. So we'll take the scoring as a starting point that we may adapt it to our own safety and all capacities. Conflict intensity errors are very important thing as well to capture. As I said, we're going to use the number of displays caused by conflict. But we're also going to look at other sources, which may help us to score the INSO, the NGO monitoring access for NGOs. We're going to approach them to get their data. And another source we want to explore is ACLED, which many of you know. They monitor conflict in countries and I understand based on public sources. So we want to see what it produces for us and make a scoring accordingly. The third indicator listed here is about presence of explosive hazards, as we say here in Somalia. So you saw an explosive remnants of war and we had discussion this morning. Boris had a discussion this morning with the UMass colleagues to fine tune this. Then child recruitment. And last is about eviction, which is quite a critical protection problem here, mostly in urban areas. We will probably have a scoring based both on evictions, which we have recorded probably the last 12 months and the risk of evictions. A number of mapping of risk evictions, of eviction risk has been conducted in the country. So the eviction risk will also be part of this indicator. This is the first step. The next slide was to explain to the members how this scoring will be used afterwards and combined with results coming from the MCNA. The NGO REACH has conducted an intercluster household survey across the country with interesting results, which has its limitations. But we want to see what it says. And we have asked REACH to calculate for us a percentage of vulnerable people by district, by level of severity and both for host and IDPs. So for that we have produced, I haven't, it's not on the slide, it's a sophisticated matrix, finding all the possible indicators that GMCNA can document. With a scoring scale and which determines the level of availability of households. And we want to see what this is going to produce and tell us. And comparing and with the knowledge in the room, we're going to have a meeting with the AORs next week. Taking these percentages and the knowledge in the room and what the AORs as well have been able to determine and measure. After we come together on the very, the percentages, the final percentages, we're going to apply to determine the people in need, in each district and for each of the severity levels. So this is a process which is going to be, which has to be rushed a bit, I must say. We understand the constraints. We have to, with Otsha, give the pin on the 5th of September. So the discussion we're having in particular next week will take place between the coordinators of the AORs basically here. Plus the government, the government in Somalia is very interested to follow that and we're going to have them in the room as well. And I told the members of the cluster, I'm going to share with you the results. And we will probably, we'll surely disseminate the results of all of this through the state level coordination for a review at the field. That's it in a nutshell on where we are. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kristof. And thank you for taking the time for sharing your experience. Now I would like to open the floor for interventions, questions and comments from everyone. So if you have questions, I see some questions being in. Please either type them in or put down your name so we call you to basically ask your question. So the question, the first question from Darin. Question regarding data rich versus that poor environment. I understand that the indicators of that availability. But how would you advise us to determine if each context is data rich or data poor? How many of the indicators need to be met for us to consider the data poor or that rich. So that's the 1st question. The 2nd question is, I follow the protection severity scale guideline, which makes perfect sense. However, I can't find the difference between the intersect severity scale and productivity scale as the process and guideline will be basically the same. What would be the key main change and impact of this approach in develop protection severity scale, which will build on intersect order humanitarian impact. I see. So thank you, Darin. I would like to answer both questions. So 1st, I don't think the point of saying a country is data rich or data poor is important at this stage. I think what we're trying to convey here is that some countries have solid indicators with good sources of data that need to go through a process and some countries just do not have these kind of day. Nevertheless, the countries that do not have enough data that can back up indicators need to come up with some kind of expert judgment indicators. And the process to define the locations that are severe in overall protection issues or specific protection issues that are related to or specific to the context like evictions in the Somalia context. So I don't think you need to classify yourself as data rich or data poor. But to understand that our guidance is quasi impossible to have 1 guidance for all operations because the data reality is so different. So the more your data rich, the more you follow the guidance, the more data poor, the more you will need to interact with our people and at the global level or your peers locally to find out alternative methods to to deal with the situation. Now, for the difference between the intersectional pin and the protection pin, that's a that's a good question. I think the indicators that we agree