Click to Read Full Report in PDF Version

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • UNICEF spearheads a campaign to have Israel included on a UN blacklist of “grave” violators of children’s rights.The list appears as an annex to the UN Secretary-General’s annual report on Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC). This political agenda is a primary facet of UNICEF’s activities relating to Israel, completely inconsistent with its mandate of “child protection” and from its guidelines for neutrality and impartiality.
  • UNICEF-oPt’s partners (“working group”) for this campaign are radical advocacy non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These anti-Israel NGOs play an integral role in carrying out UNICEF’s campaign and receive substantial funding from UNICEF to do so.
    • The UN blacklist consists almost entirely of terror groups and militias from failed states. In essence, by pushing for the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) inclusion on the list, UNICEF and its NGO partners are claiming that Israel’s army is equivalent to ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.
  • Several of the Palestinian groups – including Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), which plays a leading role in this campaign – have reported links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – listed as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Canada, and Israel. UNICEF-oPt states, “UNICEF has a clear policy that is does not fund support (sic) organizations which are listed as terrorist organizations by the United Nations” – a list that excludes Hamas, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad.
  • Several UNICEF-oPt NGO partners recommended inclusion of the IDF on the UN blacklist, but absurdly claimed they lacked sufficient evidence to recommend inclusion of the PFLP or Hamas.
  • A key component of the UN’s Children and Armed Conflict campaign is to end the exploitation and use of children as combatants and child soldiers. Although Palestinian armed groups routinely use children in this way, there is little evidence that UNICEF-oPt funding is devoted towards exposing or ending this practice. In fact, a UNICEF Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) bulletin admits that “In Gaza, the Working Group was not in a position to document cases of child recruitment and use of children in armed conflict owing to a number of factors, including security and protection risks related to collecting comprehensive and detailed information” (emphasis added). This admission of an inability to carry out the core mission of its UN mandate in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza calls into question the necessity and utility of continued funding for the agency in the region.
  • Other UNICEF-oPt partners are NGOs that seek to marginalize Israel through BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) initiatives. One such contributor is the World Council of Churches’ EAPPI program, which is heavily involved in church-based BDS and whose non-professional volunteers purport to collect data for a UNICEF database.
  • UNICEF-oPt’s NGO partners publish misleading and false reports on the treatment of Palestinian minors involved in attacks and arrested by the IDF, rife with distortions and in-accuracies and devoid of necessary context. These same erroneous and unverified claims are then laundered through a UNICEF database to a variety of UN publications, lending them legitimacy and prominence.
  • UNICEF’s campaign is funded by the EU and its member states, as well as Canada and Japan. Correspondence with some donor states indicates that the governments are unaware of the political NGOs that receive their funds and to UNICEF’s emphasis on advocacy targeting the IDF. Other donor states refused to answer our inquiries, highlighting the accountability and transparency deficit in UN funding.
  • UNICEF-oPt signed a lawfare agreement with the Palestinian Authority seeking $3.4 million over the next five years from international donors to engage “human rights mechanisms…to hold Israel accountable for its obligations under international law.”
  • UNICEF’s reporting on Israel is qualitatively different and more extreme than its reporting on other Middle East countries. Allegations of “widespread and systematic abuse” are meant to echo the definition of crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. UNICEF does not employ similar language for other conflict zones.
  • As noted by one of the NGOs involved, inclusion of Israel on the CAAC blacklist would lead to the creation of an official “UN-mandated country task force” on Israel that would provide greater financial and other resources to UNICEF-oPt and its NGO partners.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this report, NGO Monitor recommends:

To UNICEF International

  • Cease all cooperation with NGOs with ties to terrorist organizations, including those with links to the PFLP.
  • Publicly retract and correct inaccurate claims made in UNICEF reporting on Israel.
  • Instruct UNICEF-oPt to disband the current working group and reinstate a new working group of impartial humanitarian organizations, professionals, and experts.

To Donor Governments

  • Review all funding to UNICEF projects to guarantee that funds are not being distributed to NGOs with ties to terrorist organizations.
  • Develop and implement robust funding guidelines for all government spending to ensure that funds are not provided to groups with ties to terrorism or that promote violent rhetoric or antisemitism.
  • Review all funding to UNICEF to ensure that it is used to carry out the projects intended by the donor government.
  • Cease all funding being used by UNICEF for anti-Israel political advocacy. Ensure that funding is used solely for humanitarian purposes.
  • Institute continuous monitoring mechanisms to ensure ongoing compliance with these best practices.

To UN Secretary-General

  • Recognize that UNICEF reports on Israel have been substantially compromised and manipulated for destructive political goals, misrepresent the actual situation, and should be excluded from consideration for the “Annual Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict” and its Annex.
  • Reports issued by current NGO members of the UNICEF-oPt Working Group should also be excluded.

INTRODUCTION

UNICEF was created in 1946 in order to promote the rights and welfare of children.

However, as this research demonstrates, in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, UNICEF has strayed from this mission. The organization plays a leading role in a non-governmental organization (NGO) campaign to place Israel on a UN list of grave violators of childrens’ rights, with the ultimate goal of obtaining Security Council sanctions against Israel. It is also responsible for funneling millions of dollars to the same NGOs that are integral to this effort. Crucially, the NGOs are seeking to upgrade the official status of their partnership with the UN to “benefit from additional resources” as “an official UN-mandated country task force” targeting Israel (emphasis added).

UNICEF’s role in this process includes giving legitimacy to false and distorted claims made by the NGOs, often on issues that are far removed from the UN’s Children and Armed Conflict framework, which are fed through a UNICEF database to a variety of UN publications. These publications do not note that the accusations originate with unqualified and partial activists, some from groups with links to terror organizations, or that they were not verified by credible independent bodies. A branch of the agency, known as UNICEF-oPt, is instrumental in this campaign.

We also show that many of UNICEF’s donor governments – including Canada, the UK, and Switzerland – place few restrictions on their funding and maintain limited oversight. As such, donor governments appear to be unaware of the terror affiliated and political NGOs that receive some of their funds and are blind to UNICEF’s immoral role in using this issue to target Israel.

This report begins by outlining the complex UN framework under which UNICEF and its NGO partners carry out their political advocacy against Israel. It details the NGOs involved and their campaigns to have Israel branded as a “grave” violator of children’s rights. It then turns to the funding provided by governments. Finally, it presents two case studies on UNICEF’s core NGO partners, further illustrating the fundamental problems with UNICEF’s work on Israel. The appendices provide details on (1) funding, (2) language used in UNICEF’s situation reports on the Middle East, (3) UNICEF’s NGO Partners, (4) the UN-UNICEF organizational structure, (5) NGO Monitor’s correspondence with UNICEF-oPt, (6) NGO Monitor’s correspondence with UNICEF’s donor governments, and (7) UN Maps of the region.

BACKGROUND: THE UN STRUCTURE FOR PROTECTING CHILDREN

Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism

Each year, the UN Secretary-General publishes a report on “Children and Armed Conflict.” Since 2001, the Secretary-General has included an “annex” to his annual reports listing “parties to armed conflict” that engage in certain practices that fundamentally breach the rights of children. Originally, the listing was specifically aimed at combating the recruitment and use of child soldiers, but over the years, pursuant to additional resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council1, the list of “trigger factors” that could result in inclusion in the listing expanded to include other violations.2 The purpose of the Annex is to focus the “Security Council on specific parties, whether states or non-state actors” and take “targeted measures against violators, including the possibility of sanctions” (emphasis added).

In 2005, the Security Council established the monitoring and reporting mechanism (MRM), in order to “provide timely, objective, accurate and reliable information on the recruitment and use of child soldiers in violation of applicable international law and on other violations and abuses committed against children affected by armed conflict” (emphasis added).3 This mechanism applies only “in country situations [that] are listed in the annexes of the annual Report of the Secretary-General on CAAC [Children and Armed Conflict].”4 In the MRM framework, UNICEF is tasked with helping “to manage the MRM,” being the “eyes and ears” to gather information at the local level, with data ultimately is included in the Secretary-General’s report.5

Since no party in Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza is listed in the Secretary-General’s Annex, UNICEF does not have a mandate under the MRM to monitor and report on Israel.

Nevertheless, for over a decade, NGOs have lobbied the UN Secretary-General to include the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in this Annex, hoping to harm Israel’s international image and perhaps even obtain sanctions against it. In addition, as noted by one of the key NGOs leading this campaign, the Annex triggers MRM and would allow UNICEF and its NGO partners to “benefit from additional resources” as “an official UN-mandated country task force” (emphasis added).

Working Groups

Although the MRM is “not activated” for Israel, “Israel/State of Palestine” is discussed in the body of the Secretary-General’s report because the conflict is on the Security Council’s agenda. In such circumstances,6 UNICEF heads a “Working Group” to monitor and report on alleged instances of grave violations against children.7

In countries with a working group, UNICEF is supposed to provide “factual information on patterns of violations and efforts made to end and prevent them, which may inform the SRSG’s [Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict] listing recommendations and subsequent decisions by the SG [Secretary-General].” UNICEF is also instructed to be cautious in operating the mechanism as “Claims of human rights violations can be used as a propaganda tool to discredit others or reports may be biased against one party due to allegiances and/or fears among a particular population” (p. 14, emphasis added).

