Since EuroNGOs organized its first workshop on SRHR in humanitarian settings in 2016, an increasing number of

Transcription

1 THE REPORT

2 BACKGROUND In 2017, the number of displaced people worldwide hit a new record, with more than 65.6 million people forcibly displaced around the world half of whom were women and girls [source: UNHCR]. At the same time, despite the existence of core standards, guidelines and tools, comprehensive reproductive health care in crisis situations is still severely lacking, and inequitable attention is given to specific topics, with family planning receiving the least attention and funding. The World Humanitarian Summit last year generated a lot of momentum on humanitarian issues and resulted in important pledges by donors, European institutions and other stakeholders in terms of funding allocations and priorities, including on transcending humanitarian-development divides and the empowerment and protection of women and girls in crises. However, these commitments risk to remain only words on paper, and monitoring and accountability in the coming years will be crucial to ensure change. Since EuroNGOs organized its first workshop on SRHR in humanitarian settings in 2016, an increasing number of EuroNGOs members have started to engage in this field either by influencing policies, offering SRHR services in humanitarian responses, or providing domestic support in the context of the refugee crisis. Furthermore, the key takeaways from the 2016 workshop as shared in both a video and narrative report were that EuroNGOs should further increase the network s capacity to work and advocate around SRHR in humanitarian settings as well as build connections with and increase awareness related to SRHR needs in humanitarian settings among donors and implementing organizations. Specifically, linking civil society organizations active in this field with each other as well as with the Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crisis (IAWG) was noted as crucial to establish effective allies in Europe and to put SRHR on the humanitarian agenda. With this in mind, EuroNGOs organised a second workshop on SRHR in the humanitarian context between November 2017 in Brussels. The workshop working group responsible for drafting the agenda of the workshop included representatives from EuroNGOs members Médecins du Monde (MdM), Reproductive Health Matters (RHM), Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning (RFSU), and our partner, Countdown 2030 Europe. Twelve EuroNGOs member organisations and three partner organisations from ten countries participated in the workshop. 1

3 The objectives of this year s workshop were as follows: - Capacity building and learning in the following two areas: (1) Existing policies on SRHR in humanitarian settings and European governments accountability regarding SRHR in humanitarian context; (2) Funding landscape and financial accountability for SRHR in humanitarian context; - Exchange of information and experiences among the European SRHR community on their work in humanitarian settings; - Strategizing and planning for future actions at national and international level. What are the immediate outcomes of this meeting? The participants deepened their knowledge and gained a common understanding of the current policies and funding landscape on SRHR in humanitarian context at national, regional and global levels. Furthermore, they increased their knowledge on the realities faced by EuroNGOs members at the national level while working in this field as well as collectively assessed the capacity of the network itself to work on SRHR in the humanitarian context. At the end of the workshop, a working group on SRHR in humanitarian context was created, as well as a realistic follow-up plan that includes action items and assigns responsibilities among the EuroNGOs Secretariat, the members and our partners, was set up. This report was prepared by the EuroNGOs Secretariat. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The EuroNGOs Secretariat would like to thank to the workshop participants for their active participation and valuable inputs during the workshop. Special thanks go to all the speakers for their excellent contributions and to the workshop working group, which shaped the workshop objectives and content. The EuroNGOs network is grateful for the generosity of our donors: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation who sponsored this meeting. DISCLAIMER This report is a synthesis of the capacity building workshop held by EuroNGOs in collaboration with our members: Médecins du Monde France, Reproductive Health Matters, Swedish Association for Sex Education (RFSU) and our partner Countdown 2030 Europe in November It is produced for information purposes only and is not recognised as an official document. Quotes, data, interpretations and findings do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of the network. FIRST DAY - TOWARDS GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY (POLICY DIMENSION) UNDERSTANDING CRISIS AND ACCOUNTABILITY The first day began with a group brainstorming session on the definitions of crisis and accountability in order to build a common understanding of key terminology used during the workshop. 2

