 Hello. It's time. Let's start. Hopefully we all are connected. My name is Bruno Donat. I'm the head of the Geneva Office of Mass. And we are very happy to have all of you on board to this webinar. And we are now, it seems to me, more than 80 connected. It will be, we're very, very happy to have you on board. A few reminders to those who just connected. If you could mute your microphone right now when you are not speaking, that would be very good. Mute all your mics, double check. We still hear some noise in the background. If you could make sure to mute your microphones. And also, this webinar is being recorded. And so that all of you know, there's been so much interest. And I think it's important that you know that it's been recorded. You probably know the subject of the webinar. And as you know, this has been in recent years, and I would say alarming trends, right? And a significant increase in the killing and maiming of children as a result of accidents of explosive ordnance. So, and you know now, we've had on board Murat Musa'us in connection directly, I believe is, is moving, but is now in Istanbul. And to look into the issue of prevention and response with regards to child victims of explosive ordnance, I would not going to steal the show. I will not be able to stay on board. This is done, if I'm not mistaken, with different awards, child protection, education and health clusters as well. And I will leave you now in the good hands of Michael Copeland, who will facilitate this webinar and have a good time with us. And it seems participants keep on coming. Reminder, mute your microphone when it is your time to speak, put your video on, if you can, and have a good time with us in this webinar. Michael, over to you. Thanks, Bruno. And thanks for starting us off. It seems you may have even missed a calling in education. That's very helpful. Thank you. My name is Michael Copeland. I'm the coordinator with the Global Child Protection Area of Responsibility. And that's the part of the protection cluster responsible for children's protection. My job this afternoon is to moderate and facilitate the discussions. So I'm going to start with a brief background. And then we've got a great host of different speakers who will be coming in as we go. As Bruno mentioned, this is a collaboration. So the topic is explosive ordnance, child casualties, prevention, and response. And this initiative started some years ago in Bangkok when the Child Protection AOR and the Mine Action AOR brought coordinators together to better understand what was happening, were they cooperating well on this topic, consistently on this topic? And what we found were a few things. One, we needed to know much more. We needed to know what was happening at country level to both prevent and respond. And also that we needed to work with other sectors and clusters in this process. And that's why you'll see on the slides there, you'll see the Global Education Cluster recognizing their role in risk education and reintegration of children to schools but also Bruno mentioned the Health Cluster. So this initiative has brought in a range of different partners. With the need to know more, we asked for support from Procap who have provided us with a supplement that's more out who we'll hear from in a moment to understand more what was happening and to help shape the initiative going forward. This part of the initiative we'll hear about today is about understanding what's happening at country level but also providing support. We've got many colleagues online and as well as muting yourself when you're not speaking, I'd like to ask you to use the chat box. We've got multiple occasions for question and answer. You can start using that now if you've got your questions ready. But also as we go along in response to the different presentations. Just to say a couple of words about the topic. We're talking about explosive ordinance. So that's including mines, explosive remnants of war and improvised explosive devices. And we're talking about children because they're at greater risk than adults of having those accidents. They're more likely to deliberately handle explosive items than adults and often unknowingly out of curiosity. Sometimes they're mistaking them for toys. They're also extremely vulnerable to the harm caused by explosive ordinance. Of every three children who have an accident one will die. And we'll hear more today about those trends and what we've been seeing globally as part of the agenda. We're going to hear also from the country context and that's Afghanistan, what they're seeing there as part of the agenda. We're going to hear about what you've told us. So we're going to reflect on some of the survey results to feedback to you. And then we're going to spend some time looking at how we better understand the needs and get better at determining the needs, including prevention and response for children. And we'll continue with response planning. And then finally, we'll look at case management and what that tells us about our cooperation in terms of victim assistance. We have a break during the day and hopefully we'll be finished in around an hour and a half. So I really thank you for your participation. I'm not going to introduce all of the speakers now. I'm going to let them do that for themselves. I'll just call their name and if they could introduce themselves. So I'm going to start with Anthony Nolan from the Education Cluster. If you could go ahead, Anthony. Hi, everyone. This is Anthony from the Global Education Cluster. Just a few very brief words from me. Also just wanted to say a huge welcome. It's really important to us to be doing this together with our friends at the Protection Cluster and with Procap. As Michael and Bruno have mentioned, this is a hugely important area for us within the Education Cluster. As all of you know, minor risk education and making sure that children understand the risks and how to prevent them, it's got to be part of any education response. It's super important to us to around making sure that schools are safe for children to attend. And so just want to say thank you very much to the colleagues at the Protection Cluster and Procap for working together on this and really looking forward to taking it forward. In terms of the frame, most of you on the line will probably be living and breathing this work already, but we're talking today around mined action within a humanitarian context. I know that mined action can go much broader than that. Today we'll be talking about within the context of humanitarian action and international humanitarian action. Having said that, what we are all experiencing right now in relation to the work we're doing in the context of COVID is exactly what the grand bargain had talked about many years ago, and that is that local partners are central to the delivery of any humanitarian response. As we had this discussion today, we're really encouraging everybody to think about reflect on and reflect back to us how we can continue to strengthen our engagements as international actors with local partners and to ensure that we can continue to support them to take increasingly more and more of a leadership role in our humanitarian responses. I'm going to leave it there. There's many more people to talk after me, so thank you to Michael. Thanks to Murat and back to you. Thanks Anthony. Thanks to the education cluster. I wanted to turn to Elke to tell us about the trends. What have we been seeing and what's happening in terms of the risks that children are facing? Elke, if you're able to hear us over to you. Thanks Michael, hello. Yes. I'll take the floor for a moment to point you a picture of what it looks like if considered through the lens of the impact on people, particularly children, of explosive ordnance, including landmines, close conditions, other explosive eminence of war, and improvised explosive devices, so-called improvised mines. Several sources collect data to attest to the harm done by explosive ordnance, including the landmine and cluster management monitor, the UN monitoring and evaluation mechanism, Secretary General reports and some humanitarian needs overviews. All are pointing in the same direction, which is that there is a great reason for concern about the impact of these weapons on children. Let's take a closer look at data made available by the landmine and cluster management monitor. The graph on the top, and I'll ask you to go in where you're at. Yes. The graph on the top shows a total of 130,000 recorded casualties between 1999 and 2018. While there was an overall decline in the number of casualties between 1999 and 2013, a reversal of this trend has been witnessed in the past five years for which we have data. Looking at the graph below, though, we can see that this shows child casualty data reported for the same period. We can actually see that the reversal of this trend for children happened much earlier with casualty figures rising steadily since 2017. All figures show data that only include recorded casualties, not estimates of casualties. And this is really important. In addition, it's important to keep in mind that this data paints a far from complete picture due to incomplete reporting, which means that the actual number of times certainly far higher than recorded. Figures that we do have, however, already claimed a stark image, providing solid evidence that we should be very concerned that children are increasingly at risk of having an accident with explosive ordinance. Can I ask you to go to the next slide, Murat? Let's take a closer look at the data collected by the monitor for 2018, which is the last year for which we have data. A total of 1714 children were recorded as having an accident with explosive ordinance in 36 states and two other areas. Of this total, 582 children were recorded, and I need you to keep that in mind every time I quote figures were killed. Let's take a look at the graph top center of the slide, which shows that 54% of all casualties for whom we know the age group were actually children. And in Afghanistan, this figure is even higher at 58% of all casualties being children representing 1270 children injured or killed. In certain countries such as Afghanistan, this percentage was even higher at 77%. And the challenge of obtaining data from Syria masks the true magnitude of the problem there. As in previous years, the vast majority of child casualties where the sex was known were boys, constituting 84% of all casualties. Continuing the pattern from past years, explosive remnants of war continue to kill and injure more children and all other types of explosive devices combined with more than of child casualties in this category. Can everybody ensure they mute because I can hear a conversation in the background. The number of cases caused by improvise minds is however the price from causing around 50% of all child casualties in 2013 to over 30% in 2018. As already highlighted figures are