According to the MRM’s “field manual,” Working Group members must be “neutral, impartial and independent from all parties to the conflict” (emphasis added).8 Furthermore, according to UNICEF, “Country Offices, in situations in which the MRM is not activated…should be rigorous and to the extent possible cross check information from multiple sources to ensure accuracy given that information is often manipulated in conflict-affected areas toward political ends”(p. 10, emphasis added).

Countries Featured in the UN Secretary-General’s Report on Children and Armed Conflict

UNICEF’S WORKING GROUP ON ISRAEL

Since 2007, UNICEF has led the “Working Group on Grave Violations against Children”9 to undertake “consolidated efforts to monitor and report on grave violations against children in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt).” However, by UNICEF-oPt’s own admission, its work uniquely goes outside the parameters outlined by the UN’s Children and Armed Conflict framework (see Appendix V for correspondence between NGO Monitor and UNICEF-oPt).

In sharp contrast to the aforementioned guidelines regarding neutrality, impartiality, and credibility, the Working Group on Israel comprises organizations that have alleged ties to terrorist groups and/or are prominent actors in anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) and lawfare campaigns. UNICEF’s overreliance on NGOs may also compromise quality and accuracy.10

The UNICEF working group includes Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCI-P), Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), Al Mezan, B’Tselem, Terre Des Homme – Suisse, Save the Children, War Child Holland, World Vision, UNESCO, UNRWA, UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS), and WHO. Other contributing partners include EAPPI (Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel), Christian Peacemakers Team (CPT), Operation Dove, UN-OCHA, and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (See Appendix III for examples of political advocacy by these organizations.)

As members and partners of the Working Group, the NGOs’ factually inaccurate and biased narratives feed directly into the UN system. For example, a UNICEF “Humanitarian Situation Report” for the period of October 5 to October 31, 2015 states that 15 Palestinian children were killed during that period without noting that 13 were perpetrators of stabbing attacks against Israelis. This claim appears to clearly mimic the highly political and biased narrative of DCI-P, one of the Working Group members, which claims that in October 2015, 14 Palestinian minors were killed, none while participating in hostilities.

As this report shows, UNICEF and the NGO members of the Working Group are active in a coordinated attempt to place Israel on the Secretary-General’s Annex, and UNICEF sees its work as serving this purpose. UNICEF refers to the Working Group on Israel as an MRM, despite explicit guidelines not to do so “in order to avoid confusion” between Working Groups and the formal MRM mechanism. For example, in its infamously defective 2013 report on Israel, UNICEF cites the “MRM database” four times, when it should technically be referencing the Working Group (see NGO Monitor’s report “The Origins of ‘No Way to Treat a Child’”). In Israel, UNICEF further misleadingly refers to the Working Group “in the context of Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) Reporting Mechanism (MRM).” The Working Group is similarly referred to as an “MRM” in UNOCHA-oPt’s coordination structure diagram (see Appendix IV).

In January 2015, a UN-affiliated “Legal Advice Group”11 convened to strategize how to add Israel to the Annex, where they “considered various legal dimensions regarding the criteria for listing of parties in the annexes to the SG’s Annual Report.” UNICEF subsequently reported back to the Working Group on “the discussion to help guide the formulation of inputs to the SG’s Annual Report” – suggesting that incidents would be reported with an eye toward inclusion in the Annex, and not accuracy per se.

Likewise, a March 2015 Guardian article discusses how “Save the Children and War Child as well as at least a dozen Palestinian human rights organisations, the Israeli rights organisation B’Tselem and UN bodies such as the children’s agency Unicef” – a list with significant overlap with the Working Group – were “pressing for the IDF’s inclusion on the list since the war in Gaza last summer” (emphasis added).

Working group members Al Mezan, DCI-P, and PCHR, as well as UNICEF grantee Addameer, spearheaded a February 2015 joint letter to the Secretary-General urging him to “list Israel’s armed forces in the annex to your 14th Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict for committing grave violations against children in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (emphasis added). The letter was heavily based on data collected by the Working Group.

Separately, Working Group members Save the Children, Terre des Hommes, War Child, and World Vision are on the Advisory Board that sets “programmatic content” for the NGO Watchlist. In 2017, Watchlist lobbied for the IDF’s inclusion in the Secretary-General’s Annex. Notably, through a combination of faulty methodology and extreme political bias, Watchlist claimed it could not obtain sufficient evidence to recommend the inclusion of Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terror groups12 (see NGO Monitor’s analysis “Watchlist: Human Rights Watch Leads Effort to Promote Impunity for Palestinian Terrorists.”) Watchlist’s lack of unease over impunity for these Palestinian armed groups may reflect the PFLP-links of several NGOs from the UNICEF Working Group.

In contrast to the focus on Israel, it does not appear that UNICEF and the NGO members of the Working Group are making the same concerted effort to list Palestinian terror groups that clearly breach international law in violating the rights of the child (both indiscriminate targeting of Israeli minors and the use and recruitment of Palestinian minors in armed conflict) on the Secretary-General’s Annex. In a bulletin published on December 22, 2017, UNICEF acknowledged that it was “not in a position to document cases of child recruitment and use of children” (emphasis added) by armed groups in Gaza, even though numerous Working Group members (PCHR, World Vision, Save the Children, UNRWA, and WHO) have a presence there. This disingenuous claim was then echoed in the 2017 Secretary-General’s report on Children and Armed Conflict, which states that “The United Nations did not receive reports of the recruitment and use of children in 2016; however, this violation is difficult to document, particularly in Gaza” (emphasis added). The phenomenon can be attributed to the above-mentioned links of numerous Working Group NGOs to Palestinian terrorist organizations (see Appendix III).

UNICEF FUNDING

UNICEF funds a series of projects in the West Bank and Gaza, including those implemented in partnership with NGOs and/or members of the Working Group. Much of the funding originates with governments. While some of these projects appear to serve the humanitarian purposes for which the funding was granted, others have clear political advocacy agendas.

UNICEF’s budget for “humanitarian needs of children in the State of Palestine” in 2017 is approximately $24.5 million; approximately $3.4 million of this is earmarked for child protection, the framework under which UNICEF misleadingly justifies its political advocacy.

According to the “United Nations Development Assistance Framework State of Palestine 2018-2022” report, UNICEF is seeking $3.4 million over the next five years to engage “human rights mechanisms…to hold Israel accountable for its obligations under international law.” Activities include “documenting and reporting on grave violations of child rights,” “building capacity of the government and civil society on data collection, reporting, analysis and advocacy related to rights & violations,” and increasing the “number of national, civil society and other organizations actively monitoring, advocating and mobilizing on human rights violations.”

In 2017 and 2016, UNICEF International granted $111,615 and $205,028 respectively to “UNICEF OPT,” for a project “Informing humanitarian programmatic and advocacy response through documentation of grave violations against children affected by armed conflict.”13 Among other activities, the project focused on “Technical support for maintaining and strengthening the CAAC [Children and Armed Conflict] reporting mechanism” and strengthening “capacity of civil society partners to document grave violations.” Implementing partners of the project included DCI-P, War Child Holland, Wadi Hilweh Information Centre, B’Tselem, and the PFLP “affiliateAddameer (see Appendix III for details).

In 2015, Japan provided $286,799 and UNICEF National Committee/France provided $200,000 to UNICEF for a project “Informing humanitarian programmatic and advocacy response through documentation of grave violations against children affected by armed conflict.”14 Implementing partners of the project included PCHR, B’Tselem, CPT, Save the Children, War Child Holland, DCI-P, EAPPI, Première Urgence – Aide Médicale Internationale, MDM, MSF, NRC, OCHA, OHCHR, UNRWA, and WHO. Project activities included “at least two humanitarian related advocacy initiatives linked to the reporting of the grave violations.”

In preparing this report, NGO Monitor approached UNICEF’s donor governments. The majority of countries either refused to provide NGO Monitor with the requested information, reflecting a severe lack of transparency and accountability, or were simply unaware of what organizations and projects received their funds, reflecting a need for greater oversight. (See Appendix VI for correspondence with Canada, US, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK).

Our correspondence with Canada illustrates the gap between what governments believe they are funding and UNICEF’s actual use of the money. Canada’s international development branch, Global Affairs Canada, was the most transparent and provided NGO Monitor with detailed information, namely that in 2015, Global Affairs Canada provided UNICEF with $10 million CAD, of which $1 million CAD was allocated by UNICEF to the West Bank and Gaza for “Emergency Assistance – Education in Emergencies and Child Protection.” It appears that Canada was unaware of the identity of the implementing partners, EAPPI and CPT, until after disbursing funds to UNICEF (see Appendix III for details).

The activities that Canada claimed it funded differ significantly from the description provided by UNICEF. Canada stated that it provided funds to UNICEF for training teachers, counselling support, and reinforcing schools. UNICEF however states it used the money to train EAPPI volunteers; record cases of intimidation, harassment, and excessive violence that allegedly impeded school attendance; and for “advocacy work.”