on in the protection sector for our lens could be more than those who are adopted at the intersectional level to describe protection. So what will happen is that at the intersectional level, we will have people with acute needs, which are people with physical well being. And then we will have people with living standards need needs with the indicators there and we'll have people with with protection needs. Part of the people with protection needs will be those who have physical well being another will be a small slice of those who have living standards needs. And we have additional protection needs that are related to risk or security or other protection issues there. So I think that there might be the case that the protection pin will be equal to the intersectional pin, but I don't think that will be the case everywhere. If it happens to be so no problem, but that should be reflected in in the narrative. I hope this answers the questions. Please follow up in the chat room if I didn't. Now I have a question from Kristen Arthur question. How do you recommend we incorporate different data sources that are not countrywide? For example, in Ethiopia, we have small pockets of data sets, but few are standard countrywide. So how do we deal with such situation? I think one important principle is don't ignore good data, even if it is not covering countrywide. This data are so precious, you know that it takes a lot of effort to collect them and do them. I think the possible solution for this, and we will have to discuss on case by case basis, is that to complement the other geographic areas by expert judgment and use more rigorous data for the geographic area where we have. Now it's very important that in the narrative we acknowledge the difference of the quality of data for geographic location be totally transparent and open that in some geographic locations we have solid evidence, hence we can do solid programming. In others we have estimations or expert judgment and might require as part of the programming to do more solid needs assessment or understanding in order to do the HRP or all the programs. So I have a question from Ambika. Moukun, thank you Ambika, good to hear from you again. Is the guidance posted anywhere? It was sent in the email, if you haven't received it I will make sure after this webinar for you to copy. Ambika as solid as ever, so the guidance is an email just after the meeting. Our colleagues from the IM groups will share it on the Skype that exists and we will post it on our website as well and share the link. Thank you for raising this issue. Do we have more questions or anyone wants to speak? Kristen, I have a new question from Kristen. Is there a funding priority associated with the consequences? Kristen, can you take the mic and explain your question? Sorry, Kristen I would like you to take the mic and explain a bit your question. Can you hear me? Loud and clear. Okay, so we attended a briefing at OCHA, I believe it was yesterday or the day before, and they introduced these four consequences. My impression, and I'm asking for clarification to ensure I understood this correctly, that the way they explained it was that the first consequence would be prioritized for funding, followed by the second consequence, and then followed by the third consequence and so on. So, I'm just checking with you as the global protection cluster if that's also your understanding. Thank you very much, Kristen. Thank you so much for asking this question. The answer is categorical, absolutely not. It is very important that we push back on this point and this is a very strategic point and would like to follow up with your OCHA colleagues also in the field to link them up with OCHA colleagues at the global level to clarify this. These four consequences are of physical and mental well being, of living standards, as well as resilience and protection. These four consequences are equal in importance. Extremely important to clarify that, including in the narrative of the HNO itself. And this is something I'm personally willing to weigh in for where the guidance in the field is not consistent with that. We cannot accept as a protection cluster that risks related to, for example, living standards that if we do not intervene right away for could become life saving for us. This is of high priority of immediate importance and of equal importance to those who have physical and mental well being issues right now. As well as many of protection issues that are not related to mental well being and living standards and related to risk, such as mine action or gender based violence issues. We need to be treated as a priority one, not as a fourth category thing. So thanks for the question. This is extremely important. We'll clarify it in the recent note by OCHA. I asked my colleagues Dream and Musa to take note of that and flag it to OCHA immediately. We don't want a narrative that says that priority one will get more funding than others because it's more important. The consequences are to structure our narrative and understanding of the situation and not to prioritize where funding should go. Can you highlight to me one by one? No, no, I didn't think there's also. Okay, I will start with one question was Alexander, then moved to a question by Noah, then a question by Jacob, then a question by toy. So, Alexander, your question is, do we need to calculate pin for protection or only well being and living standards? Alexander, we want to calculate a pin for protection, our sector that will be the same one utilized for protection consequence. We don't want two