 Excellent. Maybe Samir is still with us. Samir, can you, would you like to introduce me? Yeah, hi, Christelle. Sure, sure. Yes, my name is Samir Mahmoud. I am the training coordinator and part of the surf program unit. And yes, I think it's a great opportunity. Great to see Christelle. She is a surf alumni the way Rob is an UNMAS alumni. So thanks very much for having us. And I'm going to hand back over to Christelle. Thanks very much, Samir. Good to see you. I would also ask is Julia, has Julia joined us, Julia Wittig? Julia, would you like to introduce yourself, please? Yes, thank you very much, Christelle. Hi, good morning and good afternoon, everyone. My name is Julia Wittig. I'm a program officer at the surf secretariat and actually the mine action community is also very close to my heart because I used to work for MAG in DRC and in Libya, not so long ago actually. So I'm very nice to see everyone. Wonderful. So many more connection that I thought we'd had. We have friends in the surf secretariat who actually know our business very well. Excellent. Great. I think we're going to start with the presentation. So in terms of... Just a quick interruption. There's a hand raised by Keiko Temura. Yes, Keiko. Sorry, it was a mistake. Go ahead. Thank you, thank you. No worries. Welcome, Keiko. So in terms of agenda, we'll do an intro of 10 minutes and then we will have the presentation by the surf secretariat for about 30 minutes. Then we'll have a Q&A for 30 minutes. Around 3.15, 3.10 actually will be joined by Gina Bernal who works with the ONMAS program in Colombia. She's one of the coordinators there and she's going to speak about their experience with receiving surf funding for the project in Colombia. I've shared the project with invitation yesterday. And then we'll have a wrap up and any AOB and we can just continue with our program. So if that's okay, let's start with the PowerPoint. So I'll do the first five slides and then head over to Robert. It's okay. So UN surf, yes. It's a United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund. So the agenda for today's overview of the surf to be funded to be followed by an explanation of how the underfunded emergencies window works. Next, our colleagues from surf will talk about the life savings criteria. Then we'll talk about the four priorities of the emergency relief coordinator. And then opportunities and challenges in getting more support from surf for my national. Next please. Okay. So Jeremy who has been putting together this presentation is actually helping me right now to operate this presentation. And I wanted to also thank him for helping prepare all this. But what's really important is that you know that the surf is the global emergency response fund of the UN. It kick starts emergency operations and helps to meet the gaps in new management responses. Sorry, Christelle, you muted yourself. Yeah, I was just saying that there's actually three modalities for funding with surf. It started by being just a loan facility. The surf up until 2005 was lending money to the UN agencies who had to reimburse. And in 2005, the Anaglan said that doesn't work because you know UN agencies had to find donors who basically pledged to give them money so they would reimburse. And what's what's a Yanaglan really wanted was the ability to give grants to UN agencies to response faster and more equitably to two emergencies. So it pushed very hard for this new component, the grant component for of surf and this grant component is made of two different windows, the rapid response window and the underfunded window. So of course, all of this had to be negotiated with with member states and at the time they were very, very supportive of rapid response because they just had, you know, the tsunami in 2004. And, and they realized the importance of having rapid response funds for for responding faster to emergencies for the underfunded window. It was harder, but we did manage to get that in. And, and this underfunded window is incredibly useful because it helps us to bring money to underfunded emergencies. So I really like that. And I thank Yanaglan for his incredible diplomacy and advocacy to create this underfunded window back in 2005, as part of the you mentioned reform. Now who is eligible for self funds. UN funds programs and specialized agencies. However, NGOs can indirectly also access those funds through UN agencies and recently 25 million was provided to NGOs through IOM for the COVID response. So the surf is also relevant to NGOs. Next please. So on the, on the left side, you can see that between 2005 and 2019. The number, the amount, the volume of surf funds going to mine action has been going up slightly right. And you can see the name of the program. So last year, Malidia, Colombia and Afghanistan received some funding. One of the things that we've been working on in the past three years is that all our mine action coordinated programs who receive surf funded, especially if it's, if they are underfunded. And we've talked a lot, a lot in other webinars of the fact that victim assistance was underfunded. So this project that we can, you know, basically promote with the surf in case no other donors funds it. But anyway, we're looking at we're looking at a very positive trend between 2015 and 2019. But we're also looking at on the right side. If you look at the surf allocation per sector, my action is all the way at the bottom. So my action gets very, very little. You can see that the first recipient is food assistance, health, water and sanitation receive huge amount of funding from surf. But mine action very little. So I really see a potential for growth in this area. Next please. Okay. Shai, go ahead and hand over to Robert for the next slides please. I'm going to take it for this slide and then we're going to hand over to colleagues. So thank you for the really nice overview of surf. So I think like Christelle mentioned, this is a great opportunity and she said a few very key words that this is on top potential. There's a lot of potential. The statistics say everything that mine action is can access our funds. She mentioned it's the UN's emergency fund. So the funds are available. The challenge is how to increase the amount for mine action. And does it really fit? So surf is a certain thing and then there are needs that many agencies have. So where does it fit and where does it not fit? And that's what we're going to look at a little more closely today. So if you walk away from the presentation knowing even just one thing about surf remembering one thing is that we really have kind of as Christelle mentioned two types of grants, two products, if you like. One is the rapid response. And as as Christelle mentioned, she described why it was created. There was some inefficiency. So what we're known for is the rapid response. What we're less known for, but is I think a great opportunity for one mass and other agencies is the underfunded emergencies window. And Rob is going to get into some of the details. But if you look on the screen, you might see some things you're not, you don't always see neglected emergencies. Some terms that we use quite a bit. What does it mean to be neglected? It could mean many things. So emergencies that very often have actually shifted from that rapid response to underfunded emergencies phase. And we'll get into Rob, we'll get into some of the details. But that is where there are, there is a significant portion of surf's annual, we'll say for now 500. And it's been growing million per year. What is also interesting is the timeframe nine months versus six months. And Rob will get into the details, but that has even been expanded this round. It might maybe going forward would be up to a year. So what does that mean for my action? Well, we've noticed the projects we have funded have asked for extensions. There's been challenges because of the environment. I remember a project where in Libya where training landline, we'll call them experts needed to move several times because being in Libya wasn't an option. So that took quite a bit of time. But these are emergency grants. So you can imagine our donors not looking right now at long term grants the way other funds or traditional donors might. So we are really trying to inject money into certain timeframes. And then the big difference is where this starts. So if you see rapid response, it is a request. You can imagine Mozambique cyclone. There was a request when