4 3

5 INTERNAL SWOT ANALYSIS: EURONGOS CAPACITY TO WORK ON SRHR IN CRISIS This year s workshop aimed to evaluate our capacity as a network in the area of SRHR in the humanitarian context. Each workshop participant was asked to develop a SWOT analysis for their organization indicating their organization s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in terms of working on SRHR in crises settings. A summary of the output from the participants is presented below. EURONGOS WORK ON SRHR IN CRISIS STRENGTHS WEAKNESS Strong and recognized expertise as well as extensive experience in sexual and reproductive health and rights in relation to programs, advocacy and policy work at national, regional and international levels. Established relationships with governments and other key stakeholders. Group of experts and champions. This thematic area of work is not yet institutionalized in some of our member organisations, therefore, there is a need for internal advocacy to work on this topic. Various challenges related to human resources: limited capacity and/or experience, staff turnover. Lack of funding. Political commitment by the member organisations & leadership to work on SRHR in crisis. Existing experience working in humanitarian context (programmatic, advocacy and policy work) and resources. OPPORTUNITIES THREATS Connecting with other organisations and networks in the region, building on existing expertise, to share best practices. Linking development and humanitarian organizations to work on SRHR in crisis. Internal capacity of members: lack of staff and resources to focus on this topic. Challenges to find a common ground with humanitarian organizations for joint actions; a very narrow definition of SRHR in humanitarian context. Continuing advocacy work in this field towards governments, donors and other key actors with whom connections are established. Duplication of work between different members and other actors in this field; not enough focus on achieving results. Growing interest in the topic of SRHR in humanitarian context. 4

6 CURRENT STATE OF PLAY ON SRHR IN CRISIS AND UPDATE FROM THE INTER- AGENCY WORKING GROUP (IAWG) ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IN CRISES This presentation was delivered by Christina Wegs, Senior Advisor for Global Policy and Advocacy, Sexual, Reproductive & Maternal Health & Rights Team, CARE & Co-Chair, IAWG Advocacy & Accountability Working Group Christina introduced the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) on Reproductive Health in Crises, which was established in 1995 and is a broad international coalition representing UN, governments, NGOs, research and donor institutions as well as individuals. The IAWG documents gaps, accomplishments, and lessons learned in SRHR in crisis; evaluates the state of SRH in the field; establishes technical standards for the delivery of SRH services; builds and disseminates evidence; and finally, advocates for the prioritization of SRHR in fragile and crisis-affected settings. In November 2017, the IAWG Annual Meeting was held in Athens, Greece. One of its main objectives was to share the recently revised Inter-Agency Field Manual (IAFM) for Reproductive Health in Humanitarian Settings, including the Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for Reproductive Health. The MISP is a coordinated set of life-saving priority activities designed to prevent injury, illness and death, particularly among women and girls at the onset of humanitarian emergencies. The revised IAFM will inform future advocacy and programmatic initiatives of the global community working on SRHR in crisis. The table below indicates the key revisions that were made in the 2018 version of the IAFM as compared to the 2010 version of the IAFM. Christina also provided a global perspective on why it is crucial to prioritize SRHR in humanitarian responses. There are currently 65 million people displaced by conflict or crisis and almost half of them are women and girls who have limited or no access to SRHR services. Therefore, the unmet need is enormous. Many of these crises are protracted or recurrent and 80% of refugee crises last for ten years or more. What is more, ensuring access to SRHR services, especially access to the family planning (FP) services, during the humanitarian crises is life-saving (just like water, shelter and food), since globally maternal death is a leading cause of mortality for women of reproductive age. During crises and conflict, people still have sex, women still get pregnant, women still 5