separate pins in the document. So we want the protection cluster, including the AORs to calculate a protection pin in consultation with OCHA and other sectors. We would like that pin to be adopted as the protection consequence pin. What we do not want is to have two different protection pins, one for consequence in the document and one different in the sector. So I hope that this is clear. Please follow up in writing. If that's not the case, and if OCHA is pushing otherwise in the country operation were happy way in and correct that. Noah, thank you so much for your. Please share a couple of traditionally non protection indicators that can be used for general protection. Noah, for your question, I think general protection issues, for example, could be related to situation of malnutrition and geographic location. That's not a standard protection indicator, but if malnutrition is very high in a specific geographic location. This is a proxy indicator that the general protection situation is bad and could be used as such. I hope this this makes sense. Noah, please follow up in case I didn't answer now. Thanks for your question. I will read it outline. This is a question specific to the mine actions. How do you suggest calculation of pin in cases of contamination in public spaces? For example, a town 60,000 residents and contamination in public areas in the center of town. How would you calculate the. We, you continue saying we previously had the experience that mine action pin was higher than all other sectors combined. Thank you. Thank you, Jacob. I will ask. I would say my initial sense is that the protection risk. On people living in areas where the public spaces are. Are contaminated makes them at risk of protection issues, and hence they are in need of protection. So they are in need of protection. Now, this is where you have to go textual and try to understand the frequency of how many people frequently access these areas. How close these areas are potential areas and how frequently they are used. That would allow you to disaggregate this big number that rightly so would be big to something that is more explainable at a narrative level and shows you. You know how how many people are in high risk area versus no risk area if the context allows. So my principal answer before handing over to crystal is. These are people in need of protection. They are at risk of protection issues and they have to be accounted for if the number is too high. That's a reality. We, our job is not to reduce the numbers. It's to reflect the reality. Now, if a more eloquent or sophisticated analysis of this is possible, for example, to disaggregate. How many are in immediate risk? How many are in more circumstantial risk that would be useful for the analysis and useful for programming later on my hand over to crystal. William, that was a perfect answer. You should be the coordinator because there's not much more I can add. But just to say to Jacob and colleagues, I think one of the challenge for us is, is the fact that we have, you know, explosive ordinance that are in some places. And then we have people who are moving around and of course we don't, we cannot predict where people will move where they will go. We know, for instance, if you look at the Nigeria situation, we know that many people are in IDP, they cannot get out of them. So well, they're protected, but we know that we also want, you know, freedom of movement and to be able to return to their villages. And this information and prediction is probably with someone else. Maybe it's a displacement tracking exercise that I am does or UNHCR or other clusters that are looking at the displacement trends and patterns. And we need to work with them to understand, okay, you know, what is the likelihood of people coming and crossing to this minefield? Or what is the likelihood of those 60,000 people going to those public areas that are contaminated in the town of Libya? So I don't have a perfect answer for you. And just to add, when we met with OSHA and looked at a key factor for us, which is, you know, how far do you leave from a contaminated area? Remember, I asked this question to OSHA, you know, most of our colleagues say, well, you are at risk and you should be in the pin if you are within one kilometer of a contaminated area. But others said no, it could be if you are, you know, what shall respond it 10 kilometer away, because if you're going to walk those 10 kilometers to access markets or livelihood or your fields or the hospital or the school, you know, it's not just one kilometer that counts. So you got to look at what are the patterns of movement and how people, where do people travel in order to go to access basic services. So my answer. Thank you so much. So I have questions from Toya, Keith, Murga, Poco, Pauline and Sasha. Unless you have additional burning questions, I encourage everyone to stop asking questions. So I think we are able to answer these six people. If you have further questions, please liaise with us bilaterally and your focal points in the teams after the webinar. So, Toya, I hope I am pronouncing the name. The question is, is scoping mechanism also considered as a pillar for indicators? Thank you for this question. We've been struggling with with the concept there because we have different guidance with Ocha that gives different answers. The simple answer is the follow the minimum pillars are physical mental well being living standards and protection. I would like to say that protection as a main. Now, if the, if in a country you have the capacity, the data and the actual