far from complete. Iraq, for example, reportedly has a huge percentage of improvised explosive device casualties. But the data is not disaggregated by age nor by gender. And this points to the fact that this percentage of 30% risks being even higher. This calls attention to the need to increase production and use of improvised explosive devices, particularly those that are designated to be activated by the victim. The understanding derived from this data needs to be factored in when we design our prevention and our response strategies. All of the sources are telling us that there is a problem vis-à-vis explosive ordinance and children with a growing body of data in the high impact of these weapons. This is of great concern. The UN Secretary General in a 2018 Security Council report remarked that given the upward trend in casualties, we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. Data, however, is thin and it is despite best efforts by many incomplete. As a humanitarian community, we need to look at this. We need to address the information gap in order to get a more evidence based picture. Today's webinar will show in many ways in which a stronger evidence base can actually be built. And we'll outline steps to increase collaboration to do so, as well as to reduce on the basis of the data and changes in the way we work together, reduce the risk of explosive ordinance for children, and ensure that those that do actually have an accident will have access to life saving and other vital services. Thanks, Michael, over to you. Thanks, Elkie. And Elkie co-coordinated with the minor action AOR. And despite maybe some of the gaps in data, just to highlight these incredible numbers and the increases that we're seeing in any case, if this is only part of the picture, it underlines how bad things are. In fact, I want to thank Elkie. I wanted to turn to Caitlin from for a field or country perspective. Caitlin, if you're able to hear us and please go ahead and introduce yourself from Afghanistan. Caitlin, over to you. Thank you very much, Michael. Just testing that you can hear me. Loud and clear. Excellent. Good morning or afternoon. My name is Caitlin. I'm with the Unmask Programme based in Afghanistan. So I guess what I've been asked to do today is maybe just ground, I guess, the discussion in some, I guess, reality or context. And to be honest, I think Elkie did that very well with the figures that's in the slides before that really paint a picture of how difficult it is to firstly get quality data, but how scary that data is once you really look at what's being what behind these figures. So just to put into context and maybe elaborate a bit more. In 2019, there were close to 1,600 victims from civilian victims, mines, ERW, and improvised mines. And in Afghanistan, across the spectrum, we had 50 percent of those being child casualties. But that's even, you know, if that wasn't enough, when it comes to fatalities, as Elke pointed out, we also have essentially one in three fatality rates. And those that are not being killed in these instance, many of them have disability and inclusion in Afghanistan also has a long way to go to make people or make their lives really be that of someone who has not unfortunately had these tragedies. So what was interesting for us when we started to look behind these figures is that explosive remnants of war seemed to particularly, I guess, the main killer in main Maima in Afghanistan for children. In fact, when the Secretary-General released a report on Afghanistan for children and armed conflict over a four year period, he noted that 84 percent of the ERW victims had been children. So I wanted to flag just three or four, I guess points from the field that make some of these both data collection, but also, I guess, dealing with the issue of trying to prevent some of these accidents from happening, why that can be so difficult. The first consideration is the fact that it's an ongoing conflict zone. So in Afghanistan, we noted that only 5 percent of the ERW that had caused some of these the civilian harm was coming from the pre 2001 conflicts. Everything was really from the ongoing conflict right now. And it makes it much harder to respond with the clearance capacity, as every day the goalposts move a bit further away. And there's new contamination. But it also impacts how you can deliver messages because you have to be very culturally conflict sensitive. I can just read some feedback. Colleagues, if you can please mute if you're not speaking things. Thank you. And so being conflict sensitive means that we also have to avoid anything around attribution. And we also have to be very careful as to who and what our call to action is for children, because reporting to authorities or even to a hotline can be very, very difficult and can put one at risk from different kind of, I guess, accusations and difficult situations. Another consideration was that of gender and demographics. And I think the slides on the previous, the graphs are on the previous slide do point out that that boys, the main victim when it comes to children. However, most of our materials are in fact gender neutral. So girls that have a very important caretaker role. However, we're not really targeting them for their own safety or the safety of others. This was one of the criticisms that we had to deal with when we've done some of our focus group discussion with young girls, where they, they openly said that you know, this is, they understood the message and they said it's important, but they didn't feel like it was something we need to change in the future. Another issue is is out of school children and very hard to target groups of children in a consistent way. Repetition is very much key when it comes to children or messaging to children. But in Afghanistan, almost 3.7 million children are out of school as according to UNICEF's report, which is almost 44% of the primary aged children. So it does make it difficult to target these children in particular, but also more than that, it impacts the way you need to deliver messages because literacy rates will be different. But also their reason for encountering ERW may be very different as well. It may not be the child walking school that comes across something. It's maybe a livelihood. And then the last point I wanted to make is just to considering who can deliver the message. And I wanted to raise some interesting information that we received from key informant interviews that reached it in Afghanistan when looking at COVID messaging. This is COVID specific, not necessarily for ERW and online action, but they were seeing that the source of information that was most trusted came from community leaders and religious leaders. And that was overwhelmingly so between 84% for community leaders and 81% for religious leaders. And on the alternative end of the spectrum, it was only 9% for international national aid organisations. So essentially what's quite interesting is that 66% of the people prefer to hear their stories with a mixture of audio and written. And then very few people like to receive anything in writing. And I just wanted to highlight this information because it is extremely important when you think about how your message will gain legitimacy, and that very little can be assumed. You almost do have to do testing or assessments on virtually every single aspect of risk education. If you want to make sure that you do have that legitimacy and that that message is getting through. So that's everything from my end, Michael. Thanks everybody. I'll hand back over. Caitlin, thanks. Thanks so much. And thanks for making the link with COVID. And of course, many children around the world out of school at the moment. So those messages even more difficult or requiring adaptation, but also around the link to child labour. And of course, with COVID and increase in poverty and food insecurity, we're likely to see more children engaging in child labour, including hazardous child labour. So that has implications for the topic today and also the points around accessible messages and whether that's through voice or animation and yes, for risk education, but also mental health and psychosocial support, the need for the use of animation. Thank you so much. Murat, I'm going to turn to you noting that we're already about 10 minutes behind. Murat, can you tell us about the survey results you were working with all of us to pull together a great survey and to collect feedback to understand the situation what's going on. Murat over to you. Thank you very much, Michael. Can you hear me all right? Loud and clear. Excellent. Yeah, thank you. And thank you for your earlier introduction. And thanks everyone for joining us today. Just introduced myself again. So my name is Murat Yusair. I'm deployed to the Mine Action and Child Protection AOR through the pro cap mechanism, which was introduced earlier. So I just like to also now, for the sake of this part, get back to many of you on what we have been seeing in terms of the findings through a survey that was that was online gathering a range of responses. So first, I just want to go ahead and acknowledge the contributions while putting this survey together. We had lots of contributions from the AORs, the clusters that are a part of this initiative. In addition to a reference group of colleagues from various agencies and UN entities, INGOs, and reference groups of the ISC alike. So you have UNICEF, UNMA, Save the Children, WHO, GICHD, all go through the whole list. So in terms of the design, just to quickly give an overview, when we were putting this together, we really wanted to try to make this a sequence of integrated questions that would be aligned with the collective outcomes that were agreed among the main stakeholders on this initiative and core aspects of victim assistance. We also tried to build on an integrate or harmonize with the previous work done, especially during and since the bank conference in 2018, but also other initiatives such as the protection and health operational framework, the joint framework that a lot of work has been going on to and it's an ongoing process, previous workshops such as that on data sharing that was done in Amman, and other key frameworks such as the also action plan and associated checklist. I thought that was very important. And we saw very clear linkages with the collective outcomes across all of these instances. So just to give you an idea of how we put it together. And the main purpose of this really was to try to gauge an understanding of the current level of collaboration between these entities, the clusters, AORs and others at the global and field level towards the collective outcomes that we've been dealing with and which we screened earlier. We will be going through those in more detail later on in the presentation. We thought that this would best definitely be helpful to establish a baseline in terms of where we are now and also inform