Discrepancies in Project Activities: Canada vs. UNICEF

Global Affairs Canada
(Provided in correspondence with NGO Monitor, see Appendix VI)
UNICEF
UNICEF's Project Description (available at UNOCHA's Financial Tracking Service)
Providing protected temporary and transitional learning spaces;Mobilisation, training, facilitating and debriefing of volunteers on protective presence principles, cultural and country specific background, including gender sensitivity and equality issues, monitoring, reporting, intervening, awareness raising and non violence principals;
Providing learning and playing material; Provide Protective Presence to children and teachers (both girls and boys, male and female);
Providing counselling and psychological support; Provide accompaniment to children, teachers communities and schools (equally among male and female);
Training teachers in education in emergencies and in disaster risk reduction; Record cases of intimidation, harassment and excessive violence in special incident reports and checkpoint monitoring forms, by amongst others using mobile phones and cameras. All data gathered in incident reports and checkpoint monitoring forms should be gender disaggregated;
Reinforcing/retrofitting schools in disaster-prone areas; and,Study the link between the school commute in vulnerable areas and school attendance, drop out and family separation (and gender as applicable);
Providing rapid establishment of effective leadership for education cluster coordination.Conduct action appeals, advocacy work and awareness raising activities nationally and internationally based on the above mentioned incident reports and electronic documentation;

Refer cases of severe stress to the protection cluster and MHPSS Working Group based on incident reports.

UNICEF-NGO COLLUSION

UNICEF funding is channeled to NGOs, several of which are linked to Palestinian terror groups. In turn, the NGOs produce biased reports and feed the information into the UNICEF Working Group database. The problematic and unverifiable claims are then laundered by being published under UNICEF’s name. UNICEF’s reports are subsequently regarded as supposed evidence of grave violations committed by Israel, including in the context of the Secretary-General’s report.

This process is not solely about advocacy. Israel’s inclusion in the Secretary-General’s Annex would also be financially beneficial for UNICEF and its NGO partners. As explained by DCI-P in its 2009 Annual Report:

“With efficient reporting and lobbying, the Israeli army and/or Palestinian factions could potentially be included in the UNSG’s reports and the ‘list of shame’ of perpetrators of grave child rights violations, but also the Working Group could become an official UN-mandated country task force and benefit from additional resources.” (emphasis added)

Case Study on DCI-P and the “No Way to Treat a Child” Campaign

Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), which has links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization and frequently publishes false and unverifiable accusations alleging “child abuse” by Israeli security forces (see Appendix III), is an illustrative example of UNICEF’s reliance on politically biased NGOs as a basis for “objective, accurate and reliable” information. (See NGO Monitor’s report “No Way to Represent a Child: Defense for Children International – Palestine’s Distortions of the Israeli Justice System.”)

Tracing the DCI-P/UNICEF Interdependence

  1. In 2010, UNICEF provides funding to DCI-P for research “on the Israeli juvenile justice system and the military court system applied to Palestinians in the West Bank.”
  2. With this funding, DCI-P publishes a study on the “the discriminatory nature of the military court system.” DCI-P misleadingly uses MRM terminology (see above), claiming that “since the establishment of the MRM WG (sic), DCI-Palestine has been the lead indicator on ill treatment and torture and the use of Palestinian children as human shields. Therefore, DCI’s input has been critical in the construction of the MRM Group’s database.”
  3. In 2012, DCI-P publishes a report on alleged Israeli violations, “Bound, Blindfolded and Convicted: Children held in military detention.”
  4. In 2013, UNICEF publishes a very similar report, “Children in Israeli Military Detention: Observations and Recommendations,” which was largely based on DCI-P claims and uncritically repeated DCI-P’s distortions. As analyzed by NGO Monitor and former Head of IDF Military Prosecution for Judea and Samaria and NGO Monitor Senior Military Justice Consultant Lt. Col. (Res.) Maurice Hirsch, UNICEF’s report reflects numerous misrepresentations of international law and of rudimentary criminal law concepts and procedures. (For more details, see NGO Monitor’s reports, “The Origins of ‘No Way to Treat a Child’” and “No Way to Represent a Child: Defense for Children International – Palestine’s Distortions of the Israeli Justice System.)
  5. In DCI-P’s 2014 Annual Report, the NGO writes that it “maintained regular communication with the UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict (OSRSG-CAAC). In addition to regularly sharing information and documentation collected by DCI-Palestine staff in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, DCI-Palestine International Advocacy Officer and Attorney participated in a roundtable discussion with Ms. Leila Zerrougui, the current Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict, in Geneva…In July, during Israel’s military offensive on the Gaza Strip known as Operation Protective Edge, Parker15 was invited to brief the OSRSG-CAAC in New York on the impact of the military offensive on Palestinian children living in the Gaza Strip.”
  6. In April 2015, DCI-P launches its “No Way to Treat a Child (NWTTAC)” campaign in the US,16 aiming to lobby governments to “use all available means to pressure the Israeli government to end the detention and abuse of Palestinian children.” DCI-P publishes a report to accompany the campaign, heavily citing the 2013 UNICEF report as independent assessment; however, as noted above, the UNICEF report was based on DCI-P’s claims and other “evidence” from the “UNICEF MRM Database” to which DCI-P contributed.

NGO Monitor’s in depth analysis (“No Way to Represent a Child: Defense for Children International Palestine’s Distortions of the Israeli Justice System”) of the DCI-P report that formed the basis of this campaign shows that DCI-P’s research methodology was inherently flawed, and many of the statistics provided are either meaningless, without context, or irrelevant; that DCI-P misstates international and domestic law, particularly jurisdictional concepts, criminal adjudication, and juvenile justice standards; and that some of the claims made amounted to ethical violations or malpractice by their legal staff.

Case Study on EAPPI

The World Council of Churches’ EAPPI program (see Appendix III) brings volunteers, known as Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs), to the West Bank for three months to “witness life under occupation.” Upon completion of the program, the volunteers return to their home countries and churches where many engage in anti-Israel advocacy, including advocating for BDS campaigns in churches, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany, and other delegitimization strategies.

EAPPI’s Role as a Contributing Partner

Since 2013, UNICEF has funneled governmental funds to EAPPI for a project titled “Protected and safe access to schools as an emergency response for vulnerable communities in the oPt.”1718 In addition, EAPPI was an implementing partner on a 2015 UNICEF grant “to support all aspects of documentation and reporting, information sharing, and data collection.”19

One outcome was EAPPI’s 2013 report “Education under Occupation,” prepared with “the support from UNICEF and with funding from the Government of Japan.” The report notes EAPPI’s activists provided a “protective presence” to students in Qalqiliya, Tulkarm, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem.

A May 2013 Protection Cluster Monthly Update notes that the Working Group’s “database is now able to capture the level of damage of schools, and the analysis can also provide a breakdown by number of children arrested on the way to or from school, the number of teachers arrested, the disruption of school routine due to weapon fire, search operations, or due to demonstrations or clashes.” This is part of the campaign to include Israel in the Secretary-General’s Annex, albeit through a radically expansive and incoherent definition of “attacks against schools” (one of the six grave violations).20

To better facilitate the transfer of information, a “UNICEF’s Children and Armed Conflict Database Officer provided technical support to EAPPI to establish an information management system for violations documented by EAPPI field workers.” Additionally, “Technical support was provided to EAPPI [by the Working Group] for the establishment of an information management system to analyse and share data concerning violations documented by EAPPI field workers.”

Furthermore, a 2015 UNICEF appeal with EAPPI listed as the “implementing partner” notes that “During 2013 and 2014, the protective partner’s (EAPPI) participation in the Education Cluster and Child Protection Working Group has resulted in the updated priority list of schools being monitored by EAPPI. The updated list is targeting vulnerable communities (those facing high protection risks) in both Areas B and C in the West Bank, Seam Zone and Bedouin communities.” Of the requested $963,900 in funding, $67,500 is to be dedicated to “technical support, monitoring, evaluation and reporting.”

As noted by a prominent EAPPI activist “The primary thing is to collate information for the United Nations on people going through the checkpoints and to intervene when we can.” The WCC’s International Coordinator for EAPPI similarly notes that the monitoring component includes “a lot of administrative work which is fed into UN systems” (emphasis added).

It is important to emphasize that these so-called “field workers” are EAs on a three-month visit to the region. They are not qualified research experts with extensive training in human rights reporting, but rather a self-selecting group of volunteers with minimal experience and knowledge of the conflict. Yet, their allegations are fed into the Working Group database, and subsequently into UNICEF’s and the Secretary-General’s reports.

Lies and Demonization from EAs

Jan McIntyre, a Canadian EAPPI alumna and farmer from Clearwater, Manitoba, maintains a blog with various stories of her time spent in the West Bank.21 In an October 2015 post, Jan wrote, “The 48 year Israeli occupation (illegal according to International Humanitarian Law) of Palestine, with even greater repression of human rights over the last several months, has led some young Palestinians to respond violently. Frustrated and desperate, and prohibited from carrying guns, they have resorted to the use of knives as a tool to stab Israeli soldiers and citizens” (emphasis added). In an October 23, 2015 post, Jan distorts an incident of a soldier being stabbed in the head by two teens as,

“On Tuesday, 2 teenage boys aged 15 and 17 passed through one of the many Israeli checkpoints in H2. They passed through a metal detector and were body searched for knives. Finding none, the soldiers allowed them to pass through. Shortly after leaving the checkpoint, the boys encountered a group of settlers coming towards them. Fearful of the settlers, they turned back towards the checkpoint they had just passed through and were shot by the soldiers. Both boys died.”

A South African EA, who participated in the program twice, advocated for targeting the Israeli banking system, calling for “SWIFT [international banking network] sanctions against Israel.” He stated that, “If we can develop the momentum of sanctions against Israeli banks then all the power of the Israeli military becomes irrelevant…that’s really the basis to support the BDS program…without access to SWIFT….the whole economy would quickly collapse…the time has come to say that the victims of the Holocaust have now become the perpetrators” (emphasis added).