7 give birth as Christina stated. During a crisis, women are, furthermore, at increased risk of sexual violence, unintended pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality. The experience of the IAWG humanitarian agencies show that the provision of SRHR services is possible even in the most challenging settings, as was seen in Syria or post-earthquake Nepal. Moreover, access to FP services during the crisis does not just save lives. It s also a chance to leverage the FP investments and strengthen the whole health system during crisis and stability in a country. The current priorities and opportunities for advocacy work towards governments, donors and humanitarian actors are as follow: - Investments are needed in preparedness and resiliency to ensure that the MISP and SRHR issues are included in disaster preparedness and response plans; - Funding for SRHR services in humanitarian responses must be predictable and transparent; financial accountability mechanisms have to be in place; - Continuity of investments for SRHR services should be ensured across the humanitarian-todevelopment continuum; - Need of data and evidence to monitor progress and to build the investment case. To learn more about IAWG, you can visit its website. EXTERNAL SWOT ANALYSIS: THE ENVIRONMENT AT NATIONAL LEVEL Participants analysed and shared information about the national and regional external environment that affects their work on SRHR in the humanitarian context, with a focus on political orientations of their governments. United Kingdom Success Weakness Opportunities Threats Hosted the Family Planning Summit in July 2017 Good track record as a donor Vigilant about accountability Existing focus on fragile states Integrated SRHR into humanitarian funds Political instability of UK (Brexit and the existence of The Democratic Unionist Party) Turnover of staff at Department for International Development (DFID) Personal agenda from high power individuals Don t want to lose space as a global player Political momentum built around the 2017 FP Summit. Loss of networks/links Rising rightwing agenda Less tolerance Negative media attention on aid Belgium Positive political momentum is built around She Decides and involvement of Lack of existing CSOs advocating on SRHR in humanitarian context Political focus on fragile states 6

8 the Belgian government in this initiative Increased funding for Humanitarian Aid National strategy includes SRHR France Increased knowledge and discussion about SRHR at national level SRHR (including abortion) is set as a priority in national policy but there is no specific attention and knowledge on humanitarian context Lack of transparency in relation to funding and implementation Médecins du Monde is the only NGO working on SRHR in humanitarian context Building a bridge between development and humanitarian actors New government and new ways of influencing its agenda First national strategy on population and SRHR (developed in 2016) New working group within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on its implementation (could include humanitarian context) Lack of funds (even for SRHR priorities) Low support for humanitarian aid The Netherlands SRHR is seen as priority and there is significant awareness around SRHR issues Rutgers has a strong advocacy department to influence the decision-making process Weak implementation of commitments and progress is lacking 2016 Humanitarian Summit and its commitments on SRHR Roundtable with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & the NGOs working in humanitarian field (Dutch Relief Alliance) Senior Policy Adviser is appointed to build a bridge between Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Department (our advocate) Development and humanitarian departs don t talk; progress not linked 7

9 5% of funds in new grants for humanitarian projects need to go SRHR or innovation projects as of 2018 Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) General support (social and political) for SRHR in humanitarian context SRHR is a priority within development and humanitarian aid SRHR in humanitarian context is generally not defined in national strategies, except in Denmark, which has a new joint strategy for long-term development and humanitarian assistance with gender as one of the four priority areas Lack of funds for SRHR in humanitarian context. Be more concrete on how SRHR can be included in national humanitarian policy and in other strategic actors programmes Norway will develop a humanitarian strategy in 2018 The 2018 national election in Sweden might change the composition in government, and the support of ODA, if the far right wing party gets more seats in the parliament EU level ECHO has existing credibility; large donor to UNFPA; existing health policy Mix of different champions SRHR is not (prioritized) in the ECHO agenda Limited capacity of ECHO to receive proposals on SRHR European-wide consensus is not clear Need data & evidence to make a case that SRHR saves lives in crisis ECHO existing mechanisms and tools around gender issues (for instance gender marker), entry points for SRHR Variable political climate Building bridge between ECHO and DEVCO LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE REGIONAL EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA IAWG This presentation was delivered by Nesrine Talbi, Programme Advisor, IPPF EN The ECCA IAWG was established in 2011 and consists of 19 country members. Its objectives are to create partnerships at all levels; to reinforce coordination efforts at national and regional level; to share knowledge 8

10 on SRH needs in emergencies; to advocate for the inclusion of SRH in national preparedness plans and to encourage capacity building of stakeholders. In 2018, the second MISP Readiness Assessment was conducted based on 38 indicators in 19 countries and among 115 different stakeholders: ministries, institutions, NGOs and UN agencies - 92% of indicators were partially or fully filled. The results can be seen in the figures below. Based on the evaluation, Nesrine shared with us the key success factors of the ECCA IAWG: - Yearly EECA IAWG meetings are an opportunity for knowledge sharing, guidance, commitment and networking; - The MISP readiness assessment allows us to prioritize and plan actions to improve preparedness; - A multi-stakeholder, country-team approach with committed participation from government institutions, CSOs and UN agencies, as well as non-traditional actors; - Sharing and learning from peers through cross-regional exchange of good practices and adaptation of key documents at the national level. - Adapt strategies to the existing political environment, identify the relevant partners (traditional and non-traditional), and identify key actions for MISP preparedness and response; In addition, Nesrine made the following recommendations based on lessons learned from the ECCA IAWG that can be applied in other contexts: - Identify the gaps you want to address; - Identify key actors and stakeholders; - Define a clear strategy and divide roles and responsibilities; - Shape advocacy messages around internationally recognized standards; - Keep your national partners accountable; - Be realistic! 9