recommendations and the guidance that you have now seen in its sort of draft latest draft form and shared with you. I would like to for a minute hand over to a colleague from the Education Cluster and Information Management Officer, Mr. Tarik, who extended his expertise and help in analyzing the data and all of the responses that have come in to give you a little bit of overview of what he's been seeing and how he managed that process before we get into the more substantive results and findings that we've drawn. Please, over to you, Tarik. Thank you, Murat. So this is Tarik from the Global Education Cluster. As Murat mentioned about the survey itself, so we have from the survey, we have 71 respondents with a range of different profiles, including cluster, coordinate and co-leads, as well as specialists, country directors, and of course, I am colleagues as well. So we have, as Murat as well mentioned, we have over 21 organizations participating in this survey, including UN, INGO, and local NGOs from 15 countries who's covering this context. So the survey, I think the link was already shared with all of you so you can look at it and then we are happy to answer anything on the Q&A questions. Back to you, Murat. Thank you very much. Yeah. So, and I hope some of you have had the opportunity to have a glance at the statistical analysis that was shared along with the invitation to this webinar. What we're going to be doing is try to see some of the key takeaways from that survey and not go through all of the statistical analysis that you have already received. And just a quick note here, when looking at the findings, we've also tried to look at this in conjunction with a lot of other material that we've been looking at. I've been looking at through a desk review, matching it with what we're seeing with the consultations that we've had within the technical reference group colleagues in the field and also during a process of reviewing all of the HRPs that are in place in EU contaminated contexts and to try to inform an overall understanding. So the first section I'd like to start with is the category of information management and analysis. I'm starting with that because well, needless to say, a lot of what we do in the humanitarian program cycle starts with evidence based the need for data and information in order to inform the prevention and response planning that was introduced at the very beginning. Now, some of the first things that at least from our perspective came out from the responses was that you know, we're seeing that there is a lot of data out there. There are also many tools, different types of IM systems pertaining to the clusters or outside of the clusters, assessment tools, etc. And there is data sharing going on. However, there seems to be an issue with bringing all of it together and bringing it to a place where the data that is available is actually put to use or acted on. So when you look at the data, actually, you see in a high number of contexts, over 70% of respondents are saying that there are multiple relevant data collection tools. When we say relevant, we mean relevant to exactly this topic, the question of of the impact of explosive ordinance on children, out victims and survivors. So we're all we're seeing over 15 different tools that are active in many of the countries. And we're going to look at those in more detail later on. Higher rates over 70% are saying that, you know, there is a certain level of data sharing and disaggregation that's going on, which should actually help uninformed analysis. However, what we also see is that the shared and that the rates of shared analysis analysis, according to the response is a bit lower when it when it comes to joint analysis of sharing, but perhaps a little bit less analysis and quite negligible, we would say, or low when it comes to cross border regional dimensions of information. And that's an important point. And what we had in we have in mind, what this tells us, looking at context, especially when today, you have someone may be a victim of explosive ordinance on one side of a border, but just because they cross to another side and exit the orbit of, let's say, the cluster response, and enter an orbit of, let's say, the refugee response that they might get. So and this is something that has come up in previous discussions. We also see seven countries indicating good practice in this area. So despite the positive indications in data collection and sharing, we do not see that this translates into it's not translating into the HNOs necessarily systematically, or into the HRP, see the review of the indicator. So the question is, you know, why is it not making and that's something we'll talk about more on the section on reducing quality. The main takeaway that we also had when looking at that is, you know, key measures to save lives are not save lives are not systematically in place in high risk areas. That's what the responses are telling us. We see that a presence of first aid service providers in contaminated areas is around 50-50. So that tells you a lot about the odds of surviving that, when accidents do occur for children, the odds are very much against. But we also see that even when the first aid service providers are present, the indication is that the majority are not equipped or trained. We see less than 50% of respondents indicating that any training is provided through the health cluster, the mind action or child protection AORs or its members and less than 40% indicate that first aid emergency response for EO victims, child victims integrated with the health cluster strategies and contaminated contexts. And we'll see later that no specific indicator in any of the HRPs exists for this particular area. And although seven countries are indicating that there are existing good practices, and we are going to be looking more into those practices. In terms of increasing personal capacity, which you have seen also a key category in the survey sequencing, we see that there is a lack of dedicated resources impeding progress we think in this area, according to the indications. Because we do see that over 50%, just over 50% of respondents indicating that there is a level of intercluster collaboration on physical rehabilitation services, and over 50% saying that there is inclusive MHPSS services that is available for child survivors. However, over 90% do say that there is a lack of resources to address the rehabilitation meets of child survivors. Over 90% also say that during beneficiary registration, rehabilitation facilities, the data related to cause and type of injury is not recorded. This is important because, well, we see that lack of dedicated resources, and if we don't see these indicators showing up in the HRP, that probably also explains why perhaps we don't see the service providers consciously or deliberately integrating that into their beneficiary registration systems, and then reporting on it as a part of the overall M&E on the response. So these are kind of nuanced, but key issues that we're taking away from this. Moving on to social inclusion, another core, an important part of overall what is considered as victim assistance. We also had a look at what the sections are telling us. We had around 95% indicating that the sections that do exist in the HRPs on education do not specifically address needs of explosive ordinance, child victims and survivors. Although we do see that around 40% are reporting some level of intercluster efforts on awareness raising, and around 80% indicating that there are no or they are not aware of intersectoral approaches in the domain of social inclusion. And we'll talk also more about that during the sessions on HNO and HRP. We did have dedicated section in the survey on case management and referrals given its critical role in the response on this topic. One of our key takeaways was that case management and referrals being key to child protection services do need to be leveraged actually for child victims with a requirement of dedicated resources on this particular service. And that's very important, kind of for the same reasons as we explained in the question on increasing personal capacities for rehab and MHPS. Similarly, we do have a situation where we're not seeing specific indicators on case management referrals for EO child victims. Although six countries are indicating some good practices, we see a good level on service mapping that's coming out from the responses, but not necessarily reaching the target group. So we have good service mapping, but it's questionable to the extent that that availability of services is being disseminated to the groups that should be receiving it. The SOPs, standard operating procedures on case management, according to what we see from the responses are seeing either not to be in place or not well known among the service providers, in particular among health service providers. The majority of responses indicated that referral systems are not in place in explosive ordinance affected regions. And where SOPs do exist, most of the time specific provisions to register manage cases of child survivors and indirect victims are not included. We do have, I believe, a section and we combined two here regarding, you know, some indications about how the response, what the response are telling us in terms of integrating victim assistance overall and field support. So briefly, we have really three main points that we would like to stress here that you do have around 40% reporting that, you know, although that there are inter cluster efforts, when it comes to victim assistance in general, and designated focal points, and the good practices are in place, and that over 60% report that HRPs are addressing the issues to some extent. Now this we're going to compare to what we see in the HR review and the next slides. But even when we have this, we do see that the note the indication that requests for field support from the field coming to HQ is quite low. And we also see even a lower rate of support being provided in general in this domain of prevention response for child victims. Lastly, on survey results, we're looking at the area of prevention. So here, in fact, risk education related indicators are the most frequent when we look at the total of MA min actual related indicators in HRPs. And this does indicate a lot of activity in this domain. But less than 40% of the respondents are indicating that explosive ordinance ordinance risk education programs or strategies are being developed jointly between or among the clusters and stakeholders. So that is something that, you know, was interesting to know. Here we also have around 80% of respondents are indicating that clearance prioritization processes are not necessarily including inputs or contributions from the clusters and prospective members. Nearly all countries on the other hand are indicating that there are existing good practices and six indicate that for social inclusion. And