Yemen, when the conflict first started in Yemen, HCs make a request to Mark Lowcock who Crystal mentioned is the USG ERC and manager of the fund. So it's initiated at headquarters. And what does that mean? You cannot apply for underfunded emergencies grants. However, I'm going to get in a little bit of detail, Rob. There's two annual rounds and then 100 million on average 100 million per round is allocated to countries that are decided through an analysis at HQ. What does that mean for UNMAS? Many of the countries have UNMAS operations. Not all. There are drought affected maybe countries that were in cyclone situations. Mozambique, for example, has shifted to an underfunded. But there are Afghanistan, a few other countries in the past. Mali has for sure gotten underfunded emergency grants. Colombia, I believe this round is also has been determined to be underfunded and neglected. So with that, I'm going to hand over to colleagues and hand over to Rob, Rob. And we're just going to ask Jeremy to kindly go to the next slide every time we need to shift. So over to you, Rob. Yeah, thanks, Samir. And thanks also, Christelle, for the very interesting, you know, historical background because I think it is helpful to sort of couch it in that framework of the humanitarian reform efforts around 2005. The whole concept of the underfunded emergencies window is really, you know, couched in this whole, you know, idea of the CNN effect and how the media quickly moves on from crises. And there are many protracted crises as we as we all know, many of which UNMAS works in that remain underfunded and forgotten emergencies. So, yes, as I said, I run the underfunded emergencies window. It operates twice a year. So round one was dispersed in March round two, we're in the middle of now will be dispersed around September. So just for your information, it's it's based on a very sort of complex and in depth statistical sort of qualitative and quantitative analysis. So every round we will look at every HRP country will be eligible for the underfunded round plus a select number of non HRP countries. We will then plot all of those countries on a on a on a scatter plot. So basically to look at levels of funding. So we look at the most underfunded crises. And then we also have a whole composite series of indicators that look at vulnerability various aspects of vulnerability, you know, food insecurity health protection concerns, etc. As well as risk of conflict and we build in, you know, inform at the global level and inform subnational. So it is. And then we also have a very in depth sort of consultation process at HQ within our outside of our show with the NGO community through Iqba. So it is quite a respected and fair process, I think in terms of choosing the selecting the countries. This slide, you know, shows, I mean, it can it can sort of run the whole gamut of humanitarian crises from, you know, underfunded operations Nigeria, for example, you know, it's HRP is is very, very underfunded and, and, you know, rising food insecurity risks, you know, perennially at the risk of famine, protracted conflicts, you know, Afghanistan also sort of rising rising food insecurity, according to the latest IPC data, the drawdown of US troops, you know, we'll we'll build in a lot of that analysis in terms of the countries we choose. We have a severe drought in Honduras. We've in the last round, we also funded a Guatemala we're funding funding Columbia this time round. So if you want any more details on the, we have the surf index for risk and vulnerability and methodology note which is published on our website for each round so we'd be happy to share that with you just so you get a better idea of how I know sometimes the mystery how we choose these countries but it is, it is a very sort of well developed, quantitative and qualitative process. So Jeremy just the next slide please. So, one of the things I would definitely, you know, if you're interested in surf encourage you all to check out is the is the life saving criteria. Now, obviously, surf is a, you know, a drop in the ocean of overall humanitarian and of course certainly development but, you know, typically we we bring in around 450 million a year this year was a little bit higher because of one off different contribution, but typically it's around sort of 450 500 million so we have to basically ensure that that every excuse me, every dollar that we spend is very well targeted in terms of humanitarian life saving assistance so this is our kind of, you know, our blueprint or our manual if you like surf life saving criteria. You know, it ensures that we that we adhere to our mandate it's certainly the main consideration when we when we review projects what's eligible what's not eligible, and it sort of clarifies definitions and determines you know what's what's eligible for surf assistance. So I would definitely recommend that we can share that with you so next slide Jeremy. So you'll see in the life saving criteria. There is a section under protection for for mine action. So it's very specific on on the things that we would consider. And if you do if you do end up submitting a project and you know that there's something in a gray area we will always our program team will always discuss it with you and you know try to be flexible but but in a sense it's fairly well codified in the life saving criteria so you know emergency of temporary resettlement areas. So you can see the word temporary there I mean because the grants are typically obviously six months rapid response but underfunded nine or now 12 months it's still a relatively short period of time so we don't typically fund like, you know, for example long trainings or you know staffing positions that you know go go well beyond six months and don't have any sustainability plan. And so so we're looking for that kind of short term sort of intervention emergency clearance of identified temporary settlement areas return areas, mind risk education. Next slide Jeremy and you know also community liaison emergency survey and clearance of explosive ordinance to restore access. So these are some of the keywords you know to restore access to deliver life saving assistance. Yes. Can I just interrupt you for one second. This is a slide that that we've added. This is what's the mind action area of responsibility as proposed to be added in terms of activities as you are updating the life saving criteria. So this I don't think this has been approved yet but I'm really hoping that this will be approved by the ELC very soon, including community liaison and assistance to victims, which so far was not in the activities listed in the in the life saving criteria document. Thanks for thanks for clarifying that crystal. Yeah, I mean I checked the previous version I mean I think it looks. Yeah, it should be cleared quite soon actually so yeah fingers crossed on this but but I think the overall point is to to make that demonstration in terms of like you are restoring access delivering life saving assistance. Those are some of the some of the words and phrases that we're looking for. You know if you can kind of make those kind of arguments in your in your project proposal. I think it has a good chance of going forward so next next slide. Maybe just one point before I hand on to Julia is going to talk a little bit about the ERC's for priority so well just to say that this round and there was a press release that went out last last week but Afghanistan has been selected for the U. F. 13 million Nigeria 13 million Mozambique for 7 million Bikina Faso for 6 million Pakistan 6 million Burundi 5 million Columbia 5 million Haiti 5 million Uganda 5 million I could put all this in the chat and Yemen 35 million but Yemen is going to be focused on public health and women and women and girls just to say yeah I can put all that information in the chat and there's also going to be a special GBB window that will be provided as an extra amount that will be provided to any HCT that can demonstrate a very sort of positive and impactful GBB project at the field level. So you know we do expect the four steers and GBB to be mainstreamed in projects but there is also an additional window that will be eligible to HCTs. Now just to clarify those countries have been selected it still is up to you know the HCs and the HCTs to undertake the prioritization strategy in country so I would definitely encourage like it doesn't necessarily mean because these countries are