Yes, the funding that Canada has provided to UNICEF's humanitarian response to COVID has actually been particularly flexible compared with that of other donors. Unfortunately, what we're seeing is that many humanitarian donors are increasingly tightly earmarking their funds; thus restricting where that funding goes within humanitarian response. Canada is actually one government that has demonstrated a very strong commitment to good donor humanitarian principles in that regard.
I will give you a couple of illustrations of where Canadian funding has made a difference and Canadian flexibility in funding has made a difference. I was looking, for example, to our team in Côte d'Ivoire, who were very proud to tell me that due to Canadian funding and the flexibility that was provided, the team in Côte d'Ivoire—when schools closed down because of a lockdown in that country—was able to reorient our education program and design and launch, in two weeks, the country's first-ever national education program delivered through radio. That's just one example.
In the Middle East, there was a top-up of funding for the Syrian refugee response, and that was also flexible. In fact, across the Middle East the flexibility of the funding allowed us, for example, in Jordan to respond to larger COVID outbreaks in equipping the Ministry of Health with 40 ventilators for both pediatric and adult use. And in Lebanon it helped with establishing a risk communications network across all Lebanese municipalities. That would be working directly with front-line workers, non-health service providers, health educators, and representatives of the private sector across the country, as well as youth groups to train them on how to prevent COVID and support their communities in how to mitigate risks. Those are just two examples.
This flexibility from Canada really allowed us to determine, at the global level, which countries were most in need of support when there were gaps geographically, but also where there were gaps thematically. For example, there are often life-saving areas that are considered more eligible for humanitarian assistance—often things like health and nutrition and water and sanitation. At times, areas like protection, as mentioned by Save the Children, and in particular gender-based violence, tend to be underfunded in humanitarian responses. Having flexibility of funding from a country like Canada allows us to target those areas that tend to be underfunded.