we're going to be very interested to follow up with the respondents from those countries who have indicated the good practices to be able to further document and ensure for global practice. So at this point, you know, I'd like to just sort of present the fact that, you know, progress has been made over the past years, in putting my action on to the map, including into humanitarian response plans. And, you know, and it's very important to build on all the progress that has been made, perhaps to see how we can address some of the issues that, you know, are coming through on the survey from desk reviews, and also related to some of the trends that was that were previously presented by my colleagues, Elka, Michael and others. And I'd like to basically conclude before the overall conclusions, just have a quick snapshot, some feedback to you on what we're seeing when we look at all of the mind action context 16 of them with published humanitarian response plans. First of all, we say that out of all of these contacts, around 80% have MA indicators. It means that 20% of HRPs in mind action, EO contaminate contacts don't have any mind action related indicators. In total, we counted there are 28 related indicators to action. And that means related to any of the pillars. So when we take these 28 indicators, and we break them down, we see that 32% are related to clearance. And those 32% are distributed across six out of 16 of the country. So yeah, 42% clearance related indicators out of the 28, six countries. In recent education, it forms the majority of the 28 mind action related indicators. And you can see those in eight out around 50% of the countries. When you look at victim assistance, you actually have 11% of these 28. So you basically have around one indicator each in in three countries. And those indicators are general, they are not broken down among any of the categories that we've seen. So by physical rehabilitation or case management or MHPSS for survivors, they don't get broken down. They're usually very general. In other words, like number of people receiving victim assistance. So we don't see a breakdown. And then you have 14% which are other indicators outside of these categories, 14% of the total in four of the countries. When we look at the priority contexts, you see that in Afghanistan, you have indicators related to 12 and four. So clearance related, risk education related and other not on VA. In terms of what we've reviewed in the published in Iraq, it's only other so no VA, no risk education, no clearance. Syria, the one that has been published reviewed, indicates clearance, education, and other no VA and Ukraine clearance related risk education and victim assistance related. And I just missed those because these were some of the countries that during the deployment were seen as as priority. I'd like to move to the last point before we move into an open session for questions, just, you know, like, what is it all this telling us on where we are, perhaps, and perhaps also, you know, where we might want to go, collectively. So when we look at where comparable data exists from what was done and presented during the Bangkok conference in 2018, we don't actually see significant changes in in the type of feedback we're getting from the field. We also might be able to conclude that, you know, key data requirements are not systematically integrated under the overarching protection analysis framework, or systematically included in HNOs. And that's something we can talk about a little bit later. The indications do seem to point to a need for specific efforts to move towards a situation where all explosive ordinance contaminated context have a more balanced set of HRP indicators, reflecting an inclusive response plan and corresponding to needs articulated in the HNOs, where it's often not reflected. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. We have clear and dedicate a need for clear and dedicated budgeting and costing, which we think will help. And the level of intercluster collaboration, joint frameworks and practices at global level is also reflected in the field. Now, all this to say that to recognize that often what's happening at the global level is reflected at the field level. So if SOPs for case management, for example, or operational frameworks between protection and health are in place and inclusive, or if resource mobilization or advocacy at the global level is inclusive of this issue and there's a level of intercluster collaboration, we will see that in the field. If it's not, we perhaps won't. So I think there's an important linkage there to make. And then we're having a broad range of targeted recommendations addressing some of these findings, which are under development. And we'll perhaps get back to you more on that as we proceed. So on that I'll hand over to Michael. And I realized that the time might be of the essence here. Right, thanks so much. Really helpful. And it's highlighting. Yes, we've got some good practices. How do we become systematic? And you've mentioned cooperation, integrated approaches, collective outcomes across risk education, victim assistance clearance, the extent to which we're seeing those cooperative efforts. So really important. Thank you so much. We'll come back to you about some suggestions on how we take that forward in the response planning shortly. I wanted to ask participants to come in if you've got any questions about anything that's been presented so far. We've heard from Elke some of the trends that we're seeing globally. We've heard from Caitlyn specific examples from Afghanistan. And then Murat's taken us through the survey, what we're seeing in terms of current practice, what we're seeing at the moment. And I've got a couple of questions already in the chat box, which I'll start with. But if you've got more, please use the chat box. And once I'm done with these couple also do come in with the mic. The first question is from Ilya and apologies if I'm pronouncing the name wrong. Ilya Khan. And the question is how do we measure E-O-R-E impact? How are we measuring impact? So I wanted to ask maybe Elke or Murat or others to come in with that. But before you do, also, we've got a response here that in part answers the question or it's linked. And it's coming in from Iraqi Kurdistan region. And where they're reporting the number of E-O victims has been reduced significantly in recent years. The number does not exceed five in a year. Before 2018, then more than five. Hopefully there's an outstanding effort by the E-O-R-E actors on the ground in which the child has been identified as part of that focus target. Great. Another factor is due to most of the children are busy playing with particular games, which has kept them at home and not going out would have had an impact. So maybe coming to how we measure that impact, Elke, if you're online, Murat or if others would like to come in. Thanks, Michael. It's Elke. Go ahead. Good question. How are you measuring the impact of explosive ordinance risk education? I'm by far not the expert on this. If you guys online or somebody from the E-O-R-E advisory group, please step in. But very briefly, what I can answer is that we tend to measure this impact solely with a focus on activities. So as one of you answered, describing the number of people that have been targeted, either direct or indirect beneficiaries, what we need to do and where we have to move to is to demonstrate that the education sessions actually beyond number of people reached are actually having a result, meaning they are changing either people's knowledge, their attitudes or their behaviors. And one way in which that can be tested is to do what's called a CAP survey, knowledge, attitudes, behaviors before you do your intervention and to do them again directly after to measure change in knowledge, the intervention, and then sometime later again, when you can expect that knowledge will be changing people's attitudes and behaviors. As a result of that, hopefully demonstrating that people are decreasing, there is taking behavior over to somebody else in the group. Okay, thanks. Anyone else wanting to come in on that specific question about impact? Hi. I don't know if you hear me. I can, I can please introduce yourself. Go ahead. Hi, I'm Salima from DCA. Hi, Salima. Go ahead. I agree with, totally with what Alk say. We use before to do risk education, ERE risk education station direct, especially direct to, to have the baseline to see what is the knowledge and attitude and behavior of the children or the person. After that, after we do session, we come back after some three months or it depends on the project. And you, we do cup, cup day survey and to see what's changed in the attitude and the behavior of these children and to try and also sometimes we come back to do other session in the same schools to see if they keep this knowledge stay in the, with this children and to especially try to make them in action to, to, to let them respond to see if they're really sometimes if they really change what is the action they are doing if they are in the situation. This is what we are doing to see. There is a lot of also you can do also focus group. This is most with the, not with the child, but I dripped people. That's all what I want to say. Thank you. Great. Selimi, thanks so much for talking there about retention as well as trying to get to the practices. Fantastic. Thanks. Thanks so much for sharing, for sharing that. I want to jump to the next question. And that's from Mr. Ruben McCarthy. Welcome, Ruben McCarthy. I have a question about data. Information indicates that boys are generally more likely than girls to suffer an accident. So does the analysis and humanitarian needs overview process reflect this? Great question. So we're seeing boys being more likely than girls to suffer the accident. The analysis and HNO process. Is it reflecting that? Murat, maybe to you and for others to jump in there. Great question. Thanks, Ruben. Yeah, thank you very much. Can you hear me all right? Still? Yep, go ahead. That's a great question. And also kind of relates to what we're seeing in different countries. Now, for me, the question of data and the HNO. So yes. And I think that was quite clearly presented by Elka. At the global level, there are certain sources data which are indicating what Ruben has pointed out. When it comes to HNOs, I do not think that we systematic on an ad hoc level, I think you will see indications of the same that indeed boys are the majority of victims. But I think one of the main takeaways that we're having in this webinar, which we will look at in terms of the guidance is that there's a need to really look at how at each country level, we can get the right types of information and data together jointly analyze it to have more definitive evidence based conclusions on that topic. I think in a lot of contexts, it's very hard to make more definitive conclusions in terms of that. At