selected that unmasked at the country level is automatically selected that is decided by the AC on the ground so I think we'll get to some of those opportunities in a little bit but I would definitely encourage unmasked to be you know at the table at the HCT and advocating for advocating for your projects and your interventions. So I will hand on to Julia to talk about the four priorities. Thanks Rob. Yeah so in in early 2019 I think the emergency relief coordinator sent out a communication to resident coordinators and humanitarian coordinators and really encourage them to take into consideration these four priorities projects put forward by the country based pooled funds as well as the surf and the and he felt that these four areas have not been sufficiently taken into consideration in funding prioritization strategies in the past. And so he's he wanted to to bring those a little bit to bring more attention to these and and actively have country teams consider them. So as Rob said considering does not necessarily mean that every one of those has to be included in a surf allocation or that that you know you have to have a special project for each of those that's not the case. In fact you know several of them work much better when they're when they're mainstream but it's it's just it's an effort to be a lot more conscious about these four areas. And the first one is support for women and girls including tackling gender based violence reproductive health and empowerment. The second one is programs targeting disabled people. The third one is education and protector crisis and the fourth one is other aspects of protection. And and so while it's so to I think two points I want to make is that one is it's important to demonstrate in a in a surf application that these have been considered but there may also be good reasons for not including one or the other in in a surf application. I think we recently had an example where the country team explained that they hadn't included any education projects because there was another donor. I think education cannot wait that had just funded a big program in the country. So they had that aspect covered. And the second point I want to make is that this could be particularly useful for mind action given the the emphasis on people with disabilities as well as. And so considering for example victims of of land mines and IEDs etc or you know considering mind action under other aspects of protection. So I think this is something that that the mind action community can really use strategically in in discussions at country level when it comes to prioritizing areas for surf application. Next slide. All right. So I'm just speaking a little bit more about under the the opportunities that we really see for the mind action community. And as I think Samir and Rob highlighted the the underfunded emergencies are most likely the best opportunities. So we spend about 200 million to 225 million per year on allocations under the UF window. And these are spread across roughly across 140 projects some of them larger some of them smaller. And and we really see this as an as an opportunity for for mind action to to receive some some funding for surf for the rapid response window. It's sometimes I think it's sometimes a little bit more difficult. If you know in a in a drought situation when when there's a focus when the country team decides to focus on sort of livelihoods and food security etc related to drought. Then then it's sometimes a bit more difficult to bring in a mind action project. But but in the underfund but that's not to say that that rapid response is it's never appropriate especially when you know when we see areas where I think in in northeastern Nigeria. There was a case where some areas became newly accessible to the humanitarian community because because of the conflict and then and then those types of things could be very relevant. But the the underfunded emergencies are most likely the the really good opportunity. And then to sort of what can you we were thinking about you know what can you do at country level to to be there and really take advantage of those opportunities. And and it's for that it's really important to engage in the humanitarian coordination system in the protection cluster. And you know have the protection cluster coordinator on your side to to speak on behalf of mind action in the inter cluster coordination and and have a strong presence in the HCT when it comes to those prioritization discussions. And because this is where where those strategies are are being decided it's at the secretary at level there's only a limited. We have limited influence over what countries prioritize when they come to us with an application. This is all sorted out so it's really at the country level where those discussions take place and where you can. Have most influence in in bringing in a mind action project. Next slide. All right so just to some of the the the challenges that we that we thought about. Obviously within within the protection cluster as well. This requires quite a lot of coordination or in general at surf allocation where cognizant that this does require a lot of a lot of coordination and a lot of effort. And you know you just you have to be there in order to to be able to to participate in and the protection cluster especially has all of these different subsections that are that are also quite different from from mind action. So it's not always so and so easy to you know to to come to the front there and and be able to convince everyone else that that mind action is something that must be supported even though we all know it should be. And then also we we do encourage everyone to to engage very actively with the archer country offices. That's because they facilitate the surf process and they will they will very much influence and sort of and just run the process and help get the prior put the prioritization strategy together. They may come up with a with a proposal so engaging with them directly is is also useful in countries where there is a country based pooled fund. I think most of you know that this is usually the humanitarian the funding coordination section of the humanitarian financing unit that also manages the country based pooled fund. They usually deal with us with the surf applications and it's good to be in in touch with them. And then finally we surf is is as as Robin Samir and Christelle explained we're on this sort of extreme humanitarian side of the spectrum. So we fund the first sort of six months off of a new response or we fund these underfunded sectors in an ongoing response. But it's it's really important to to know our criteria and and make sure that whatever you're doing fits in with those and that the funding is not used to to fill sort of gaps in development funding or you know or anything along those lines. But really and I think that's why we highlighted in the life saving criteria as the sort of the context. So yes we fund risk education and survey and clearance and so on. But that can sometimes also be a development more of a development activity. So it's it's really important to to very clearly explain the humanitarian context that you're operating in which makes these interventions so relevant. So I think that's just about it. The next slide I think is handing back to Samir. Yes so back to Samir. Thank you. Thanks very much Julian. Thanks Rob. So you have a bit of a crash course on surf and I think we really try to zoom in on the relevance for UNMAS. So where to get more information always I suggest checking the surf website. Most UN websites are not great. They're not the places that we usually go to for for really the latest information. But surf.un.org has every single grant including a lot of the grants of course that have gone to UNMAS right there with the details. So you can see the history what has UNMAS received. What is the latest news. What are the updates on things like that Julia mentioned the ERCs for parodies etc. So highly recommend it and then the surf handbook something that's not that well known is something called the surf handbook. It's available on our website. You can Google search it and it gives you it elaborates on a lot of what we spoke about today especially underfunded emergencies window that Rob mentioned. Now within UNMAS would you go to I'm going to highly recommend and I don't know if you saw this on the slide. Christelle your name your email. I know that there hasn't been a