11 A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE FROM SERBIA This presentation was delivered by Dragana Stojanovic, Executive Director of SRH Serbia Dragana shared a brief overview of the situation in Serbia in relation to the so-called refugee crisis in Europe and the impact of the EU-Turkey Agreement that aims to stop the flow of refugees into Europe. Serbia, together with Macedonia and Hungary, is on the Balkan Route by which refugees were trying to reach Western Europe, mainly Germany. While Hungary closed its borders for the refugees, Serbia has continued to provide support to those in need. Currently, there are 18 refugee camps and centres in the country. According to ECHO, in 2015 and in the first quarter of 2016, more than refugees and migrants have passed through Serbia. Additionally, as a result of the EU-Turkey deal, which met with a significant backlash, around 7500 stranded refugees are hosted across the country. She noted that for SRH Serbia being a part of the ECCA IAWG is of significant added value. Specifically, she said that the availability of up-to-date approaches and publications related to GBV, ASRHR as well as access to abortion services; the knowledge flow and experience exchange between the MA s of the region working with refugees; and transfer of good practices are truly helpful in their work. Based on SRH Serbia s experience working in the humanitarian settings, Dragana outlined the following opportunities for advocacy by the European community: - Need for greater visibility of refugees and migrants who are still arriving in Serbia to prevent their rights from being violated and reduce protection concerns; - Need to combat smuggling and trafficking through family reunification and humanitarian visas; - Need for stronger cooperation with NGO sector in Serbia involved in the refugee crisis. FP2020: INCLUDING SRHR IN CRISES IN TOP PRIORITIES This presentation was delivered by Beth Schlachter, Executive Director of FP2020 Beth started her presentation by introducing Family Planning 2020 (FP2020) a global movement which supports women and girls to decide whether, when and how many children they want to have. The platform works with various actors and stakeholders (CSOs, governments, multilateral organisations, the private sector and more) to ensure that 120 million more women and girls can use contraceptives by 2020 through: - Driving country-level support - Promoting data use and performance management - Sharpening the focus on global advocacy, rights and youth - Facilitating dissemination of knowledge and evidence On 11 July 2017, the FP2020 Summit in London was held to discuss how to ensure that the FP2020 goals will be achieved. During the Summit, an updated version of the MISP was announced. As a result of the Summit, 21 partners made new or accelerated FP2020 commitments to deliver life-saving family planning services to women and girls in humanitarian settings and other hard-to-reach populations. The partners specifically included: - 10 FP2020 countries: Bangladesh, Guinea, Madagascar, Malawi, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan - 7 donor countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, UK - 4 civil society organizations: Americares, Blue Ventures, International Rescue Committee, Médecins du Monde 10