the global level, I think it comes across more clearly. Yes, the majority and we've seen some of those percentages presented by Elka. So Ruben, I would also like to come back further down the line on this webinar, when we actually address specifically what we see in the HNOs, what we should perhaps incorporate better and how the joint analysis can perhaps respond to your question. Thanks. Thanks. And I'm going to keep us moving. We've got a few more minutes and then we had a dedicated break actually. So the next one and link to the question around the analysis and HNO HRP. It's from Kiko. Hi, Kiko. It's for child victims inter cluster coordination seems so critical. And that's come through in the survey. Would it be possible to create an indicator to measure inter cluster coordination, whether that's happening globally and hold each country held responsible for moving that forward? For example, do we have SOPs and procedure frameworks implemented jointly? So it's a really great question. What I can say is that some of us are already measuring the extent to which we can see integration now humanitarian needs overview. So where we've got a child protection, humanitarian needs overview, and it's in a content contaminated context. Are we referencing work with with my next year? For example, but it's a really good question. Could we have an indicator that that tracks that collective response and action? I'm going to take one more question and then go back to the panel. And this is coming from Alfred Mohtiti. Hi, Alfred, who is in Syria. One area which I've not heard is that advocacy created for victim assistance. There seems to be a lack of sustained advocacy for victim assistance. I wonder what the survey found out. It's great, great question. So also, I guess around the resources as well. So on those questions, okay, feel free to direct us as well. Any, any thoughts on what we have indicated collectively, and then the advocacy on victim assistance? Yeah, thanks. I mean, I'll defer some of this also to Elka, but I'd like to respond to that because it's also something I've been giving a lot of thought to. And I very much actually agree with Alfred's comment and observation there. And I think a part of the challenge with consistent advocacy again comes down to the evidence based need and gap analysis. So what we have seen is internationally concerns being consistently expressed about the level of mine action funding or the percentage of mine action funding being dedicated to victim assistance. However, what we have not really seen in humanitarian program cycles is articulation of total needs per country and the gaps and the associated resource requirements. So this is why we also have tried to address this through the HNO and HRP process through, you know, building up through all of the tools that we have available, the evidence base and translate that into a more clear costing and exercise. So we know what the type of the level of resources that would be required to address the outstanding needs that are not being covered at this stage. So I think that's where the main challenge is. And this is really what we are addressing. We'll talk about it first on the line. Over to you, Alfred. Thanks, Marat. Excellent question. Did we look at advocacy? Did we ask questions around whether people were engaged in advocacy for what I would call victim assistance, which requires a multi sectoral response? I'm looking at that. And I think the answer is no. We did not look at that. Correct me if I'm wrong, Marat. Now we've been relying more on the desk review and consultations on that question. We didn't pose it directly. I do not recognize it. On that point, what I what I can let you know, though, is that as a February of this year, all mind action colleagues will from now on have the responsibility to promote a multi sectoral response to victim assistance, which means that they as the holders of casualty data with an understanding of mortality rates, which tells us something about the presence or absence of a proper first aid and emergency medical response information about who gets injured, why, where should be speaking to other actors outside of the action sector to carry that data beyond the mind action sector, which has traditionally been used by mind action operators to decide who they should target for risk education or what area should be cleared for, should be prioritized for clearance, all of which are important, but don't help people for whom the accident has already happened. So in February, an international mind action standard on victim assistance was adopted by the IMAS, International Mind Action Standard Review Board, which will see all mind action actors from national mind action authorities, the centers to mind action operators needing to take a role in promoting a multi-sector response to victim assistance on the data available. The IMAS review board did not want to call it advocacy. That was received with a bit of allergy. So instead, it's called promoting a multi-sector response. Of course, it's not only the mind action sector that should take on this responsibility. So I absolutely hear your point that this has to go well beyond and that advocacy is an equally important point. Great. Thanks, Elkie. So we will get, as Murat mentioned, to some of the costing, evidence-based advocacy. What's the gap? So when we're advocating victim assistance or to use the other term that Elkie just mentioned, seeking cooperative approaches needs to be all of us. What is it we're asking for? What are the costs related to victim assistance? And we'll also look at that for case management. I'm going to ask Murat and Elkie to also have a look at the chat box. There are some questions there that you can also answer as we go along. But I'll just try and get through a couple more quickly. One is, do we have any recommendations on what can be done to reduce mortality amongst new casualties? And I took note, and this is coming from Alifaz. I took note of the shortages in first aid, which is obviously a critical issue here. Exactly. So looking at only 50 percent coming through around first aid. I think, Elkie, you can confirm that is a critical measure, right? If we're able to improve the provision and training capacity around first aid, that's going to be a significant help. Have I got that right? Yes. Thanks, Michael. Absolutely. We know that over 30 percent of people have an accident with an explosive device actually die as a result. And some studies done, unfortunately, quite a while ago in Iraq and Cambodia showed that by training a volunteer village-based first aid capacity, that mortality rate was reduced from over 30 percent at the time as well to around 12 to 14 percent. So we know that some very simple ABC measures already can cut that mortality rate by three. And here, then I'm only talking about first aid if we can get emergency medical transport in place. We would be able to do that even more. Often we find I work with handicapped international now called humanity and inclusion that there might be vehicles available to transport people out of zones with a lot of casualties. But these vehicles simply don't have gas. Money is lacking to put gas in there to get somebody transported to a primary health care facility. So, of course, beyond training up a first aid response, there's much we can do often with very simple measures to get somebody to the hospital. The next, of course, we need to make sure that there is a trauma capacity available to ensure that people do survive, actually are able to do so with the least amount of injuries and with the least level of functional impairments for the rest of their life. Thank you, Michael. Thanks, Elki. So just before we go to the break, I'm just going to go through the comments. Belinda, who's working with DFID and focusing on monitoring globally in terms of mind action and confirming that indeed we need to go do much better than looking at coverage, but looking at perception and action. For example, the approach discussed on conducting pre and post cap surveys. So this is a settlement point. Yeah, is what we're after and in line with donor thinking. Thank you. We've got from Francesca, who I think is in Yemen. Interesting to hear from others. So colleagues also use the chat box hearing about some of that cooperation and integrated approaches of victim assistance with health from the other countries. We're trying in Yemen and there've been discussions happening. But of course, COVID-19 is making that even more complicated. Do do try and answer as well. Colleagues, you have great experience and learning and expertise. So do jump in and try and help out. Those field level examples are often the best in terms of answering and sharing your experience with others. Yeah, Michael, but may flag one question. I've seen it seems like an important one and call out to the group. If anyone would like to take it. There's one question asking, does the mind action AOR benefit from knowledge in sectors as to structural improvements and change that address the rights of persons affected by ordinance such as improved access to health care, improvements and accessible infrastructure. And that's coming from Ileem Kohn. Based in New York. Thanks for that. Colleagues, if I've got it right, we are scheduled for a five minute break. This is the time when you can go and get a cup of tea, stretch, do whatever you need to do. We will be back in five minutes. Please do join us. Really, really helpful, fascinating discussion. Much needed. You can see the collective, the collective coming together here. So five minutes, which takes us to 43 past the hour here, wherever you are in five minutes, we'll come back. Have I got that right, Murat? Right. Correct. So pausing pausing for five. Those of you who don't feel like going for a break, use the chat box, try and answer those questions as well, or indeed add your comments and thoughts. Good to see pretty much everyone is still with us. Some of you are coming back. Good. That's that's great. We're going to the next part of this afternoon's webinar. That that is about what where do we go from here? And the questions are really pointing pointing us to that. Some of these key key questions coming up about that collective work, advocacy, evidence-based approaches, how do we measure? How do we have joined up approaches? We're seeing in the chat box as well. So I'm going to turn back to Murat. And as I mentioned, please do also try and respond in the chat box yourself. Murat, over to you. OK, yeah, thanks a lot. And thanks, Michael and everyone, welcome back. So here we're really going to try to briefly introduce and perhaps summarize what we have been able collectively to develop so far in terms of guidance, which you may find and we hope you will find starts to address some of these questions that are coming up and a lot of these, which we have been grappling with ourselves. So what was shared is a draft guidance. And