lot of contact maybe during the rounds or during the underfunded with UNMAS but I really strongly suggest especially since she's a surf alumni to get in touch with Christelle. Jeremy if we go to the next slide I don't want to preempt Colombia but I do want to just maybe touch on the big point so a success story. UNMAS Colombia MRE sessions and psychosocial workshops. There was a lot of MRE workshops and support to survivors and families so I'm going to let Colombia discuss this and I'm going to hand back over to Christelle and we can do some Q&A so Christelle back over to you. Thank you very much Julia, Samir and Rob extremely useful presentation. Two points before we go to the Q&A one. UNMAS is the MAOR lead but in a number of countries at the globe at for instance in Yemen and Ukraine and Myanmar. UNMAS doesn't have a presence and it's either UNICEF or UNDP who are the MAOR coordinator. And of course as UN agencies UNDP and UNICEF can also receive funding from the surf and they actually do receive a lot of funding from the surf but I think probably very little for MAOR action compared to other activities and other project they submit to the surf. So I just wanted to make this point and secondly Kiko made a very important point. It's a terminology point but it's important and actually the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was leading in changing this terminology. We don't talk about disabled people. We talk about person with disability and I apologize for this oversight in the priorities of the ELC. Maybe somebody needs to change that. So now that I've made those two points I'm going to open it up for questions. So please use your hand. You can raise your hand if you have a question and I will give the floor. And we have until 3.10 for question and answer before we start on Columbia. So don't be shy. Go ahead. Ask questions or make comments. Share your experience with surf. Kiko go ahead. Hi everyone. My name is Kiko and I'm the XUNDP staff so I understand the agency position et cetera et cetera. And I'm currently based in Mataki responding to the Syria crisis. For the last three years we are implementing survival assistance project in the northwest of Syria. I'd like to throw the two questions here and especially I'm talking about from the field perspective. I understand in mass health agenda you want to put your agenda forward which is completely understood but from the beneficiary point of view it doesn't matter where the money is coming from. Especially this emergency fund have a heavy amount of food and the health for example. I was thinking it's a human's responsibility to try to do by yourself or try to ensure all this money provided by other agencies for the health of the food supply going to the mainstream. So we must be really for the mainstreaming of the MIA survivor should be included not left behind. And another question for me and I understand it's also agency agenda but in the field we have a huge trouble to target in the MIA victim or EO victim. Following the non-discriminatory principle of the humanitarian action we have to target everyone and then our project needs to be insured like okay not my victim or your victim cannot be left behind so it is our responsibility. But how much is the added value to putting clearly saying for example that new priority or activity clearly saying and their victim should be targeted. So I'm sorry I'm just opening up the two questions but this is kind of the dilemma I'm facing in the field. Beneficially need on the agency driven agenda so I just stop here thank you. Okay shall we try to answer those questions before we go to Francesca who is also working in the CIA. Yeah maybe you could elaborate and maybe just summarize some of the questions that came from your colleague. Yeah so it was a little hard to understand because it seems that there was a child yelling in the background. But from what I understood your concern is that the surf are allocated based on trade or how do you say negotiations between UN agencies and do not reflect what the beneficiaries need. Is that what you what the first questions was? Yeah that's the thing like for what is the role of the mass in the CLF going to increase your profile I understand it is your responsibility or it is probably your goal to increase the profile of the mass. But to make sure other agency getting the money out of this pocket actually including the MA victim for example yeah or if the education money is getting for an emergency in education then we also need to make sure and we need to be mainstreamed. So that's the question for me it is only the sort of purpose of the mass try to increase a percentage from 1.3 or increase an impact of the MA activity across the different agency. Okay so I think it's actually a question for me because I'm the main might actually you are representative here and I'm also the UN mass representative. So to be very clear why did I organize this meeting it's not about on mass it's not about UN agencies. The reason why I invited all partners of all MA1 partners most of which are NGOs is to make you realize that through on mass or UNDP or UNICEF or other UN agencies. You can get funding from surf for your most critical needs for life saving projects. So frankly I don't care whether the money goes through one agencies or the others what's really important for us is that it is based on needs assessment and when coordinated and this is how the surf works. And this is an opportunity for the mine action NGOs to take or leave. If you have enough money through other channels that's fine but if you don't this is one possibility. So that's the main point I wanted to say on this. I'm happy to add a couple of points after you. I'm happy to add a couple of points to this question. Yes. I didn't mean to interrupt you sorry when you're done. Yeah just okay no no no problem. Secondly what I've been seeing and hearing from many NGOs like Handicap International like UNGO KECO is that victim assistance is incredibly underfunded. We've done a huge amount of advocacy key messages for all members of the MAOR to use to say you know we need to get the message out. That's even if there's more you know advocacy around person with disability what we're seeing is that victims and survivors of explosive ordinance are not getting the assistance they need. And so for me the surf is an incredible opportunity because they focus on addressing what's you know neglected emergencies underfunded projects. So here's another reason why we're here today. So either you use the opportunity and work with the coordinator whether it's a UNDP or UNICEF or other coordinator to get your request. So either you mentioned coordinators to the surf or you can also say this is too complicated a process to coordinate and I'm going to try to do fundraising my way directly through donors which is completely fine. But I just want people to be aware because I want the maximum transparency because I've noted that in the my natural community. There was very different level of knowledge on the surf and also that many other agencies and sectors are using the surf much more strategically than us. So over to you Robert. Yeah just quickly because I know we have other questions and we want to continue the discussion but I just wanted to build on what Keiko has asked and what you've helpfully added Christelle because I think we're all kind of on the same page. I mean our interest in underfunded and rapid response is you know as you said that there's a strategy developed on the ground that makes sense based on needs assessments based on the needs on the ground. We discourage which I think Keiko may have been alluding to the sort of cake cutting approach where everyone gets a bit of surf funding. No we and increasingly our management donors are asking for strategic focused surf applications based based on needs and based on the best place responders including you know national responders and localization and subcontracting to NGOs. And on the victim assistance piece. Yes I think you both highlighted it is it is a gap it has been underfunded. Hence it's part of the for ERC strategic priorities. So I think a real opportunity here to marry those both things but both facets up the needs on the ground with you know this is a huge need that's not being addressed and it's been underfunded. So I think we can couch it in terms of a clear opportunity. Thanks. Thank you very much Robert. So we're moving on to the