12 Beth also presented the Global Roadmap for Improving Data, Monitoring and Accountability for Family Planning and Sexual and Reproductive Health in Crises, which outlines the process used to develop a global data, monitoring and accountability framework as well as methods for implementation based on the following guiding principles: - Consultation across the humanitarian and development sectors; - Review of existing data and mechanisms; - Development of tools and methodologies to use in humanitarian setting; - Selection of a set of core indicators; - Agreement on reporting mechanisms; So far, 20 organizations signed up to participate in the framework development by 2019 call, including two of our members: Médecins du Monde and Rutgers. As such, the FP2020 Summit contributed to the global momentum around SRHR in crisis. SECOND DAY - TOWARDS GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY (FINANCIAL DIMENSION) OVERALL OVERVIEW AND KEY TRENDS FROM THE 2017 GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE REPORT This presentation was delivered by Alexandra Spencer, Analyst of Development Initiatives Alexandra discussed key trends coming from the recent Global Humanitarian Assistance Report (2017), which is published annually and presents data regarding humanitarian financing and related aid flows. Overall, she noted that there is an increase in funding, but unmet needs remain great and are still rising it is estimated that 87% of those living in extreme poverty are in countries affected by crisis (at least 661 million people). The Report noted that in 2015, the sources of funding came mainly from 5 government donors, including the United States, which contributed almost a third of the whole amount. Funding from the European donors grew significantly (by 25%) but at the same time, the contributions from donors in the Middle East and North of Sahara decreased by 24%. The funds from private donors increased only by 6%. Finally, 88% of humanitarian assistance goes to medium (3-5 year) and long term (8 years or longer) recipients due to recurrent and protracted crises (i.e. multi-year). The Grand Bargain is an outcome of the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, and among others, aims to increase commitments from donors and aid organisations to provide 25% of global humanitarian funding to local and national responders by Until now, 31 actors endorsed the Grand Bargain (including governments, donors and INGOs). Specifically, the following information in relation to the Grand Bargain were noted by Alexandra: - Localization. In 2016, only 2% went directly to local and national responders and only 0,3% was received by national and local NGOs; - Cash programming should increase (1/3 of cash programming was in Yemen); - Unearmarked funding allows for flexible and immediate support. In 2016, only 14% was earmarked; - Workstreams are being set up to ensure accountability; 11

13 - Entry points for advocacy work include increasing transparency through better data and ensuring meaningful accountability of commitments; - To learn more about the Grand Bargain, go to this website. ECHO AND GENDER FUNDING This presentation was delivered by Céline Mias, EU Representative & Head of Office of CARE Céline shared insights from her work on humanitarian issues at the EU level. She pointed out that SRHR is mentioned in ECHO s overall health policy but it is not reflected in the gender policy and is sort of off the radar. In 2015, 18 million was spent on GBV programming out of 1.5 billion (total budget). She noted that SRHR is not considered to be a life-saving enough component by ECHO. However, 10% of the budget goes to education, which is critical but not life-saving. Furthermore, she indicated that the European Parliament and Member States have no say in ECHO programming because humanitarian aid is supposed to be politically neutral. Key issues to know in relation to ECHO funding: - There are different budget lines and the key ones are the humanitarian aid budget line and Emergency Aid Reserve; - NGOs need a framework partnership agreement but organizations that are not accredited may be able to work with organizations that are; - Larger contracts and consortia are trending; 12

14 - ECHO programs annually usually in the summer and some opportunities are not formal. It is recommended to make a case with them in late spring early summer. Céline also indicated the following opportunities for advocacy to increase ECHO funding for SRHR: - ECHO is conducting an evaluation right now of it is work in You can send in ideas and recommendations directly; - ECHO chairs the Call to Action since June 2017; - World Humanitarian Summit follow up; - Eu Gender Action Plan; - Annual programming. She also outlined Care recommendations to ECHO on gender: - Identify priority pilot countries in which it will help champion the implementation of the WHS Gender Core Commitments, linked to efforts on localisation and the participation revolution. - Strengthen and align approaches to whole of programme cycle accountability for gender and Leave No One Behind, measuring outcomes, not just processes, in humanitarian programming and funding. - Ensure partners budget human and financial resources for gender mainstreaming. - Ensure funding for standalone, gender-focussed programmes in emergencies, including programmes to prevent and respond to GBV in all of its forms, as well as sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning, in emergencies. - Use the opportunity of ECHO being the Chair of the Call to Action on Protection from GBV in emergencies to ensure more genuine commitment to and impact of the Call to Action among EU Member States and globally. Moreover, Care recommendations to Echo on SRHR are detailed below: - Implement the MISP at the onset of every crisis. Systems and funding must be put in place to ensure delivery and continuity of comprehensive family planning services, including access to all contraceptive methods, through all phases of humanitarian response, including in protracted crises. - Encourage governments of disaster- affected countries to include concrete actions that ensure access to family planning in humanitarian settings in their FP2020 commitments and Costed Implementation Plans. - Include the provision of family planning services in the investments in preparedness to strengthen health systems against crises. - Coordinate with donors along the humanitarian-to-development continuum on the investments to ensure continuity of support for family planning services. SRHR IN HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT: FUNDING & PROGRAMMING This presentation was delivered by Olivia O Connell, Senior Resource Mobilisation Officer of IPPF Olivia is responsible for supporting the mobilisation of funding for IPPF s humanitarian programmes, focusing on European donors. In her presentation, she looked at different funding streams through the SRHR lenses. Olivia noted the following funding delivery mechanisms: - Rapid response funding (usually for 3-6 months, partners must be operational within 72 hours) - Longer term funding (follow annual funding cycles, usually for 12 up to 24 months) - Preparedness and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) - Innovation Funding 13