frame to have coping mechanisms as well as resilience, which is another one. So you have the data to calculate people in need of under these pillars. This is more than welcome. I think the direction for next year is to go in this direction for this year. I think we're sticking to the minimum, which is physical mental well being and living standards. If in your operation you can go to coping mechanism, please do so. We encourage you and we're happy to support you on that. Keith. Keith, you say that you're not sure you understand the calculation of the pin. We understood that only indicators related to living standard plus survive. But those related to protection consequences and resilience. Right. So maybe let me rephrase. In the HNO, we will have one figure of people in need of physical and mental well being with another additional or a bigger pin of people in need of standard and living related issues. A third thing that we would like you to calculate for sure in every operation is people in need of protection. The people in need of protection, part of them will be people in need of physical and mental well being part of them will be in need of living standards related issues. And there could be additional issues that are not covered in in these two in the. In addition to the protection pin, we will have a an operational pen, the bigger operational number. It might be the case that some operation protection pin and the general pin would be the same. Even if it is the same, we would like to push for in the narrative and the description to make sure that we use the terms people in need of protection. We would don't want in the overall description of the crisis for it not to have protection component in it. So if there is a push from the interagency level on this, we are happy to support and make sure we're all on the same line. Thank you. See Somalia. I think that's in response to the question of what could be a general indicator that is not a traditional protection one. We have Somalia also suggesting food insecurity. That's also a proxy indicator for protection related issues. Now mega considering in an AOR. And there is not a common data of the pin for all sectors. I should encourage every sector to focus on the same data. What do you think about it? Can you take the mic and explain your question? I don't get it. Can you try to the mic and rephrase your question going once going twice will follow up with you bilaterally. Coco we moved to Coco. I want to know what is the difference between the severity pin calculation of this from last year because for us it seems the same. Coco. Which operation are you in? Coco. We can hear you. We are from Niger. Niger. Very good. Yes. Thanks Coco. If the methodology is the same. As a minimum, that's fine for us. That's no problem. We're not trying to make a reform for reform sake. So if your methodology is agreed upon and is the same, please go ahead with it. What I need you to focus on is to make sure that the protection pin and the protection narrative is featured centrally in the HNO and not only limited to the protection sector. And the second thing as I repeated that the protection sector pin is the same figure that is used at the intersectional level for protection issues. That's it. If you have these two elements in place, please go ahead and repeat last year's methodology. No problem. Pauline isn't there a risk of duplication if you we use such a wide range of indicator for calculated pin. Thanks Pauline. This is an important question. I think in some operations and some geographic locations where we don't have solid protection data, we have to revert proxy indicators. And in such situations, indicators like food insecurity and malnutrition would be useful as a proxy for protection. Now, even if the environment is rich in data related to protection, these indicators can still be used, but they're not the only protection indicator. They're one of a composite set of indicators for severity for protection. What this, the use of such indicator would help us is to increase the collaboration with other customers and have more an integrated approach for analysis that is important. Now I move to the final question. Sasha, can you kindly share minutes following this meeting? Internet is quite bad and the line keeps cutting. Thank you, Sasha. I will share my talking points after the meeting. No problem. The webinar is actually recorded and you can re-listen to it when Internet connection is better. If neither works for you, we're still happy to have a bilateral conversation with you to address your issues. The link for the video will be shared after the, it will need some time until it's uploaded and then we will share it with you all. Thank you, Mulhum. Okay. Thank you all for your questions. That was quite interactive, more than what we have imagined. So it shows how topical the issue is. I would like to thank the global team that is here around us that is contributing to this. And big thanks to the IMOs from the AORs and the Global Protection Cluster that are going on mission or are currently on mission on behalf of all of us. This work is important and it is quite crucial in a year that is very transitional in nature and the guidance is fluffy in some parts of it that we keep the dialogue open. This is the only way we can have, we remain on the right track and not have any major issues that can have repercussions for next years. So thanks a lot everyone for the good work. Thank you for your hard work and keep in touch laterally if need be. We are on standby to support you. Have a good evening.