next question from Francesca Chiodani with the my national ERA coordinator in Syria. Over to you Francesca. I thank you Chris Taylor. I hope everybody can hear me. I have a bit of on and off internet. First of all thank you so much for the presentation. I think it was extremely useful. I have two questions from my side and perhaps my first question could partially answer also what the cake was mentioning before. First question is read from your presentation. So there are sort of like two ways that you can fit into a surf allocation paper. So it's either HQ led or field led. Is there a standardized process how the process should go about. I'm asking you because last year if I recall correctly there has been a surf allocation for Northwest Syria in particular. However the passing on our information on how this everything went on was extremely confusing. And we ended up not just us but the whole protection sector not being very much in the loop. The lesson from that process was that it mostly all the discussion were mostly had between the main agencies and the sector on the other hand were not that much involved. As you as you all know I guess I mean Syria is an extremely complex situation with different layers of response and all that counts with it. But then so just wondering if there is a sort of standardized process so that I know I need to go and first talk to my protection sector and go and talk to my office. Because at least what happened last year it was also a lot of information that came in very late when decision were already made in terms of priorities. And nobody was really clear on the whole process of when we should have pitched in and nobody had sort of put protection sector in the loop. That's one question and second question. Just I would like to hear your take on non-cost extension. I understand I mean I know that surf is mostly as I said emergency interventions which should be something that is needed immediately and on the point. However in some context I'm mostly thinking about Syria access to certain areas is not that easy. It can varies from day to day so applying to one project we one may have yes we we got green light and everything seems fine and then reality on the ground changes quickly. So just I'd like to hear what you take on that and how flexible. But then no question. Thank you. It's OK. I think I can try to answer and then of course Robert and Julia come in. I think the Syria case is an example of what fortunately what sometimes happens on the ground. Some other sectors agencies and individual people are not in the loop and we've heard this in the past. Our advice is to be in touch with the Ocha office or what we consider the focal point. So every underfunded round we ask the HCR RC to identify the focal person. Normally the person in the Ocha office or there is no Ocha office to RCO. You know surf normally is what happens during surf is a reflection of the dynamics that existed well before surf in the country team. So as you mentioned Francesca complex situation where there are a lot of actors a lot of agencies of course is going to make communication. And what we ask for the RC ask for is normally a quick turnaround. So once the letter is that is sent to the HCC saying you are received 13 million as Rob said to Nigeria. There is an expectation of a quick turnaround because our donors expect quick turnaround money to be dispersed. We are on the clock we measure the time it takes for a lot of these processes. So underfunded or not money needs to get to emergencies quickly instead of sitting at a bank account. There is a certain amount of control to serve has and then there is a huge responsibility as I mentioned before accountability by the HCs and RCs to make decisions at the field level. Do people in New York know the best decisions. Absolutely not. We do through Rob's analysis identify the countries which data shows are the least funded in that case it was Syria. And yeah it's a challenge to make sure all actors are are in the loop. You know I keep the advice and we don't have a blueprint is to remain in touch with Ocha get in the coordination structures and coordination meetings and this is huge advice for one month. I talked to Crystal earlier before this and I said you know some agencies need to just make a choice. Are they going all in on the humanitarian aspect and I think other agencies have like UNFPA has made a decision to look at their humanitarian operations and become highly operational and get involved in serve. So you know unfortunately we don't have a great answer. It is an unfortunate case of being out of the loop but but I do think the Ocha Ocha is the answer. I'm not saying that because I'm biased. I'm saying it because that's rally on the ground in Sudan. I worked with Ingle fantastic when my colleague what did she do. She came to the office to your second question and Robin Julie I'm going to make my point short because I know Rob has a lot of experience with NCEs now. No one wants to give money and then be told well I wasn't able to spend it not you not a bank not a donor. However reality is on the ground are different Syria context many context the access becomes an issue and that's why it exists. What we and the ERC donors don't want is agency say well you know we just didn't get around to spending it. Hey can we have three more months. So I think that's really the difference to buckets one is outside control the agency conflict change access inside the control of the agency. We didn't click the button. We didn't hire the people. So I really just keep in mind the priorities our priorities what drives our decisions are the decisions and priorities of the donors. So if you put yourself in the shoes for a bit and yes they're not in the field always they don't understand. So we're trying to bridge that gap but I'm going to hand over to Robert maybe on more NCE advice because I want people to walk away from this knowledge is good but action that you can take is better. So Rob if you have some. Thanks Samir. Well starting with the second question first on the no cost extensions. I mean as Samir said you know we want to see the money out there and news to get to good effect. This year we of course have the COVID situation which has necessitated us to be a lot more flexible than than usual. We will typically review the request on its merit. So if it's based on insecurity if it's based on access constraints we will typically approve it. If it if we think it's a systematic or a systemic issue within the agency around you know administration blockages then we might we might not not approve it and ask the agency to go and fix those issues. But in general we like to be flexible the upcoming you if you round we've made 12 months rather than nine to give everyone a few more a few more months. So that's on NCE's and then I agree with I do agree with Samir. Yeah contact the local office. The four the four steers the more I think of it the more logical it is for mine action to contribute to those four steers. So and we're starting to see the ERC stronger language in our in our letters to the H.C. Like we expect to see some impact in results in these areas. So certainly you know if our masses strongly engage with the with the protection strategy and country in the protection cluster and then you know making sure the protection cluster is is is keyed into the H.C.T. And and the archer office. That's probably the best way to make your case at the local level I would agree over for me. I think Julia do you want to jump in. Yeah thanks Rob and maybe just to add on the NCE question. So I think yes we do try to be flexible in those extraordinary circumstances that are outside your control but generally we discourage NCE's. It's not something that you should plan with surf is I think it's important to take into consideration that we have a very very limited amount of funding and whatever 500 million or 800 million sounds like a lot. But it's not because we're a global fund and we have to respond to to everything and we're currently really really stretched. And so the premise is that you know that whatever is put forward is really the most urgent. And then if if there's a project that does not is not able to provide the assistance within the time period then then our question is was that really the most urgent thing to prioritize. Wouldn't it have been better to spend the money on something else where services could have provided been provided in