In London, in May 2016, an EAPPI activist discussed the experience she had in Hebron. During her presentation, she blamed the “Jewish lobby” and its influence in the US as an explanation for “why Evangelical Christians are not as sympathetic to the Palestinian plight.” She also supported a Palestinian “right of return,” called for a complete boycott of products and services from Israel, and referred to Israeli killing of Palestinian terrorists in Hebron “that supposedly had knives, but there are videos that show they have been planted.”

These select examples demonstrate that EAPPI volunteers are not impartial researchers who objectively gather data. On the contrary, these individuals are highly biased activists, willing to present factually inaccurate versions of events for political aims.

 

 

APPENDIX I: FUNDING TABLES

Table I: Government Funding to “UNICEF-State of Palestine”

(Source: UNICEF, UNOCHA Financial Tracking Service)

DonorYearsTotal Amount (USD)
Japan
2012-2017$50,048,581
European Commission2012-2017$27,090,067
US2015-201710,595,10522
Canada2011-2017$8,842,029
Netherlands2012-2017$5,614,793
Spain2011-2017$2,724,665
Sweden2011-2015; 2017$2,402,936
Denmark2011-2012; 2015-2017$1,939,935
UK2014-2017$1,308,916
Belgium2015$497,000
Norway2012-2013; 2017$438,105
Total2011-2017$111,502,132

Table II: Government Funding to UNICEF for Child Protection: “Multi-Increased stakeholder capacity to document grave violations against children and to protect them from, and mitigate the impact of armed conflict”

(Source: UNICEF)

DonorYearsAmount (USD)
Japan2015-2017$445,267
Belgium2015-2017$402,444
Switzerland2015-2017$137,789
Denmark2015-2017$101,739
Finland2015-2017$93,484
European Commission / ECHO2015-2017$77,215
UK2015-2017$39,685
UNICEF (For GR Allocations only)2015-2017$1,135,919
Total2015-2017$2,433,542

 

Table III: Government Funding to UNICEF for “Informing Humanitarian and Advocacy Response through Documentation of Grave Violations against Children affected by Armed Conflict”

DonorImplementing PartnersYearAmount (USD)
UNICEFAddameer, B’Tselem, DCI-P, Wadi Hilweh Information Centre, War Child Holland272017$86,171
UNICEFDCI-P, War Child Holland, Wadi Hilweh Information Centre, Addameer, B’Tselem262016$205,028
UNICEF National Committee/France$200,000
JapanPCHR, B’Tselem, CPT, Save the Children, War Child Holland, DCI-P, EAPPI, Première Urgence - Aide Médicale Internationale, MDM, MSF, NRC, OCHA, OHCHR, UNRWA, and WHO252015$286,799
Central Emergency Response FunCentral Emergency Response FunddAl Mezan, PCHR, B’Tselem, CPT, Save the Children, War Child Holland, DCI-P, EAPPI, Première Urgence Aide Médicale Internationale, MSF, NRC, OCHA, OHCHR, UNRWA, and WHO242014$100,000
JapanAl Mezan, PCHR, B’Tselem, CPT, Save the Children, War Child Holland, DCI-P, EAPPI, Première Urgence - Aide Médicale Internationale, OCHA, OHCHR, UNRWA, and WHO232013$500,000
Total2013-2017$1,377,998

 

Table IV: Funding for UNICEF Projects with EAPPI as Implementing Partner

DonorYearAmount (in USD)
UNICEF National Committee/France2017$266,809
Japan2017$191,191
UNICEF2016$536,009
Canada2015$790,514
Japan2013$538,004
Total2013-2017$2,322,527

 

APPENDIX II: COMPARISON OF UNICEF’S SITUATION REPORTS ON THE MIDDLE EAST

UNICEF publishes periodic “situation reports” on its activities, impact, and spending in various countries and regions. These reports are made available to the public and are also provided to donor governments.

NGO Monitor compared the language used in the latest available documents on Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt, which were featured in a report published by UNICEF in October 2017, with the language used in a July – October 2017 UNICEF situation report covering the West Bank and Gaza.

The following table notes significant differences in the terminology used regarding the West Bank and Gaza. These differences, including references to international law, reflect a politicized “lawfare” strategy in order to attack Israel.

UNICEF oPt
(West Bank and Gaza)
UNICEF MENA
(Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt)
Refers to “# of incidents of grave violations against children monitored and documented.”

Lists a “2017 target” on the number of grave violations to document (2,500).
Even though UNICEF carries out investigations into “grave violations” in Iraq and Syria on behalf of the UN Secretary-General, and serves a similar but less formal role in Lebanon, there are no references to monitoring “grave violations.”
Mentions “detentions of children” three times.No mention of “detentions of children.”
Mentions “legal assistance” on page 1 under “highlights.”No mention of “legal assistance” activities.
Does not refer to violations committed by Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, attrib-uting blame to only Israel and Israeli Security Forces.Mentions a variety of non-state actors, including terrorist factions, as well as governments when describing the “situation overview” in countries.
Child protection refers to: “# of children benefiting from structured children protection interventions including life skills programs,” “# of women and men who receive in-formation on their rights and access legal services,” “# of incidents of grave violations against children monitored and documented,” “# of people (children and caregivers) receive ERW [explosive remnants of war] risk educa-tion, including children.”Child protection (in Syria, for example) refers to: “people reached with Risk Education activities,” “people benefitting from child protection awareness raising and community events,” “children receiving specialized children protection services including through case management,” “adults trained in child protection.”
Requested amount for educa-tion is approximately the same as for protection.Requested amount for education is three times the amount as protection.
The term “protective pres-ence,” which means helping “students reach schools safely” in cooperation with EAPPI,” is referred to four times.The term “protective presence” does not appear in the document.
“Protective presence” is listed under “education” in UNICEF’s Summary of Program results.Enrollment numbers, life skills and citizenship education, vocational training, and other related activities are included in UNICEF’s Summary of program results.

 

APPENDIX III: UNCIEF’S NGO PARTNERS

NGO Name: Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCI-P)
Partnership Capacity: Working Group Member
Details:

  • Alleged ties to the PFLP terrorist organization: For example, Hashem Abu Maria, a DCI-P employee, was hailed by the PFLP as a “commander” after his death in 2014; board member Mahmoud Jiddah, reportedly a “PFLP member,” was imprisoned by Israel for 17 years for carrying out “grenade attacks” against Israeli civilians in Jerusalem in 1968 (see NGO Monitor’s report “The European-Funded NGO PFLP Network” for more examples).
  • Supports BDS campaigns against Israel and is an active participant in lobbying the UN, EU, and other international bodies to promote this agenda.
  • DCI-P’s claims in its “No Way to Treat a Child” report are self-incriminating. For example:
    • States that innocent Palestinian minors accused of involvement in violent crimes accept plea bargains, even if they are innocent. This occurs when DCIP staff lawyers ostensibly represent these minors in court. If true, this would be an ethical violation, if not malpractice.
    • Claims that Palestinian minors’ confessions were acquired through violence and torture. If true, DCI-P had a duty to report this to the proper authorities and raise it before the court to achieve a dismissal. Again, failure to do so would be an ethical violation, if not malpractice.
    • In 2013, the IDF Military Prosecution suggested, inter alia, to DCI-P lawyers be in-cluded on a list of attorneys with whom Palestinian minor suspects could consult. DCI-P refused to be part of this initiative.
  • Since 2015 in the US and August 2017 in Canada, DCI-P has led a lobbying campaign under the label of “No Way to Treat a Child.” This campaign calls on government officials “to use all available means to pressure the Israeli government to end the detention and abuse of Palestinian children” and will “continue until the occupation is ended.”

NGO Name: Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)
Partnership Capacity: Working Group Member
Details:

  • Raji Sourani, founder and director of PCHR, was “prohibited from leaving Palestine (sic) from 1977 to 1990.” A Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article states that Sourani served “a three-year sentence [1979-1982] imposed by an Israeli court which convicted him of membership in the illegal Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine…” Sourani was imprisoned an additional three times “in 1985 and 1986…” and held in administrative detention in 1988. From 1986 to 1987 he was “restricted from legal work for one year by an Israeli military decision issued by the Israeli Military Governor.” He was also denied a US entry visa in 2012. In February 2014, the PFLP organized a ceremony in Gaza honoring Sourani for winning the “Alternative Noble Prize”; Dr. Rabah Muhana, a member of the PFLP Political Bureau, delivered a speech at the prize ceremony.
  • A leader in anti-Israel lawfare campaigns and as such has tried to have Israelis arrested in the UK, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, and New Zealand. The group has also filed for punitive damages against Israeli officials and companies doing business with Israel in the US. All of PCHR’s cases have been dismissed in the preliminary stages.
  • PCHR ignores the existence of terrorism against Israeli civilians, and presents a distorted version of the conflict based only on the Palestinian narrative. For instance, during the wave of terrorism that began in October 2015, PCHR condemned Israel for “grave crimes” against “Palestinian civilians.” Referring to Israel’s killing of individuals who were in the midst of carrying out attacks against Israeli civilians, PCHR condemned “with the strongest terms the Israeli forces’ disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians.” In September 2017, PCHR described the killing of three Israeli guards by a Palestinian who was shot as “Israeli forces killed Nemer Mahmoud Jamal…when 4 Israeli Border Guard officers at the entrance to ‘Har Adar’ settlement opened fire at him. Moreover, three Israeli soldiers were killed and the fourth was wounded.”