of course, this is a live document. It's something that we hope we can develop as time goes on with inputs from the field and others. But it's basically looking at a two-part guidance on how we can mitigate the overall impact of explosive ordnance on children through collaborative humanitarian action through the humanitarian cycle. The first part really steps one to three are really looking at the question of, again, evidence, data, information, how that is making it and how that can make it into the HNO. Perhaps it hasn't been making it so far to the extent that we would like to see collectively but maybe a few indications of how that might be possible. You know, what we did is we really put our heads together with a technical reference group, some of the same agencies and entities, organization experts that I mentioned at the beginning who contributed to the survey design and especially the information specialists from each of the clusters and AORs. We managed to put together a baseline of what the information or data requirements are considered to be when it comes to this particular issue of explosive ordnance impact on children. We think that the list that we do have and we'll visit that in table two shortly is that it will help us also to inform geographical prioritization, priority groups and priority issues. And a lot of these things are coming up in the questions. And we think that it's also an important, it could be when we hope it will be a helpful guide to see, you know, out of all of the information and data requirements that we've listed, it will help identify what are the information gaps, what data is available to each country context and what is missing and how to make use of the existing data, bringing it together under an overarching joint analysis framework, right? And then also look at some of the standard steps that are outlined in the humanitarian program cycle on getting these results approved through the processes and the AOR cluster to actually have them feature more prominently in HNOs. I think one broad principle that we try to follow when looking at data information is, you know, only information that is needed to promote quality and accountability in programming and only that which will be acted should actually be collected. And this will also help reduce assessment fatigue, perhaps in communities. And we all get that quite a lot from colleagues in the field saying, you know, there's a problem with fatigue. We're gathering a lot of data. But, you know, is it the stuff that isn't the kind of information we actually need and will it be acted upon? So on that point, I would like to point over if Boris is online from the Child Protection AOR, who's done a lot of work on joint analysis frameworks, especially within the child protection context, perhaps say a few words on that before we get into more details on what these guiding questions and data requirements are, what we've gathered so far to share those with you. Boris? Hello, Murat, do you hear me well? Yes, loud and clear. Please go ahead. Fantastic. At the Secular Room, Murat, thank you so much. I am Boris Aristein from the Child Protection AOR and just to compliment a bit about the very good words that Murat was saying with all of you regarding how the protection cluster and the AORs, they are really working since 2019 for ensuring a better analysis, a better evidence-based decision making for both the strategic decisions and operational or programmatic one, and more importantly, to ensure the centrality of protection in all the humanitarian key and strategic documents as they are the humanitarian needs overview and the humanitarian response plan. Very briefly, and also considering that the global protection cluster and global AORs, we are working on guidance and technical and coordination tools for facilitating this process on each of the countries. But the core message that we would like to share here is that for protection and includes some min-action and self-protection GBBA, HLPM, general protection, what we have to find out is to ensure that we can get one overarching severity scale and overarching people in need of protection and then to facilitate the process for the identification of AOR-specific severity scale and people in need, which is going to be critical for all the coordination for the different stakeholders, but also to define the programmatic prioritization response effect. So this can be a very long discussion and I wouldn't like to take you much time, but very happy to keep clarifying any aspect later on during the round of questions and answers. Thank you so much, Monato. Thank you, thank you very much for us. So thanks and that's really helpful also to frame a little bit the discussion and for now what I would like to do, and again, given that this is really not a workshop and some of this we appreciate is material or substance that merits a full day workshop, but what we would really like to do now is just introduce briefly some summaries within the guidance, point your attention to them that might shed light on some of this question. So again, coming back to my first point, we did put our heads together with the different sectors to try to identify what are the minimum data requirements that we actually need for this issue? What are the guiding questions that, and perhaps help colleagues in the field think through the type of information and data requirements they have and match the guiding questions with specific types of data that would correspond to those questions and finally also look at perhaps where this type of data can be found readily or in which instruments with a few amendments that kind of information can be gathered. So I won't go line by line, but you will be able to see and take your time to read through also by yourselves is that what's coming out and what the sectors were really expressing is that there are some different levels either at individual household level, infrastructure, program level or population level, types of levels of information that will contribute to quality programming in this domain. So on the one hand, and this relates to some of the questions I've seen in the chat box, we want to see where the types of barriers that exist for child victims in terms of accessing assistance, including attitudes and perceptions, perhaps physical and institutional communication barriers. You know, that would enable the design of better programs that take into account diverse needs to determine the current level and constraints of existing health and education, wash and other infrastructure to respond to the related needs of victims and provide a basis for fundraising by informing the budget preparation process for actions that improve accessibility. On the other hand, we really have seen the need to have common understanding and overview of data on the number of child victims that there are in any given country context, which will increase visibility for inclusion at the decision-making levels and baseline population data, desegregated, and this will include, by the way, and this really comes from the mine action, health protection, education and health clusters specific requirements. Looking at things like apart from barriers, existing surfaces that are available, the numbers of child victims, the types of injuries and impairments, the causes and circumstances around accidents and incidents, including the place, the type of device, time patterns. This has really seemed to be able to inform information on priority groups, informed risk education programs, and also, even overview of the confirmed or at least as close estimates as we can get on the number of victims there are and informed of overall victim assistance needs. And as you go through this, you'll see that there are various questions and related data sets that will help the education, child protection, health and mine action, areas of responsibility to have a better chance at making informed decisions and integration into the HNO. Now, so tables one and two within the guidance, I believe gives quite a, I hope you will find a helpful summary, along with a lot of the tools and instruments that are available. Of course, not all of these instruments exist everywhere. The survey has indicated that a lot of these tools that you see under source column, do exist in a lot of the countries. And that's great to see also from the side of the respondents, but they won't be everywhere all the time. And that's also important to help understand, what are the gaps there? But on that, and just back to you, Michael, because I know that we want to give more time to get back to some of the questions that are coming through. Thanks so much, Murat. We have about 25 minutes left. We're seeing some good discussion in the chat box, including how do we understand change, attribution, contribution. And we heard from coming back to Caitlin's point earlier from Afghanistan, the country context is gonna be different, including where we've got ongoing conflict or hostilities and what that's causing to some of what that's doing to some of these numbers. We've got a number of colleagues in the chat box sharing examples, resources that are coming up. Please do. Also, we'll make available a recording of this webinar, but also if you have any of those specific materials or examples to share, please, if you have the link, if you could do that. There's a comment from Hamid to everyone. It's a really important one. And this is about including questions in joint multi-sector or multi-cluster needs assessments, which are carried out before those humanitarian needs overview. The questions are limited to respective sub-cluster or AORs. It's a really important point. So I'm wondering if Boris is still there or Murat, this question about how do we collect information, our space is limited. And I guess, how do we collect information in an ongoing way, not just in these annual events around humanitarian needs overview because we need to understand the situation in an ongoing manner. So if you have particular thoughts on that. And then there were also questions, there's a question from Zareen. How explosive ordnance survivors have followed up. Was that considered in the survey? And how can we look at maintaining that kind of question? How do we track survivor follow up? So a fantastic question, Zareen as well. So maybe I'll come back to you Murat and Elke for questions on that. There's also one additional one from Henri about reporting. How do we get reporting given that this is an intersectoral cross-cluster issue where some of the activities might be carried out by one sector or cluster? Then how do we get an overall picture in terms of reporting? Great question as well. So Murat, I'll keep back to you. And then I suggest we move to the last section. Over to you. Okay, I'd like to address the first question. Thanks to Hamid for that on multi-cluster needs assessments. Now, what I can say, I think here is this. I