15 - Bridge Funds between humanitarian and development streams Olivia highlighted that the UN appeals are significant for funding because they summarise the impact of a crisis and funding requirements and are accompanied by a Humanitarian Needs Overview and Humanitarian Response Plan. They are released on an annual basis. She also mentioned the following institutional donors which currently fund UNFPA: ECHO, Canada, Denmark, DFID, Switzerland, BPRM, Sweden and Norway. ACTION ORIENTED GROUP WORK The last part of the workshop was designed to provide a space for future planning and joint activities between the EuroNGOs members and partners. Based on the discussions that took place during the workshop, three thematic groups were identified: 1) Policy 2) Financing 3) Linking Development and Humanitarian fields. Participants were divided up in three groups and brainstormed about challenges, opportunities and quick wins related to advancing our advocacy efforts in each of these topics, taking into consideration the geographic scope, concrete timeline and division of responsibilities. The detailed plan is currently being analysed by the EuroNGOs Secretariat and a summary of the discussions can be found below. 14

16 POLICY CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES QUICK WINS Lack of messages which are evidence-based, using economic arguments with a human-rights based approach; making a case that SRHR is lifesaving. Identified targets: EU decision makers (ECHO, EP) Partners and other relevant CSOs, local organisations. EU Member States to put more pressure at ECHO and then to raise awareness at national level. To organise a workshop on reframing our language on SRHR in humanitarian context. FINANCING To create a calendar with key events and processes listing potential spaces for messaging. To identify existing resources within our networks. To have regular calls to share the updates and intelligence. CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES QUICK WINS Lack of disaggregated data ( health ). Difficult to track funding which goes to the field and measure its impact. Lack of expertise on funds for SRHR in humanitarian context. Support for Humanitarian Aid should not come at cost of development aid. Advocacy for better data on funding for SRHR in humanitarian context (e.g.. (1) SGBV breakdown, SRHR; (2) working with experts, donors like BMGF, target networks like IAWG to take this on; (3) global roadmap: what does it mean if we sign up?; Capacity building for governments through joint actions with humanitarian actors. Map our countries support; identify best practices on funding for SRHR in humanitarian context. Identify who among donors might support humanitarian aid and tracking projects. Ask parliamentarian questions on national support for humanitarian aid and SRHR. To track funding commitments. LINKING DEVELOPMENT AND HUMANITARIAN FIELDS CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES QUICK WINS Within long-term funding/projects. Lack of communication within and among various agencies, leading to differences in how assistance is provided. To engage private donors and funders. Use a more attainable language (also in developing key messages). Join the IAWG sub-working groups. Different funding streams; shortterm funding. Different agencies, ownerships and stakeholders. The goals and Sharing knowledge and learning among NGO s create new workshops. Reframing, rewording using other argumentation in our advocacy (look To organise regional launch of the Inter-agency Field Manual on Reproductive Health in Humanitarian Settings (IAFM) in Europe. 15