NGO Name: World Vision
Partnership Capacity: Working Group Member
Details:

  • Promotes a highly politicized and biased agenda, placing sole blame for the continuation of the conflict on Israel and paying little attention to legitimate Israeli security concerns or Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians.
  • In 2016, the Manager of Operations for World Vision in Gaza, Mohammad El-Halabi, was arrested by Israeli authorities. He was accused of diverting approximately 60%, approximately $50 million, of the World Vision’s Gaza budget to Hamas for the construction of tunnels and other terrorist activity.

NGO Name: Al Mezan
Partnership Capacity: Working Group Member
Details:

  • Regularly describes Israel’s policies as “apartheid,” accuses Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and “war crimes,” promotes the “Nakba” narrative and refers to Israeli security measures as “collective punishment.”
  • Highly active in anti-Israel lawfare campaigns, exploiting courts and international legal bodies to seek arrest warrants against Israeli government officials, file lawsuits against companies and governments doing business with Israel, and lobby for cases against Israelis at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
  • Manal Tamimi, a Palestinian activist who frequently utilizes antisemitic and violent rhetoric and imagery on social media, was hailed as a “prominent human rights defender” in a 2016 joint NGO submission co-authored by Al Mezan. In September 2015, on Yom Kippur (a fast day and the holiest day of the year in the Jewish calendar), Tamimi tweeted, “Vampire zionist celebrating their Kebore day by drinking Palestinian bloods, yes our blood is pure & delicious but it will kill u at the end.”

NGO Name: B’Tselem
Partnership Capacity: Working Group Member
Details:

NGO Name: Save the Children
Partnership Capacity: Working Group Member
Details:

  • Save the Children runs a number of projects in Gaza and the West Bank, implementing “programs in the areas of education, economic opportunities and psychosocial health… humanitarian assistance, child protection and youth development.” Despite a humanitarian mandate, some of these programs include major political and partisan advocacy that fuels the conflict, echoing the Palestinian narrative of victimization.
  • In a 2013 report “Attacks on Education,” disproportionate emphasis is placed on the alleged challenges to child education in Gaza, with little mention of the obstacles Israeli children face as a result of illegal rocket attacks.
  • Much of the advocacy is unrelated to children or humanitarian issues. For example, Save the Children UK claims that “[p]rior to the Israeli occupation in 1967, Palestinian population of the Jordan Valley was estimated at between 200,000 and 320,000. Today, the population is approximately 56,000…” These figures originated with the politicized Palestinian NGO Ma’an Development Center, whose “data” change from report to report and without reference to external sources, and the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department. The 1967 numbers also appear to be greatly inflated. A leaked 2011 EU report on “Area C and Palestinian State Building,” used Save the Children-UK’s claims as evidence that “the Palestinian presence in Area C has continuously been undermined…by Israel as occupying power.”
  • During the 2014 Gaza war, published an emotionally manipulative full-page advertisement, in papers throughout the UK, of the names of Palestinian children who were killed and erasing the context of Palestinian attacks; a similar list of Israeli children was not produced.

NGO Name: Terre Des Homme – Suisse (TDH)
Partnership Capacity: Member of the working group
Details:

  • In August 2015, TDH Italy and TDH Switzerland were signatories to a petition calling on world leaders to “lift the blockade” and “stop this injustice” as “the blockade has been found to be in violation of international law and is collective punishment of all Palestinians in Gaza.”

NGO Name: EAPPI (Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel)
Partnership Capacity: Contributing partner
Details:

  • EAPPI, the World Council of Churches flagship project on the Israel and the conflict, has brought 1,800 volunteers to the West Bank to “witness life under occupation.” Despite marketing itself as a human rights and protection based activity, a significant portion of the emphasis is placed on political advocacy before, during, and after the program.
  • EAPPI participants are chosen by country-specific NGOs known as “national coordinators.” Upon completion of the program, the volunteers return to their home countries and churches where they engage in anti-Israel advocacy, including advocating for BDS campaigns in churches, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany, and other delegitimization strategies. The EAPPI “national coordinators” are also active in BDS and other delegitimization campaigns against Israel.
  • Endorses the Kairos Palestine document, which calls for BDS against Israel; denies the Jewish historical connection to Israel in theological terms; and rationalizes, justifies, and trivializes terrorism, calling it “legal resistance.”

NGO Name: Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT)
Partnership Capacity: Contributing partner
Details:

  • Founded by a coalition of church groups, sends teams to various conflict zones, including to the West Bank, to “promote peace and non-violence.” However, participants on CPT’s programs have little to no contact with Israeli society and many return to their home churches to advocate for BDS campaigns against Israel.
  • Sends “conflict resolution teams” (1-2 weeks) and “peacemaker teams” (longer-term) to the West Bank. CPT states that it “places violence-reduction teams in crisis situations and militarized areas around the world at the invitation of local peace and human rights workers.”
  • Rhetoric includes accusations of “apartheid,“ “ethnic cleansing,” “collective punishment,” and “colonization,” as well as supporting a Palestinian “right of return.”
  • CPT similarly endorses the Kairos Palestine document (see EAPPI above).

NGO Name: Addameer
Partnership Capacity: Project implementing partner
Details:

  • Addameer is a leader of campaigns in support of Palestinians prisoners convicted of security offenses, referring to them as “political prisoners” and altogether omitting the context of violence and terror.
  • Addameer is an official PFLP “affiliate” and a number of Addameer employees have con-firmed or alleged ties to the terrorist group. For example, Addameer’s chairperson and co-founder, Abdul-latif Ghaith, was banned by Israel from travelling internationally due to his alleged membership in the PFLP; he was also banned from entering the West Bank in 2011-2015. Khalida Jarrar, Addameer’s vice-chairperson, is a senior PFLP official. Jarrar was administratively detained on April 1, 2015 by Israeli security forces. On April 15, 2015 she was indicted for various offenses including active membership in a terrorist organization (the PFLP) and inciting violence through a call to kidnap Israeli soldiers to be used as “bargaining chips for the release of Palestinian prisoners.” Jarrar accepted a plea bargain and was reportedly convicted on “one count of belonging to an illegal organization and another of incitement” receiving a 15 month prison sentence with an additional 10 month suspended sentence. She was released from prison on June 3, 2016. According to Addameer, Jarrar was re-arrested in July 2017. In August 2017, Addameer petitioned the President of France for the release of its field researcher Salah Hamouri, who was arrested on August 23, 2017. Hamouri was previously arrested in 2005 for “attempting to assassinate Ovadia Yosef [former Israeli Chief Rabbi] …and for his involvement with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.”
  • Together with Al Mezan, Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), BADIL, and Palestinian Center for Democracy and Conflict Resolution (PCDCR), Addameer signed on a “Joint Call to Action: July 2014 – Month against the Apartheid Wall,” stating: “….it is time for a ‘legal intifada’, an intensified popular struggle and more boycotts, divestment and sanctions. It is time for accountability…. to overcome Israeli apartheid, colonialism and occupation. We ask you to expand and deepen the global BDS movement for justice…”

NGO Name: Wadi Hilweh Information Center
Partnership Capacity: Project implementing partner
Details:

  • According to its website, “Wadi Hilweh Information Center was established in 2009 and was named after the area where it is located. The center aims at revealing the facts and history of the village of Silwan. It also revealed the occupation’s violations in terms of its various institutions and settlement organizations in Silwan in particular and Jerusalem in general.”
  • The organization claims that Israel is “Judaizing” and “Hebraizing” Jerusalem, phrases that erase the Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem and suggest that the very presence of Jews is unacceptable.
  • Since November 2015, Wadi Hilweh has been listed as an implementing partner in numerous UNICEF Situation Reports.
  • Although the NGO’s mission statement does not indicate legal expertise, Wadi Hilweh is described as working with UNICEF to provide “legal assistance and counselling” to Palestinian minors “arrested and detained” by Israeli forces.
  • UNICEF also states that Wadi Hilweh was responsible for documenting “arrests of children,” as noted in a October-December 2016 Situation Report.

 

APPENDIX IV: UN COORDINATION STRUCTURES

UNOCHA-oPt Coordination Structure

Photo Source: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/coordination-structure

UN Child Protection Structure

Photo Source: http://www.mineaction.org/sites/default/files/documents/A%2059%20695.doc

 

APPENDIX V: NGO MONITOR COMMUNICATION WITH UNICEF-OPT

December 28, 2017

Dear Genevieve,

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday. We appreciate your taking the time to discuss these very important and complex issues even though the conversation at times can be difficult.

I wanted to follow up on several aspects of the meeting and have a few additional questions in order to help us understand and present the relevant issues clearly.

First, we are glad to hear that you are re-evaluating the definitions used by UNICEF-OPT in its reports and bulletins so that they meet those established by UNICEF International. As we discussed, and based on our analysis, most of the violations attributed to Israel in the earlier UNICEF-OPT documents do not meet the definitions specified in the UNICEF guidance materials and do not fall under the criteria as established by UNICEF International, the Secretary General, and/or the Security Council, regarding children in armed conflict. Clearly, it is important to ensure that universal definitions and criteria are applied consistently and without singling out actors for unique treatment. Any additional information that you can provide on revising the basis for UNICEF-OPT reporting would be useful.