that time frame. And you know then you would have sorted out your agreements with government or whatnot and had you know and just had funding from another donor later on. So so I think that's those are kind of the questions that we have because it's because we're operating in this space with very limited funding and where everything is absolutely urgent and critical. That that's why we you know we have it not not allowing NCEs or discouraging NCEs is really about encouraging prioritization of the most urgent and feasible. And I think it's it's good to be and I think Rob said this it's good to be transparent for us. For us it's really really helpful if in the proposal we are at the very beginning we're made aware that something you know that this project requires agreement from the government. That's not there yet and or it requires agreement from a certain authority and you know that that looks likely and and then and then we can we can make the call you know. And and and if there is a strong argument that this should be supported and we should take that risk then then we can be happy to take the risk but it's it's better if it's if it's made transparent from the beginning over. Thank you very much. A lot of issues to unpack. So I'm going to follow up with with two points one on this issue of of the clock ticking Samir you just reminded me or when I worked in the secretary I didn't don a relation in communication. How much pressure I was putting on the program to to you know work faster and show that surf was and all the agencies were delivering program fast and and one issue I think for for many agencies and especially in my action is that completing a project in nine months. Or even 12 months if you moved to 12 months may be difficult. There are some activities perhaps food distribution that are faster than you know doing explosive ordinance risk education or victim assistance or which can take longer and also where sometimes it is important for us to to do a little bit of capacity building of the local. Of the local community for instance in in terms of risk education. It's not just about the messages it's also about the messengers you know and you need to take the time to train local you know. You know head of NGOs or you know head of schools or what who will be able to have the trust of the community and do risk education so nine months is sometimes tough. However what's what I think I would encourage colleagues to do and I'd like to hear what you think about it. Samir Robin Julia is you know work more together basically make joint proposal even if it's one UN agencies that's forwarding the proposals. Maybe there's several NGOs that are also there that will help deliver faster and make sure this can be delivered in nine months. So I'm thinking of packaging a little bit better so we can meet this this no cost extension plan for the no cost extension extension and try to to meet those those tough deadlines. So that was my first point and then I wanted to ask you on the priority of the ELC of focus on person with disability. How does the ELC and the Secretariat monitor that the HC proposals have mainstream that throughout the proposal. Yeah, thanks. I think Julia has something and then on the ERC is for priorities Rob. I think this is super relevant right now especially for the underfunded round so maybe we can go Julia Robin I agree with you Christelle. It'd be important to hear from the field I think Christelle is going to rejoin but in the meantime Julia why don't we jump into those questions. Sure. Yeah, thanks. I think I think Christelle made some really important points and I think for those of us who have worked in in my next year we know that that some of those things, especially some of the clearance tasks and can just take take time. And so so it's and then the question is just you know is that if it takes so long is that for surf or is that for for others. I think there are plenty of things that can be done with surf. I remember when I was working in DSE we had a surf funded project through unmask and what was challenging were the targets. It was it was feasible to do this project within nine months but what was really really challenging where the with the enormously high targets of how many people and we would have to reach through MRE sessions. And and I think there for surf we're we're interested in realistic beneficiary figures. It's it's and this is something that comes through often at the reporting stage. We don't want overblown reporting figures because we need to justify to our donors. How how much a surf project costs and and if the beneficiary figures are like entirely overreached or blown out of proportion that does not help us. So so we really encourage to be realistic and and maybe that also helps with with the feasibility of some of the projects in terms of capacity building. I think there are also plenty of really good examples of how this is being done and how this is in the mind action sector and how this is sort of integrated into regular programming. Again if in with Mac and DSE there was a cooperation with the with the Red Cross where all of the all of the risk education project teams were were from the Red Cross. So that was sort of and the team lead was was from Mac. So that was sort of an ongoing investment into into the capacity of the Red Cross in terms of community liaison. And that was that could totally be part and parcel of of of those of those of that time. So it wasn't because surf doesn't fund capacity building as such. But this was this was sort of part of a larger larger setup. And it was absolutely feasible to do in that context. So so I think there are actually lots of solutions in the sector already back to you. Cool. Rob I think did we have something on ERCs for priorities. I think the question for tell was about measuring it. Anything thoughts on that we can share. Yeah I mean to be to be very frank and honest I think it's a work in progress. It was launched in early 2019. We've built it into our strategy and project templates where we ask the the country submitting the strategy to articulate how they're mainstreaming the four priorities or as the case may be to note that it's not relevant for the particular context. I mean there are times when say education emergencies may not be may not be relevant for that particular strategy or there may be another donor like education cannot wait that's that's filling the gap. So I think on measurement we still have a long way to go to be to be very candid. So you know we're definitely open to suggestions and ideas. We have that kind of narrative explanation in the strategy for the four steers. But we're looking at some potential kind of indicators and quantitative ways of measuring it. It's a tricky one because surf is essentially needs based. But we recognize that historically these four areas have been very underfunded. So particularly in the case of this round we put a specific allocation around GBV. So it's mainstreamed and it's targeted as well and there could be opportunities in future to do that for other areas like people with disabilities and other aspects of protection. So watch the space there could be another round that's focused on you know maybe another one of the four steers. So in a nutshell I would say it's a bit of work in progress where we're sort of tracking it. We've just had a review come out of the four steers that we're looking at closely in terms of just making improvements on that. Thanks for a crystal I see your back we haven't missed a step. So unless you feel otherwise I'll hand back over to you. Thank you very much. Yes, I must have pressed the wrong button. I was suddenly expelled from from the conference. Sorry for that. Thanks for being my backup. Okay, so I think that Gina has joined us and can share with us her experience from the Columbia perspective. Gina, the floor is yours. Thank you. Morning. Good afternoon. So I'm going to. Can I turn my. I think you know that you're muted. Can you please unmute yourself? Yeah, I think I cannot share my screen. I just sent you my presentation. So if you can share it, please. Jeremy, can you can you share it with the group please? Is that okay? Yes, I'll share it right now. Thank you very much. To express to introduce yourself and say what you do in the in Columbia. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I'm Gina Bernal. I'm associate and program officer in on mass Columbia and I'm also coordinators. They're coordinating them. My action area of responsibility here in Columbia since 2018. So I'm going to explain very quickly how was our experience. We received a last year. Next Jeremy, please. So this is what I'm going to share with you today. First, how it was our application process. And I'm going to give you some of the. Key things we had to take into account for our proposal. I'm going to share a little bit about the project. Also, yesterday, Christelle, send you the documentary with you. The document. I'm going to share a bit what was this project about and its activities and results. How was the reporting for the surf on their phone. And then some best practices and lessons learned. We identified during this process. Next Jeremy, please. So I think this process was already very well explained by the surf police. So I'm going to develop and lower it a little bit more about how to prepare the proposal. But the first thing is. After we received in Colombia, the notification from the service secretary, the city held several discussions on what priority areas and populations we wanted to benefit from this project. This for us was very important to have an H&O and HRP in in Colombia, because we already had assessed most of the of the needs in different different regions in the country. As you may know, Colombia has suffered from a conflict for more than 60 years. And also for the last five or six years, we have migration crisis due to the political and socio-economical situation in in Venezuela. So all these needs were already compiled and assessed in the in our H&O. So taking into account all those needs assessment, the HGP prioritized for regions in Colombia. We call them departments. So it was at Aucan, Northe de Santander near the Venezuelan border. And then Choco and Narinio in the Pacific coast in Colombia, where the armed conflict has been developing in for the last maybe two or three decades. And we have lots of also coca crops in those two regions. So then the HGP as the clusters and so closer to prioritize municipalities and areas of intervention and some of the projects. So there we as the subcluster and my national subcluster, we have to ask to the NGOs working in this for departments. What had the most affected municipalities in the in these regions where and what were the areas where this emergency response was required. So they provide us with this information about municipalities prioritized areas. And also they gave us an estimation of how many people we could reach with these activities. And so we had a discussion around what could be the activity we had to develop in those regions. We could as the mine action sector in Colombia, we could prioritize the four departments that were prioritized and part of the strategies sent to the serve secreted by the country team. So we decided that, yes, it was very important because these four departments were some of the most mine affected departments in the country with lots of victims and accidents. In the last few years, and where the conflict was very active and the conflict dynamics were still very active. So we presented a proposal on the fourth, the four departments with some specific municipalities to to be intervened. And also we already had an estimation of beneficiaries and other indicators I'm going to show you. Thanks to the NGO to the information provided by the NGOs that are some of our AOR members. With this information we prepare like a summary of what we wanted to do and what this information was going to be about and we share the information with the RCAC to have it in the country strategy. It was sent to the submit to the serve secretary and finally we received, I think this Columbia was notified of this underfunded allocation in February, early February last year. And I think that by March, maybe we start preparing the proposal when we were notified also that the strategy was approved. And so these are some of the main points we have taken to account when preparing our proposal. The first thing was of course consultation with NGOs working in prioritized areas because even though we know the country and the context of mine action in the country and also explosive hazards in different departments. NGOs in Colombia are those implementing risk education victim assistance and clearance in in these different departments. So we really needed to have this information from them so that we could reach the most affected populations. So it was very important. And we, of course, you have to ensure that our activities are dear to the life saving criteria. This is very important because sometimes NGOs don't know this criteria so they can propose different activities that are not in line with this criteria. So we held some discussions with potential implementing partners to be sure that all the activities were life saving activities and what we needed for an emergency response. Now we have to be specific and clearly describe the activities we could not just say we're going to provide an explosive ordinance risk education to these communities and victim assistance. But what kind of victim assistance it were we were planning to implement a cycle social assistance or legal assistance or only a health assistance and like what kind of activities we were supposed to implement in those four areas. So that required us to really know what the context was in the four departments and municipalities. We had prioritized and have enough information to decide on what activities were the most important to implement with the short time we had for this project. This was a nine month project. So it was very important and we had some feedback from the secretariat about being more specific on these activities. Then speaking about the schedule because as I was saying this is a very short period of implementation so you have to plan very well your activities. And for us it was very important to have the proposals and grant agreement preparation signature time in our schedule to be able to deliver all the activities we were planning. Because of course this takes time is one or two months depending on the kind of goal proposal and so we couldn't just start the project and immediately start providing or implementing all the activities we had planned. So it was very important for us to ensure that the activities could be implemented in the time we proposed. And then this part it was very important to we have to be very clear on how all the beneficiaries and populations were going to be involved in the project how they will be informed about the activities, how we will make sure that their needs were taken into consideration in our proposal. And then of course during the implementation of the activities we were proposing so these were some of the key points we had to taking to account while preparing our proposal. Then of course we had several exchanges with the Secretariat to address some of their comments and some of the questions they might have about the implementation and how my action work here in Colombia. And then finally in April so it was about two months, two months and a half period to discuss, prepare and then get the proposal approved and start with the implementation. This is very quick and so you have, if you are going to prepare your proposal you have to make sure that you start earlier and that you identify the kind of projects you could implement with the clusters and so cluster income tree because this has to be very quick to prepare the proposal. Next Jeremy please. So regarding the project so as I just mentioned, our intervention was in the four priority regions for the country's strategy. So as I mentioned Arauca, Choco, Nariño, Norte de Santander and we provided through for grants over the two local NGOs. As I mentioned they were already working there so they really knew the region and also they had already the Middle East and they have communities recognize them as a partner so it was for us also important. So we granted, awarded these four grants to the local NGOs and we provided communities from these four regions. It is important also to say it was not just any community but also indigenous enough for Colombian communities that sometimes in the past had not had any contact with my action organization so they hadn't had not received any risk education or not even knew about the risk they had because of the explosive hazards and contamination in their region so that was very important for us and it was a very successful