17 approaches are different between us. Lack of knowledge among humanitarian actors on SRHR. The rights language is frightening. SRHR is not on the radar and not considered to be lifesaving. Concerning the Eurongos network: members mainly work in development cooperation. at the example of Rutgers and how it is using the humanitarian language). Following the global trend of linking development and humanitarian fields: Eurongos consists of members that do both and can build on their experience. Using different moments to raise this issue: IAWG annual meetings, CPD etc. Mapping of DRR work/hum work for sharing best practices among ourselves. Organize a side event during the upcoming session of the UN Commission on Population and Development. Other opportunities and concrete activities that are not included above: - Setting up a # to increase the visibility of SRHR in humanitarian context in social media; - Capacity building through webinars; - Soft support of other initiatives (such as VOICE), e.g. sing on to calls; - Share information and knowledge among members and partners; - Identify new humanitarian members who could join our network. ANNEX: WORKSHOP AGENDA DAY 1 WEDNESDAY (15 November) 09:00-09:20 Welcome and opening remarks Welcome of all participants to workshop; introduction to the agenda, context, objectives and logistics of meeting Deborah Rubbens, Anamaria Suciu and Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) 09:20-09:50 Getting to know each other and sharing participants expectations Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) 09:50-10:55 Brief recap from 2016 workshop Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) Exercise with definitions: crisis & accountability All participants have common understanding of key terminology that will be used during the workshop Kristina Castell (RFSU), Anne Sinic (MdM) 16

18 Updates on what has moved on since the 2016 workshop: - Current state of play concerning SRHR in crisis; update from IAWG Annual Meeting - Update from the RFSU workshop SRHR in Humanitarian Settings. Guiding principles, needs and opportunities for actors within the humanitarian sector. Christina Wegs (CARE) Kristina Castell (RFSU) 10:55-11:25 COFFEE BREAK 11:25-12:35 Landscape analysis and discussion about the operational environment at domestic level based on work done by EuroNGOs members and partners in humanitarian settings - Participants to share the existing knowledge/experience on this topic and identify needs&gaps - Participants to brainstorm on how to address the existing needs&opportunities: Deborah Rubbens and Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) Joke Lannoye (Countdown 2030 Europe) 12:35-13:30 LUNCH 13:30-15:00 ACCOUNTABILITY - POLICY DIMENSION, PART 1 What are the different commitments that we could keep our governments accountable for? What is the European context? - Political orientation towards SRHR in crisis at national level in Europe (exchange of information between participants) - Lessons learned from the Regional IAWG - Zoom into national perspective case of Serbia Deborah Rubbens and Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) Nesrine Talbi (IPPF EN) Dragana Stojanovic (SRH Serbia) online webinar 15:00-15:30 COFFEE BREAK 15:30-16:30 ACCOUNTABILITY - POLICY DIMENSION, PART 2 What are the different commitments that we could keep our governments accountable for? What is the global context? - FP2020 putting SRHR in crises on top priorities - Lessons learned from advocacy work around the World Humanitarian Summit and the FP Summit Beth Schlachter (FP2020) online webinar Christina Wegs (CARE) 16:30-17:00 Wrap up day 1 Kristina Castell (RFSU) 19:00 GROUP DINNER at Titanic Restaurant, Rue du Congres 31,1000 Bruxelles DAY 2 THURSDAY (16 November) 09:30-10:00 Recap of day 1 Anne Sinic (MdM) 10:00-11:15 ACCOUNTABILITY - FUNDING DIMENSION, PART 1 What are the different funding streams for humanitarian assistance and where is the money for SRHR? - Overall overview and key trends from 2017 Global Humanitarian Assistance Report - ECHO and gender funding Alexandra Spencer (Development Initiatives) online webinar Céline Mias (Care International) 11:15-11:45 COFFEE BREAK 11:45-12:45 ACCOUNTABILITY - FUNDING DIMENSION, PART 2 What are the different funding streams for humanitarian assistance and where is the money for SRHR? - Funding orientation towards SRHR in crisis at national level in Europe (exchange of information between participants) Deborah Rubbens and Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) Olivia O Connell, IPPF 17

19 - SRHR in humanitarian context: funding & programming - Countdown 2030 Europe: latest updates&plans for future Joke Lannoye (Countdown 2030 Europe) 12:45-14:00 LUNCH 14:00-15:30 ACTION ORIENTED GROUP WORK Participants are divided into smaller working groups, each of them will work on concrete topic or spaces and set up an action plan Deborah Rubbens and Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) 15:30-16:00 COFFEE BREAK 16:00-17:00 Workshop wrap-up and evaluation Including a creation of sub-working group (SRHR Partnership); agreement among participants and partners on a follow up plan (division of tasks) Deborah Rubbens and Helena Szczodry (EuroNGOs) 18