Second, we see beginning efforts by UNICEF-OPT to engage with Palestinians on their abuse and exploitation of children in the conflict as a positive development. We are still concerned, however, that UNICEF-OPT utilizes an overly narrow and technical definition of “recruitment and use” so that violations by the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian armed groups are excluded from coverage in UNICEF-OPT reports and bulletins.

Although, as you mentioned, UNICEF-OPT has previously chosen not to report on Palestinian in-citement of children, we hope that based on your comments during the meeting, and the widespread evidence, that UNICEF-OPT now will immediately include this issue in its reports and documentation. On this point, we note the contrast between the evidence and the claims that the Working Group is unable to collect data in Gaza regarding recruitment and use of children by Palestinian armed groups. Several Working Group members and UN agencies, including UNICEF-OPT as well as UNRWA, have a presence in Gaza. Other UNICEF offices report on violations by Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, and in this context, the case of UNICEF-OPT in Gaza is therefore exceptional and highly problematic, given the ample documentary and primary source evidence available. We also do not understand why UNICEF-OPT does not collect such data regarding Palestinian violations in the West Bank (Area A in particular) where there are even fewer impediments on reporting than in Gaza. On this basis, and given your comments, the comprehensive inclusion of this aspect of UNICEF-OPT’s mandate in any future documentation would appear to be essential in any future reports and documentation. If we are wrong about this, we would like to know the reasons.

Third, we continue to have grave concerns regarding the composition and capacity of the Working Group. In particular, we note that many of the NGOs in the WG have no expertise in child protection, education, or welfare and appear to lack the capacity for credible contributions in investigating allegations. At the same time, most or all of the WG members are active in Palestinian political advocacy including lobbying the ICC, the UNHRC and other platforms. As we discussed, the impact of the NGO political agenda via the WG appears to be reflected in the substance as well as the language used in the highly problematic 2013 UNICEF-OPT report.

In addition, several of the Working Group members and implementing partners have links to the PFLP terrorist organization (as defined by most of UNICEF-OPTs donors, including the EU, Canada, and the US). Beyond UNICEF-OPT cooperation with these NGOs in its activities, we note that UNICEF-OPT also provides funding to these organizations. Are you able to provide guidance on UNICEF-OPT’s policy regarding terror-linked organizations? Were donor governments and institutions informed that terror-linked organizations were the recipients of their funding? And what are the red lines that would exclude an NGO from funding or participation in the WG?

Similarly, on the issue of UNICEF-OPT partners that are active in promoting antisemitism, at what point does the expression of this form of racism disqualify an organization from partnering with UNICEF-OPT, serving as a member of the Working Group, and/or receiving UNICEF-OPT funding?

As we are currently in the process of preparing our research for publication, we would appreciate a response by close of business, 2 January 2018.

We thank you again for taking the time to meet with us. We wish you success in your new position for the New Year and hope we can continue this important dialogue.

Kind regards,

Anne Herzberg

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

December 29, 2017

Dear Mr. Steinberg, Ms. Herzberg, Mr. Hirsch,

Thank you for coming to the UNICEF offices in Jerusalem to discuss your concerns about Palestinian NGOs and the work being done to prevent grave violations against children including when they come into contact with Israeli forces.

I appreciated our face to face conversation in the context of UNICEF’s ongoing efforts to improve the situation for children.

I took note of the discussion we had about the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, during which you asked about composition of the group and methods of verification. I explained the way in which the group was formed, how it collects data, verifies and analyses, in line with global guidance, best practices, and definitions as part of the Children and Armed Conflict Agenda which comes from the office of the SRSG CAAC and fully also applies to the Israel/State of Palestine context. I noted that UNICEF has contacted numerous additional Israeli human rights NGOs to explore their capacity and willingness to provide data for the CAAC reporting.

We discussed more specifically education related violations, noting that the definitions in this area have evolved since the adoption of SCR 1998 for which there was initially no guidance. The Working Group on CAAC in Israel/State of Palestine applies the global definitions for all its reporting to the SRSG CAAC and monitors additional issues of concern for children when it comes to accessing safe education which specific to the context. I also confirmed that the definition of “recruitment and use of children” is a global one, and that the Working Group aims to monitor all violations by all parties to the conflict, which at times means having to overcome challenges attributable to security and access.

We discussed the concerns we share about children being exposed to violence and the risk that children may be instrumentalized in various ways. As part of our Child Rights mandate, which is broader than the 6 grave violations of the CAAC framework, we do private and public advocacy regarding these issues and will continue to do so. One such important avenue will be the ongoing preparation of the first report on the CRC and the OPAC by the Palestinian Authority.

You asked questions about criteria for UNICEF’s selection of partnerships with civil society. I explained that those are guided by global policies and procedures. UNICEF has a clear policy that it does not fund support organizations which are listed as terrorist organizations by the United Nations and a vetting system in place to ensure that. Donors are aware of UNICEF’s procedures in this regard and our HQ maintains a global dialogue with donors on terrorism-related issues. Respect of and full adherence to the values of the UN Charter and international human rights are fundamental conditions for UNICEF to partner with any organization.

Finally, we discussed at length the concerns we have about ill-treatment of children in Israeli military detention. Based on testimony which comes from the children themselves and is collected by various partners and cross checked by us, we find that a proportion of children in military detention continue to face treatments that are not in line with the provisions of International Law, including the CRC. We continue pursuing efforts for a dialogue with relevant Israeli institutions as we believe it is in our mutual interest and that of children to end such violations.

Best regards,

Genevieve

 

APPENDIX VI: NGO MONITOR COMMUNICATION WITH UNICEF GOVERNMENT DONORS

NGO Monitor Relevant Correspondence with Global Affairs Canada

August 20, 2017

Dear Ms. Diane Jacovella,

According to UNICEF’s website, Canada provided UNICEF with $5,149,753 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza. NGO Monitor is preparing a report on UNICEF’s funding and NGO partners. Therefore, we would like to ask you the following questions:

  1. Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did Canada provide to UNICEF in 2015-2017?
  2. Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients of the funds?
  3. Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by Canada’s grants?
  4. Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by Canada’s grants?

We request that you submit your reply by September 4, 2017.

Thank you and best regards,

Becca Wertman
NGO Monitor | The Institute for NGO Research, R.A.
Deputy Editor

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 28, 2017

Dear Ms. Wertman,

Ms. Jacovella asked me to respond on her behalf. Please find project details regarding Canada’s work with UNICEF in the West Bank and Gaza for 2015-2017.

Project Title: Improving Access to Water Services in the West Bank and Providing Access to Improved Maternal and Child Health Services in Gaza

  • $6.3 million;
  • September 2015 – August 2016;
  • This project was implemented by UNICEF as part of the 2015 UN Humanitarian Programme Cycle;
  • Aimed to respond to water and sanitation needs of 3,450 beneficiaries in the West Bank and neonatal, paediatric, and maternal needs of 350,000 beneficiaries in Gaza;
  • Activities in the West Bank included rehabilitating simple water networks and cisterns, providing communities with water tanker deliveries, enhancing and increasing water storage capacity, and promoting good hygiene practices;
  • Activities in Gaza included training health professionals to deliver quality health services and providing neonatal, paediatric and maternal live-saving drugs, medical supplies, and basic medical equipment to emergency care services with a focus on neonatal units, rehabilitation centres, and mobile health teams.

It is our understanding that the $6.3M Canadian figure does not match the the USD $5.1 million reflected in the UNICEF data portal for two main reasons: 1) exchange rate differences between USD and CAD; and 2) the data provided in the portal is on allocations (i.e the administrative cost is not included).

This project also had a West Bank/Gaza component:

Project Title: Emergency Assistance – Education in Emergencies and Child Protection – UNICEF 2015

  • $10 million total, of which $1 million was allocated to the West Bank and Gaza;
  • April 2015 – March 2016;
  • In humanitarian emergencies, UNICEF provides emergency education programming for children and protection services for children and women. UNICEF treats children for severe acute malnutrition, provides access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities and basic healthcare. In humanitarian contexts, conflicts and indiscriminate attacks are endangering the lives and futures of many children;
  • With DFATD and other donors’ support, UNICEF responds to the education and protection needs of children in humanitarian crises;
  • Activities included: (1) providing protected temporary and transitional learning spaces; (2) providing learning and playing material; (3) providing counselling and psychological support; (4) training teachers in education in emergencies and in disaster risk reduction; (4) reinforcing/retrofitting schools in disaster-prone areas; and, (5) providing rapid establishment of effective leadership for education cluster coordination.

Best regards,

Lauren Webster
Director, Israel, West Bank and Gaza | Directrice, Israël, Cisjordanie et Gaza (ELA)
Europe and Middle East Branch | Direction générale de l’Europe et du Moyen-Orient (EGM)
Global Affairs Canada | Affaires mondiales Canada
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 29, 2017

Dear Ms. Webster,

Thank you so much for your prompt and in-depth reply – we appreciate it very much.
To follow up on the information provided, we would also like to know if the Canadian government did an evaluation of these programs, and if so, if these evaluations are publically available?

Thank you and best regards,

Becca Wertman
NGO Monitor | The Institute for NGO Research, R.A.
Deputy Editor

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 29, 2017

Hi again,

As per Treasury Board policies that dictate evaluations every five years, Global Affairs Canada did not conduct individual evaluations of these shorter term humanitarian assistance projects. However, in line with the same Treasury Board policy (that all ongoing programs of grants and contributions are evaluated every five years), these two humanitarian assistance projects would likely be evaluated as part of the larger evaluations planned for the West Bank and Gaza development program (in April 2020) and for international humanitarian assistance (in April 2018); see Annex 2 of the Rolling Five Year Evaluation Work Plan: http://international.gc.ca/gac-amc/publications/evaluation/workplans_lessons-lecons_plans_travail/dev-rfydewp-ptqcmed15.aspx?lang=eng#ann2. If you need details on the policy, it’s section 6.2.5 of the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation.