project because of that also. So we provided EOR to those communities and also victim assistance as I told you we have legal health and psychosocial assistance not only to the survivors themselves but also their families and their communities. We had the NGOs had a let's say different approach because for some of them the whole community was already impacted and affected by the explosive hazards in their regions so they created and working a different methodology to approach these communities and make sure that they understand that there was a risk and not that had to avoid but also that they could live their life by taking or having a let's say a different behavior regarding these explosive hazards. So these are the targets we had when we planned the project and then as you can see we reached much more population. This was not only to do the work done by the NGOs but also because we had to ask for a no cost extension due to them. An increased number of new accidents in the four regions and also because we had several security challenges in this department. I think this is something very let's say understandable because if we are giving an emergency response is because the crisis is still active in those regions. So we had several security issues during the implementation and also another challenge was that last year we had the local elections in Colombia so there were several social leaders killed and threatened. So all these make difficult for our implementing partners to implement all activities on time and so we did request a no cost extension but also almost decided to use some other funds to support this project and ensure that the NGOs could reach more people in the communities and so that's why you see that we have reached with risk education much more beneficiaries than planned and then so we have the victim assistance as I told you this was a nine month project and we received $800,000 from the CERFA location to Colombia that I don't know if I mentioned this but it was $8 million last year. Jeremy next please. So regarding reporting. She knows it was 800,000 right? What can you clarify? 800,000. 800,000 for almost $8 million for Colombia. Okay, thanks. So regarding reporting we had two reports, intermediate report was very short. And it was very specific on what were the most important challenges for the project if we expected to spend all the budget we have requested and also what was the implementation status and some as I just said some of the challenges we were facing and if we had our activities were being implemented on time. So this was very short and very concise but it was important to identify some of the delays we could have or if there were some municipalities or implementing areas where we could not really implement the activities we planned to implement. So it was the first report and then the final report is a longer report very comprehensive where we had to present not only the overall performance of the project and our results but also what were the main challenges we face is how we did we address them. If we requested an amendment which was our case, why and how did we work to achieve the proposed targets. Of course all the beneficiaries and this is we had to identify the different populations we benefited with this project also all the results we achieved those I just shared with you. And how we, as I told you this is very important for the proposal but also in the report how we ensure that local communities and beneficiaries were involved in the whole process and that we were really addressing their needs. And also the complaint mechanisms that we implemented and we created for the project to ensure that communities have how to complain or report some of the situations that may happen during the implementation, both with OMAS or the implementing partners in the regions. And finally, we were also asked to provide some success stories and some case studies of human interest that then will be chair or have been chair in this website. This is very important to show how communities are benefiting from the project and like to highlight also the human side of the project, let's say. And so this was for us also a good input not only for this report but also for our own annual reports and other communication products. So this is very important and finally some next during the please. And some best practices and lessons learned and identify for this project where first coordination with our agencies is very important in our case. And with UNICEF because they were also implementing risk education projects in the four regions. So we had to ensure that we were not duplicating activities in the prioritized municipalities so we have this coordination during the preparation process, but also during the implementation of this project to make sure that we were not both in the same municipalities reaching the same population in the same community. So that was very important for us. Also, of course, as I said at the beginning of the presentation for us, it was necessary to ask NGOs to help us to prioritize the municipalities, intervention areas, etc. So this is very important because they are the ones who really know what's happening in the regions at the moment when we prepare the project and also during the implementation. So this was key for the project. And then we had this as I told you this security is just during the implementation, and I think it is also key to take this into account while planning the project because we plan the project thinking that all commune all the NGOs could go to the communities with some, let's say some security issues that could happen but we didn't realize that there were more challenges due to local relations. So it is really important to take into consideration all the all the security context in the implementation areas. We have a close monitoring and an evaluation with the implementing partners for us was also key to ensure that targets were met within budget and schedule, because sometimes I piece of course they communicate with you when you require them to report their progress, but sometimes they don't communicate on a daily basis like challenges they're facing. So for us it was very important to make monitoring visits to be in contact with them all the time to see and get to know what challenges they were facing if they could reach the communities, how the project was progressing. It was very useful. And finally, we promote and encourage knowledge sharing between the implementing partners because we realize that some of them have the same kind of challenges in the region, but they were having different responses. So sometimes some were better than others we decided to make these workshops to share this knowledge and how they were addressing the situations they were facing to ensure that they could meet the targets in the budget. So this was some of the best practices we implemented and we think this was very successful and that was also instrumental in ensuring that our project was successful and that we could really benefit the communities we wanted to benefit with this initiative. Okay, I did that. Jeremy, that would be all about the process and if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you very much, Jeanette, it was very clear and thank you for presenting such a successful case study. I think it will inspire some colleagues, hopefully in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Yemen, Pakistan, which have been chosen for the upcoming underfunded window and really I would stress the fact that since we've shared your presentation and it was your application and it was accepted by the surf, I think those programs can just use similar languages and adapt it to their own needs in order to be prepared to submit an application if they can convince the management coordinator and the protection cluster that whatever they do is a priority. So we unfortunately have already reached the end of our time, so I will thank the surf secretariat and Eugene very much for preparing this presentation and I will invite colleagues who have other questions to just contact us. Thank you so much, Samir, would you like to say any final word? Just on behalf of Julia Robb and I thank you very much for the opportunity. It was really a pleasure to work with you again and as Christelle mentioned, please let us know your questions. Thanks. Okay, thank you all. Goodbye. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Bye-bye.