think it's a very valid point. The fact is we can't fit everything into one tool. I think that the MCNA or the MSNA, and I believe that's linked to what REACH does as well, is one tool and granted we cannot rely specifically only on one tool to get all of the data requirements that is seen as all of the data that is seen as required by the different sectors around this topic. I think that's also why, and again, this will vary I think from country to country. We really have to see in the first instance, looking at mapping out all of the tools. I believe that Annex D of the guidance tries to do that. It goes, each tool is listed to see in terms of qualitative and quantitative aspects, what that tool is able to contribute to any of these questions and even how each tool might be able to be a little bit tweaked or amended to accommodate for this. So my response would be, we have to look at the full range of primary and secondary data sources that are available. There are tools that do collect data and information on an ongoing basis. So it's not only when it's time to draft an HNO, but it's periodically. So I realize that might not answer completely, but I hope that might help a little bit around the thinking. I'd like to reserve the response for the next section. Great, okay. I'm gonna keep us moving and I'm seeing that Christelle is also coming in in the chat box. Mine Action AOR is reviewing in terms of multi-sector needs, assessments, the questions and Elkie's also looking at this question from Henry as well. If we can use the chat box. Let's come back to the presentation because we've still got continuation around response planning and then we wanna look at case management and then we can wrap up so we can come back to you. Okay, right, okay. So this is more, yeah, we're looking at the response side of things. So we've talked a lot about data, data requirements, where perhaps we can find it in the importance of putting to use the range of tools and systems we have available. And again, we've listed all those out, but then looking at the response side, and you'll also see this spelled out in the guidance document. Is essentially we're looking at a dual and mutually reinforcing approach that might be required, which is beyond any single agency program. So again, it's not only intersectoral and in the same way that it's not only about one sector that needs to respond, it's also not one agency that can cover all the needs. So we're looking at two approaches where we have the mainstreaming approach and then direct services. Mainstreaming really looking at facilitating access to existing services, where they do exist, in particular overcoming barriers. And this is really applicable for all services. And then it includes water and sanitation, food security and livelihoods, as well as the core stakeholders in this initiative, the protection, health and education. And we think that mainstreaming is also a very good opportunity and an important window to keep track of beneficiaries across all the sectors, regardless of whether they are being targeted or not. And this really, I think also ties in with disability inclusion as well, right? So child victims with disabilities, making sure that they are not left out of ongoing services where they exist. However, we have to also be aware that there are specific targeted services for children at risk of explosive ordnance, or for those who have already had an accident, that there are specialized services and which need to be targeted and considered as direct. And these include the risk education front on life-saving emergency response, which is related to the reducing mortality collective income and medium and longer term services for survivors, which is included under the increasing personal capacity and social inclusion of collective outcomes. So here, what we've really, I think, coming back to over and over again is the question of, and this also will speak to the issue of reporting. And one of the challenges, dedicated indicators linked to dedicated budgeted resources within the HRP, I think is really key here, because when you do have the set of indicators included, when you have dedicated budgets and resources, we will find that suddenly the reporting will also be enhanced considerably. And on the HRP, just to give you a visual of what, how we're really looking at this, what does intersectoral response look like? I mean, everything we've been talking about, whether it's risk education, prevention, or any of the activities pulling under victim assistance, falls under the mind-action domain. However, you have areas like child protection case management, which is really under the lead of child protection. You have areas which really pertain to what the health cluster does, which is core to its response, including first aid, trauma surgery, safe blood access, pediatric blast injury treatment, physical rehabilitation, MHPSS. You're also having areas like access to education for child survivors, social inclusion, that's a broad range of activities. And then something that is common to all, on information management, shared analysis, clearance prioritization, and the mobilization advocacy and referrals, right? So when we look at that, and here I would like to point your attention very briefly. And again, I'll leave this to colleagues to go through at their own time. But table three in the guidance, what we've tried to do is translate or present services and activities that correspond to each of the collective outcomes, okay? Including cross-cutting, and try to match those with a set of sample or potential indicators, which could be considered for inclusion in HRP. Again, both the first tables under the HNO or this one under the HRP are purely there to inspire thought and guidance and it will change from context to context. We hope that these might be helpful to give an idea of what could be included and how to get those dedicated indicators in there, linked to dedicated costing and budgeting in there, which will have knock-on effects on all the others for the reporting and monitoring and evaluation as well. And again, all of these make an important point here. These set of indicators should be considered beyond the scope of any single organization's country program strategy. It has to be an aggregate that we can include and have a more balanced set of indicators. So back over to you, Michael. Thanks for that. And if we can go to the next slide and we're going to introduce Lauren Binkowski. And if you can hear us, Lauren, over to you to tell us about case management. Murat was mentioning child protection case management and how that features in all of this work around explosive ordinance and particularly around victim assistance. Over to you, Lauren. Sure, thanks, Michael. So I put here the description of child protection case management as it's described in the latest version of the Child Protection Minimum Standards from 2019. So I think many are familiar with this, but it's an approach for addressing the needs of individual children who are at risk of harm or have been harmed. And the case worker supports that child and family in a systematic way. And child protection case management is, of course, it takes a lot of coordination and it's supposed to address the child protection concerns in a holistic manner. So the case management steps are outlined below. And as we all know, the case management steps don't happen in a linear fashion. We go back and forth identifying the child first and registering that child according to eligibility criteria and vulnerability criteria, assessing their needs, developing that plan, that care plan with the child and family, implementing, and then following up, I think Christelle mentioned that earlier, that child protection case management, we will not close that case until the child and family are ready to move forward. So there are, if we go into full on what is child protection case management. But Michael or Marat, in the next slide, there are a few resources for child protection case management to give you more of an understanding of what child protection case management is in case others are curious about it. But there's the case management standard 18. So that gives a really good overview. And then the child protection case management resource hub on the Alliance website. So the Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action. This resource hub has five different models and there are videos with each. But looking at capacity building, the case management guidelines, the form are used and then coordination around child protection case management. So looking at standard operating procedures and how those are developed among the different case management agencies and multi-sector actors. And then monitoring and really evaluating your case management response and making sure that it's a quality response. So that resource hub, I really recommend that, that has a full set of case management resources. There's a video from the 2012 edition of the CPIs that might be helpful. And then the, I think some of you have heard of the CPI-MS plus, that's the information management system for case management for child protection case management. GBV of course has the GBV-IMS plus. The CPI-MS plus is not rolled out everywhere. But there's a set of standard forms with these, with the CPI-MS plus that complements and that support of protection case management overall. So those are general resources, but due to time and I think what we really wanna hear from other colleagues in other countries is how are mind action and child protection actors working together in your context to support child victims of explosive ordinance? And throughout the, how is the case management, how are the case management actors working together with mind action colleagues to support these cases? So I would like to invite, if we have Martha on the call and Mar to share their experience a little bit how they have coordinated. The next, after we hear from Martha and then we might hear from a few other countries as well, following slide to go into some sample ideas or some ideas for how mind action and child protection actors can collaborate related to the case management process. So Martha, if you are available still. I'm here. Okay. Thanks Lauren. Thanks Lauren. And good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are. So thanks Lauren for this opportunity to share. I'm here with Chow-In who's from the Mind Action Working Group who will be able to take questions after I share what we are going to share with regards to mind action and case management. For just a brief background, for me and Mar, we have nine out of the 15 states which are contaminated. And one of them is particularly of interest as it shoulders about 54% of the total casualties. And this is Rakhine. And from May to from January to May, they had a total of 31 incidences which resulted in 16 deaths. So for the Mind Action Working Group, a