Although official evaluations were not conducted on these projects, Canadian officials maintain oversight by both reviewing reports on the projects and assessing results achieved.

Thank you,

Lauren

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 19, 2017

Hi Lauren,

I wanted to follow up with you on the second grant you mentioned with the Project Title: Emergency Assistance – Education in Emergencies and Child Protection – UNICEF 2015, under which $1 million was allocated to the West Bank and Gaza.

Our research has found that according to UNICEF’s documentation of the project, EAPPI was the implementing partners. Additionally, UNICEF’s list of activities under the project appear to differ than what is listed in your previous emails. Is this perhaps a different UNICEF project funded by Canada or indeed the same one?

Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter.

Best regards,

Becca

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 30, 2017

Hi Becca,

Apologies for the delay in replying.

Your message cited a UNICEF document relating to the project coded OPT-15/E/73798. Global Affairs Canada did not fund the project referenced in that document.

Rather, as indicated, Global Affairs Canada provided funding to UNICEF’s 2015 global appeal for “Emergency Assistance – Education in Emergencies and Child Protection”, which included a CAD $1 million allocation to activities in the West Bank and Gaza to support access to education and child protection.

These activities were implemented by UNICEF in partnership with the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel and the Christian Peacemaker Team. This is an example of a situation report that UNICEF has published in relation to those activities: https://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/UNICEF_State_of_Palestine_Situation_Report_10_Nov_2015.pdf

I trust that this response provides the clarification you were seeking.

Best regards,

Lauren

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Hi Lauren,

Thank you again for these details and clarification.

I am still a bit perplexed by the discrepencies in our research, and perhaps you might be able to further clarify:

The OPT-15/E/73798 grant indeed appears to be funded by Canada, according to OCHA’s portal:

https://fts.unocha.org/flows/129356?destination=countries/171/flows/2015%3Ff%255B0%255D%3DsourceOrganizationIdName%253A%25222928%253ACanada%252C%2520Government%2520of%2522

If you then look at the project sheet it notes that the project will be implemented by EAPPI:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/nm/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CAPProjectSheet_459_73798_2017917.pdf

Is it possible that this is the same project you are reffering to in the sheet you sent?:

https://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/UNICEF_State_of_Palestine_Situation_Report_10_Nov_2015.pdf

The “OPT-15/E/73798” project number is from OCHA’s portal so it is possible that is where the discrepency is coming from.

Thank you again for your time and help in clarifying this matter.

Best regards,

Becca

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Hi Becca,

Thank you for your patience. We’ve gone back to UNICEF and can offer a brief explanation:

As indicated, Global Affairs Canada provided a total of CAD $10 million to UNICEF’s 2015 global appeal for “Emergency Assistance – Education in Emergencies and Child Protection”.

Of that amount, UNICEF allocated $1 million for education and child protection activities in the West Bank and Gaza. This allocation is consistent with UNICEF’s approach to the distribution of funds contributed by donors to its global appeals, whereby UNICEF allocates funding in line with its identification of humanitarian priorities.

Global Affairs Canada had tracked the $10 million amount as a single project with multiple geographic locations, whereas UNICEF was also tracking the $1 million allocation under a separate project code (as indicated on OCHA’s portal).

As per UNICEF’s reporting, the activities funded through the $1 million allocation were implemented by UNICEF in partnership with the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel and the Christian Peacemaker Team.

Have a good Thanksgiving,

Lauren

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

December 18, 2017

Hi Lauren,

I hope this email finds you well!

I wanted to follow up with you about the grant to UNICEF “Emergency Assistance – Education in Emergencies and Child Protection – UNICEF 2015.”

1. Did UNICEF provide GAC with the list of the specific activities you referenced in your email on August 28 (listed here for convenience) or were they prepared by GAC?

“(1) providing protected temporary and transitional learning spaces; (2) providing learning and playing material; (3) providing counselling and psychological support; (4) training teachers in education in emergencies and in disaster risk reduction; (4) reinforcing/retrofitting schools in disaster-prone areas; and, (5) providing rapid establishment of effective leadership for education cluster coordination.”

2. Did GAC see the appeal prepared by UNICEF oPt prior to funding the grant?

Thank you very much, and I look forward to seeing you in February.

Best regards,

Becca

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

December 21, 2017

Hi Becca,

I can offer some further clarification regarding the process applied by Global Affairs Canada to administer the funding in question.

The Government of Canada’s humanitarian assistance programming aims to save lives and alleviate human suffering by addressing the most urgent needs of crisis-affected people. Canada’s humanitarian programming decisions are made on the basis of need and make no distinctions on the basis of nationality, race, gender, religious belief, class or political opinion. Our partners provide humanitarian assistance in accordance with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.

Canadian officials are aware of the various appeals included in the annual humanitarian appeals process coordinated by the United Nations. Canada’s grant for “Emergency Assistance – Education in Emergencies and Child Protection – UNICEF 2015” was made in response to the needs outlined in UNICEF’s 2015 Humanitarian Action for Children Appeal.

As per the information I previously shared, this grant was allocated to several countries, on the basis of need, for a range of child protection activities. The description I provided was based on the activities agreed between Global Affairs Canada and UNICEF for this grant. A non-exhaustive list of possible interventions includes: (1) providing protected temporary and transitional learning spaces; (2) providing learning and playing material; (3) providing counselling and psychological support; (4) training teachers in education in emergencies and in disaster risk reduction; (4) reinforcing/retrofitting schools in disaster-prone areas; and, (5) providing rapid establishment of effective leadership for education cluster coordination.

According to our assessment, Canadian funding was used for its intended purposes. With Canada’s support, UNICEF provided child protection and psychosocial support services to over 85,880 children and adolescents in the West Bank and Gaza. In addition, UNICEF supported 23 community-based family centres and government-led protection networks, reaching 71,490 children and caregivers through protection services.

Best wishes for the holiday season,

Lauren

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

NGO Monitor Relevant Correspondence with US Department of State

August 14, 2017

Dear Ms. Jacobson,

NGO Monitor is an independent, non-partisan, Jerusalem-based research institute that analyzes the activities, publications, and funding of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict. NGO Monitor’s mandate is to provide objective, source-based information and analysis, as well as to promote accountability and transparency among NGOs and their funders.

According to the UNICEF website, The United States provided UNICEF with $10,595,105 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza.

In the context of preparing a report on UNICEF’s funding and NGO partners, we kindly ask the following questions:

  1. Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did the US provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?
  2. Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients of these funds?
  3. Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by grants from the US?
  4. Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by grants from the US?

We request that you submit your reply by August 24, 2017.

Sincerely,

Yona

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 23, 2017

Mr. Schiffmiller,

After looking into your request, my colleague Josiah Williams from USAID will respond to you directly.

Thank you.
Best,

Megan
Megan Mattson Lopez
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Office of Public Affairs, Planning & Coordination (IO/PPC)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 4, 2017

Dear Josiah,

I hope that all is well.

Can you help provide answers to the following questions that I asked the State Department?

According to the UNICEF website, The United States provided UNICEF with $10,595,105 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza.

In the context of preparing a report on UNICEF’s funding and NGO partners, we kindly ask the following questions:

  1. Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did the US provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?
  2. Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients of these funds?
  3. Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by grants from the US?
  4. Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by grants from the US?

All the best,

Yona

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 29, 2017

Dear Mr. Schiffmiller,

Thank you for your recent inquiry into USAID’s work with UNICEF in Gaza. Please find our responses to your questions below:

(1) Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did the US provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?

  • The total amount of the UNICEF grant is $11,442,755.

(2) Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients of these funds?

  • UNICEF is the only recipient of this grant. The below listed organizations are UNICEF partners in the implementation of the program:
    • Palestinian Water Authority (PWA)
    • Coastal Municipalities Water Utilities (CMWU)
    • MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
    • Action Contre La Faim – Spain (ACF). ACF partnered with local community based organizations (CBO’s) to implement one component of the program which is to “support to household water storage and sanitation facilities.”

(3) Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by grants from the US?

  • No publications were funded under the program.

(4) Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by grants from the US?

  • The below activities were implemented under the program. UNICEF subcontracted local Palestinian contractors to construct the activities.
    • Rehabilitation of water networks in different areas of Khan Younis.
    • Rehabilitation of water networks household connections at the eastern villages.
    • Installation of new main water line in Rafah.
    • Rehabilitation of distribution water network in Nusairat.
    • Providing a photovoltaic-power electrodialysis reversal prototype unit.
    • Rehabilitation and upgrading of wastewater networks at Al Nusairat, Khan Younis, Zewayda and Rafah.
    • Separation between stormwater and wastewater networks at Al Junaina in Rafah and Al Amal in Khan Younis.
    • Reconstruction and maintenance of three damaged water wells in Deir Al Balah, Maghazi and Khan Younis.
    • Construction of Al Zahra wastewater pumping station.
    • Construction of storm water collection line, detention basin and pressure line effluent pipeline in Rafah.
    • Supply and installation of domestic roof water storage and potable tanks in different areas.
    • Rehabilitation of household water and sanitation facilities in different areas.
    • Procurement and distribution of hygiene kits.

Thanks and best regards.

Josiah

Josiah Williams
Desk Officer, West Bank and Gaza
USAID Middle East Bureau

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

NGO Monitor Correspondence with the Swiss Embassy to Israel

Dear Sir / Madam

According to the UNICEF website, Switzerland provided UNICEF with $137,789 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza.

NGO Monitor is preparing a report on UNICEF’s funding and NGO partners. Therefore, we have the following questions for you:

  1. Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did Swit-zerland provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?
  2. Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients for the funds?
  3. Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by Switzerland’s grants?
  4. Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by Switzerland’s grants?

Sincerely,

Shaun Sacks
Europe Desk
NGO Monitor

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 23, 2017

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email dated August 20, 2017. The Embassy of Switzerland is happy to provide the following answers to your questions:

The amounts indicated on the UNICEF website are accurate.

The child protection project is in its inception phase. National and international NGOs will be selected. The selection process will be guided by the 2015 UNICEF procedures to work with civil society organizations.

“Rapid appraisal of children in conflict with the law for security reasons in East Jerusalem” (2016).

A list of SDC’s projects and activities can be found on the SDC webpage:

https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/countries/besetztes-palaestinensisches-gebiet.html.

Best regards,

Embassy of Switzerland

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

NGO Monitor Correspondence with the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)

August 9, 2017

Dear Sir / Madam

According to the UNICEF website, Sweden provided UNICEF with $104,841 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza. NGO Monitor is preparing a report on UNICEF’s funding and NGO partners. Therefore, we have the following questions for you:

  • Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did Sweden provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?
  • Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients for the funds?
  • Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by Sweden’s grants?
  • Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by Sweden’s grants?

We request that you submit your reply by August 24, 2017.

Sincerely,

Shaun Sacks
Europe Desk
NGO Monitor

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 29, 2017

Dear Sir,

According to our records, Sida has not made any disbursements to UNICEF in Palestine during the concerned time period.

Sincerely,

Sida archive
VERKSTOD/DAR Telephone: + 46 8 698 50 00 (vxl)
Department of Operational Support E-mail: arkiv@sida.se
Document, Administration and Resource Unit Web: www.sida.se
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
SE-105 25 Stockholm, Sweden

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 19, 2017

Dear Sir / Madam

In your response (dated August 29) to our inquiry regarding Swedish funding for UNICEF, you wrote, “Sida has not made any disbursements to UNICEF in Palestine during the concerned time period.”

In contrast, the UNICEF website lists a total of $102,932 received from Sweden in 2015, earmarked for programs in the West Bank and Gaza.

We also note that according to the Swedish government openaid.se website, SIDA provided UNICEF GLOBAL CHILD PROTECTION with $7,118,029 from 2014 until 2019.

(Activity identifier SE-0-SE-6-6105008301-GGG-15160)

Can you explain the apparent discrepancy between your response and the official figures provided by UNICEF?

Are you able to identify which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies, are recipients of Swedish funds from the abovementioned UNICEF project?

Sincerely,

Shaun Sacks

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 21, 2017

Dear Sirs,

As was informed in our previous reply, Sida has not disbursed any funds to UNICEF in Palestine during the period in question. Our global support to UNICEF’s thematic fund for Child Protection is an unearmarked support that can be used freely by UNICEF in accordance with their needs and funding gaps at country and regional level. They are not requested by Sida to report to which countries and programs/projects the funds are allocated but report back on an aggregated level for the whole fund. To know whether an Swedish global contribution have been allocated to UNICEF’s country program in Palestine, we recommend that UNICEF be contacted for further information.

Best regards,

Arkivarie
VERKSTOD/DAR
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
SE-105 25 Stockholm, Sweden

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

NGO Monitor Correspondence with the Government of the Netherlands

NGO Monitor submitted the following freedom of information request to the Dutch government on August 9, 2017:

Dear Sir / Madam,

According to the UNICEF website, the Netherlands provided UNICEF with $3,871,173 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza.

NGO Monitor is preparing a report on UNICEF’s funding and NGO partners. Therefore, we have the following questions for you:

  1. Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did The Netherlands provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?
  2. Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients for the funds?
  3. Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by The Netherlands’s grants?
  4. Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by The Netherlands’s grants?

We request that you submit your reply by August 24, 2017.

Sincerely,

Shaun Sacks
Europe Desk
NGO Monitor

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 9, 2017

Thank you for your e-mail.

Depending on the nature and content of your message you can expect a reply within two working days.

Your reference is E3410202

Kind regards,

Public Information Service, Government of the Netherlands

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 9, 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your reference is E3410202

Unfortunately, we do not have enough information to answer your question.

We have forwarded your question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (BUZA). This Ministry has thorough information on the rules and guidelines for this subject.

Kind regards,

Public Information Service, Government of the Netherlands

f) NGO Monitor Correspondence with the British Department for International Development

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

August 9, 2017

Dear Sir / Madam

According to the UNICEF website, The United Kingdom provided UNICEF with $593,897 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza.

NGO Monitor is preparing a report on UNICEF’s funding and NGO partners. Therefore, we have the following questions for you:

  1. Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did The United Kingdom provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?
  2. Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients for the funds?
  3. Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by The United Kingdom’s grants?
  4. Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by The United Kingdom’s grants?

We request that you submit your reply by August 24, 2017.

Sincerely,

Shaun Sacks
Europe Desk
NGO Monitor

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 7, 2017

Dear Mr Sacks,

Freedom of Information Request F2017-295
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 9th August 2017 in which you asked for information in relation to the following UK funding for work in the West Bank and Gaza:

‘According to the UNICEF website, The United Kingdom provided UNICEF with $593,897 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza.”

I have set out our response to each part of your request below:

(1) Are the amounts indicated on the UNICEF website accurate? If not, how much did The United Kingdom provide UNICEF in 2015-2017?

This part of your request does not fall under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it seeks an opinion from DFID rather than recorded information.

(2) Which organizations, including international and non-governmental bodies that function as “implementing partners” on UNICEF projects, are recipients for the funds?

‘Juzoor for Health and Social Development’ were recipients of UNICEF funds.

(3) Which publications, whether from UNICEF or its partners, were funded by The United Kingdom’s grants?

  • UNICEF/WFP Return on Investment for Emergency Preparedness Study
  • Emergency Preparedness: Return of Investment Model, Methodology

(4) Which activities, whether by UNICEF or its partners, were funded by The United Kingdom’s grants?’

  • Equipping of emergency shelters for internally displaced persons;
  • Provision of breastfeeding supplies and equipment including breastmilk pumps, cushions, breastfeeding privacy screen, simple S-shaped chairs and blankets;
  • Logistic support to establish emergency hot line for post-natal and breastfeeding counselling;
  • Preparedness workshops for UNICEF staff, schools, and first aid training to health and education professionals;
  • Update to contingency plan for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector stakeholders in Gaza;
  • Conducted community vulnerability assessment;
  • Conducted trainings for social workers and NGOs on the functions of the Gov-ernment Collective Centre Protection Teams;
  • Provided technical assistance to Palestinian Water Authority to strengthen WASH contingency planning and emergency preparedness;
  • Supported breastfeeding counselling and communicable disease awareness for NGOs and community leaders;
    Production of materials for first aid kit, breastfeeding and communicable diseases awareness.

Please contact me, quoting reference number F2017-295, if you have any questions about this letter.

If you are unhappy with the service we have provided and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to the Information Rights Team at the address shown in the footnote below or email foi@dfid.gov.uk within two months of the date of this letter.

If you do make a complaint and are not content with the outcome, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted DFID’s complaints procedure. You can contact the Information Commissioner at the following address:

The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Mark Herbert
Information Rights Team
Department for International Development

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

September 13, 2017

Dear Mr Herbert

We are reformulating the first question. Thank you in advance for a prompt reply:

Question: Did the UK provide UNICEF with $593,897 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza?

If not, how much did the UK provide UNICEF in 2015-2107 for work in these areas?

Sincerely

Shaun Sacks
Europe Desk
NGO Monitor

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

October 11, 2017

Dear Mr Sacks,

Freedom of Information Request F2017-327
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 13 September 2017 in which you asked for the following information:

Did the UK provide UNICEF with $593,897 in 2015-2017 for work in the West Bank and Gaza?
If not, how much did the UK provide UNICEF in 2015-2107 for work in these areas?

The Department for International Development (DFID) holds information relevant to your request.

In financial years 2015/16 and 2016/17 DFID provided a total of $450,000 to UNICEF for work in the West Bank and Gaza as part of our programme ‘Strengthening Humanitarian Preparedness for Effective Response’.

Please note that variations between UNICEF and DFID figures reflect the different financial reporting periods.

Please contact me, quoting reference number F2017-327 if you have any questions about this letter.

If you are unhappy with the service we have provided and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to the Information Rights Team at the address shown in the footnote below or email foi@dfid.gov.uk within two months of the date of this letter.

If you do make a complaint and are not content with the outcome, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted DFID’s complaints procedure. You can contact the Information Commissioner at the following address: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Caroline Weintz
Information Rights Team
Department for International Development

 

APPENDIX VII: UN MAPS

UNICEF Middle East and North Africa: “Where we work”

Photo Source: https://www.unicef.org/mena/7321.html

 

Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict: “Countries Where Children are Affected by Armed Conflict”

Photo Source: https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/countries-caac/