partner called CFSI is working there to look particularly into child protection and is supported by UNICEF. They are working in Northern Rakhine to give assistance to children victims of mines. As a working group, we are working to make sure that we have more efficient case management systems in an effort to strengthen the links with EORE and CP. Of course here CP would then be the case management who take leadership in case management. And I'm going to talk particularly about three areas and how we are collaborating through case management and also generally with child protection and the Mind Action. So first, for case management, we're integrating cases of victims of landmines into the general case management system. But of course, particularly looking at the issues of children that have specific needs brought up by being victims of landmines. We're also as part of Victim Assistance, UNICEF is supporting CFSI to provide mental health and psychosocial support to child victims of mines as a way to provide individual needs of child victims. Of course, there are other services that are provided to child victims of mines, but I'll just talk about MHPSS and case management. Also, as a larger part of ensuring this synergy with child protection and Mind Action, we are also ensuring that we're collecting data on child victims of mines through case management. And our new system, our new online, proud to say online, real-time 5Ws monitoring tool, ensures that the case management also, we're also collecting information on child victims of mines specifically. So these are some of the ways that we are working to ensure synergies with the Mind Action Working Group and child protection over unless there are questions. Thanks so much, Martha, and colleagues for supporting that presentation from me and Mark. I know we have colleagues, I think, from Afghanistan and Yemen and Syria as well on the call, but and maybe, depending on time, we can go to their examples a little bit after. But this last slide highlights some of the things that me and Mark just presented. As others might be able to work together, when child victims are looking at their elderly and vulnerable women and women, what kids, what child protection, case management or support, and are they going in those type of places in their SOPs and so it would be good for child protection and Mind Action colleagues to sit together to ensure that those projects are relevant. Lauren, you're cutting in and out of it. Oh, I cannot, Minneapolis must be great. No, it's still cutting in and out, Lauren. If you're able to hear me, I can go through the rest if that's okay. Yeah, others are saying having trouble hearing. We got halfway through and Lauren was just presenting some of those ideas around the cooperation. And we heard from Martha in Myanmar, for example, on the inclusion in the 5Ws, which is there. So that specific inclusion in the reporting, going to Henry's question and also more to that point, we have good practices, but are they systematic as an example? Those referral pathways and the awareness and also linking with one of the questions about how we're leveraging each other's networks and capacity in the learning. I think Eileen was raising that question, also some opportunities there as well. Data protection, so discussing that and looking at the shared protocols, really, really important, given the confidentiality and privacy issues and the need to adhere to those principles. So working cross-sectorally and inclusively to come up with that planning. I would also put in there as a kind of in brackets, the costing and Alfred mentioned advocacy and we heard about evidence-based advocacy. So for case management, what does it cost? What does an individual case cost? Because we know that those cases, as Lauren said, we don't close cases until there's an outcome. And of course, these cases last significant periods of time, there are significant costs around health interventions, for example. So how are we costing those so that we're able to advocate around gaps and make sure either within child protection or in other sectors that the costs are there? So I'd also invite, we are short of time. So I'd invite colleagues, child protection colleagues from other contexts to jump in the chat box, Yemen, Afghanistan, elsewhere with some of those examples as well. And a big thanks to you, Lauren. And just to underline that we are advocating for child protection globally for the inclusion of children who are victims of explosive ordinance in that global vulnerability criteria. But there is scope in any case at a country level and that's part of that cooperation and advocacy. We are coming to the close and I'm very happy to see that despite us taking a good part of your morning, evening or afternoon we still have almost 120 clothesies with us and Christelle just noting we need good examples of costing victim assistance for the guidance. Thanks, Christelle. We're coming to the close but we wanted to come back to the start. This initiative, which is about education, child protection, money and action and other sectors including health. And we've heard from you today and we will share the recording and we'd really appreciate any of your material, the examples and feedback and we'll share the contact details for you to do that. This is the beginning of the next phase of a process. So this webinar today is really part of that journey and I wanted to turn for the closing remarks thanking all of you. I wanna turn to Christelle if you're there to help us with the conclusion and next steps. Big thank you to everyone. Over to you Christelle. Thank you very much Michael and thank you everybody for your engagement in the child box and for your presentation. I think it really shows that this is a collective effort and that we can coordinate and collaborate towards collective outcomes. We talk a lot in the humanitarian community of the centrality of protection and I think for me the four collective outcomes that we presented are really encapsulate what centrality of protection is. Prevention of death and injuries, reducing mortality after the explosive ordinance accidents, increasing personal capacity, rehabilitation of child survivors as well as their social inclusion is so critical. And I picked a photo from a child which also highlights the power of education and I really like this photo because the child is smiling. It's a gemstone with, it was 12 at the time of the picture was taken in Colombia and it was in 2014. So now he must be an adult. So I think when we also need to think about when we invest in risk reduction through the children, we have to think also that they're going to become adults as well and they will be able to protect their children. So we have to think about not only the short term and medium term but also the long term in this. So that's for the centrality of protection. My key points to all the colleagues who have an influence on the HNO and HRPs for the next cycle for 2021, I urge you to put prevention and response to explosive ordinance child casualties in your HNO and HRP. We need to have one project at least, one activity proposed by Mind Action, Child Protection, Education and Health to fill the gaps. We cannot complain about lack of funding if we're not asking for funding. So we need really to have something that we can present to donors in terms of integrating victim assistance in HRPs. And I'm not asking necessarily UNICEF or UNMAS to put that, it can be through local NGOs because we want also to reinforce localization of the humanitarian response. So it's very, and also strengthening the local capacity is quite critical. In this context, I have to stress once more the gaps that were identified by the survey in first aid and rehabilitation. We hear that over and over again. For this collaboration, we need to try to address this critical gap in a human, through the humanitarian response and in the humanitarian response. Another point to make is case management. And I thank so much Caitlyn for her presentation on this. I think what's critical is that we need to look at case management as a way to measure intersectional coordination. And this answers Kaco's question. Case management is a barometer for intersectional coordination. It will tell us if our cooperation is working on victim assistance. So we really need to leverage the Child Protection case management. And this enables us to do follow-up, which was also raised by one of the colleagues in the chat box. On the prevention piece, we have an advisory group on Explosive Ordnance Risk Education, chaired by Huk from UNICEF and Sebastian Kazak from MAG. Sebastian could not be with us because he's on an airplane, but they are really leading a process whereby we are together going to improve the quality of risk education and of the way we measure it. So stay tuned for that. They have an exciting work plan and you will hear more from them soon. Maybe one other point on disability inclusion we spent quite some time developing the ISC guidelines on disability inclusion over the past three years. And frankly, I hope that if we all push our organization to implement these guidelines, people living with disability will have better access to services and to what they need. And they will also be put at the center of the response, which is so critical. Finally, I wanted to make a point about this project. It is true that on data, we have incomplete data and it's very frustrating to not have a perfect set of data we can act upon. But I think we know sufficiently to know that we have gaps and that we need to invest in this issue. So I want to really thank Murat very much for digging in information management and analysis piece and giving us a guidance which if we implement will help us to get more data and to help us to do evidence-based advocacy for victim assistance. So this data piece I think will also improve through the guidance. I want also to finish by thanking very much my co-chair from H.I. Elke Hottentot who has really been a strong advocate and driver of all our work on victim assistance in the past three years. So this little smile on the picture from H.I. is an homage to Elke. Over. Thanks, Ustel and thanks also to Elke. Thanks to all of the different presenters and most importantly, thanks to all of the participants. Thanks for your active input for jumping in with the questions and for being with us. I'd encourage you to be in contact with each other. We've seen that there's so much to learn from each other and also to give feedback on the guidance that Murat's been working on, reflecting all of our input. So do provide that feedback. We'll be sharing with you, as mentioned, a recording from today, the presentation from today and the details on how to be involved. As I said, we don't see this as the end but part of the process. So we will be coming back to you. A big thank you to everyone and enjoy the rest of your day or evening. Thank you very much.