Emergency Response Fund Myanmar - UNOCHA · Emergency Response Fund – Myanmar Annual Report 2013...

Emergency Response Fund Myanmar

Photo Credit: OCHA

Annual Report 2013 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Emergency Response Fund – Myanmar Annual Report 2013

Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator

The Emergency Response Fund for Myanmar, formerly known as the Humanitarian Multi-Stakeholder Fund, provides me, as Humanitarian Coordinator, with a rapid and flexible funding instrument to respond to small scale emergencies and gaps in the core humanitarian response with timely assistance for the people in need.

During 2013, the ERF provided $1.8 million to five projects to cover critical gaps in the humanitarian response that were not being addressed by other donors. For example, although the disposal of waste from overflowing latrines in Sittwe IDP camps had been highlighted by the WASH cluster as essential to preventing the spread of disease, no project to dispose of the excreta had received donor funding. To fill this gap, the ERF provided $472,000 to launch a response, and as a result more than 30 per cent of the latrines in Sittwe camps had been emptied and the waste treated by the end of 2013.

To ensure that the ERF has the resources necessary to continue to address this kind of urgent un-met humanitarian need, the Fund should be expanded with additional donor support in 2014.

In addition to providing timely humanitarian response, the ERF has built partnerships with civil society and increased capacity of local and community organisations through planning and implementing humanitarian projects. Much of the improved timeliness in the response provided by the ERF can be attributed to the greater participation and involvement of the clusters in the selection and recommendation of projects to be funded.

Myanmar NGOs are often the only organisations which provide assistance directly to the people in need, especially in isolated or “hard to reach” areas. Despite this fact, few donors fund the national

NGOs directly. Because these local NGOs are often the most cost effective, I will continue to support the Fund’s strategy to prioritise local NGOs for direct implementation of ERF projects whenever possible.

Looking ahead to 2014, I expect the ERF to grow in size, including the number of projects funded, level of funding provided, and the number of people reached with humanitarian assistance. The ERF will continue implementation of the reforms introduced during 2013, such as the strengthening of the governance mechanisms and needs-based prioritization of projects, and take steps to develop a risk management framework to increase the transparency and accountability of the Fund.

I take this opportunity to extend my sincere appreciation for the generous support provided by Australia, Sweden and the United Kingdom to the Emergency Response Fund since 2007. Both the recipients of humanitarian assistance and our implementing partners benefit greatly from their cooperation and confidence. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all humanitarian partners for their engagement and continued support. It has been possible to address urgent humanitarian needs of the people in Myanmar due to the joint efforts and commitment of all the stakeholders of the Myanmar Emergency Response Fund.

Renata Lok-Dessallien Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator

Cover photos: Several residents of IDP camps in Sittwe, Rakhine State, including a Rakhine family (top) and Muslim children (bottom). (OCHA)


Table of Contents

NOTE FROM THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................1

HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................2

COUNTRY MAP .......................................................................................................................................................3

INFORMATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS ...................................................................................................................4

FUND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................5

RESULTS OF ERF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED DURING 2013 ........................................................................................6 OVERVIEW OF THE EDUCATION SECTOR ...................................................................................................................6 OVERVIEW OF THE HEALTH SECTOR .........................................................................................................................8 OVERVIEW OF THE LIVELIHOODS (EARLY RECOVERY) SECTOR ..................................................................................9 OVERVIEW OF THE NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFI) SECTOR .............................................................................................. 10 OVERVIEW OF THE WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH) SECTOR ............................................................... 10

PROJECT MONITORING ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MAINSTREAMING GENDER CONSIDERATION ................................................................................................ 13

RISK MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 14

ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15

ANNEX I: GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................... 18

ANNEX II: ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERSHIP (AS AT END 2013) .................................................................. 19 ANNEX III: PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2013 ........................................................................................................... 20

ANNEX IV: PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED DURING 2013 .................................................................................... 21


Page 1

Executive Summary

The Myanmar Emergency Response Fund (ERF) continues to play an important role in providing essential humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people affected by conflict in Myanmar. During 2013, the ERF received US$762,079 in new contributions and allocated $1.78 million to five projects to cover critical gaps in the overall humanitarian response in Kachin and Rakhine States. The total number of beneficiaries from ERF-funded projects implemented during 2013 was approximately 116,000.

The ERF has become an important tool of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) to provide urgent response to unmet humanitarian needs. Myanmar remains vulnerable to a wide range of crises, both natural and man-made which cause large-scale human suffering, including the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Inter-communal violence in Rakhine State in 2012 resulted in the displacement of 140,000 people across Rakhine, and additional needs of other conflicted affected people. In Kachin, the conflict between armed groups and the Myanmar Government has resulted in the continued displacement of approximately 100,000 IDPs in camps or with host families.

Donor support for the ERF

Between 2007 and 2013, the ERF received $7.9 million in contributions from three donors: Australia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Largely due to the Fund’s low profile, the ERF has not received additional consistent or predictable donor support during these years.

In 2013, the ERF received one contribution of $762,079 from Sweden. All allocations made to projects during the year came from the $2.2 million carried over from 2012. To remain a viable ERF, earlier, more consistent, and broad-based donor support is required. To provide such support, the United Kingdom has committed multi-year funding for the ERF starting in 2014. During the coming year, the HC will lead efforts to identify new donors and mobilise additional resources.

2013 ERF Projects

The Myanmar ERF funded five new projects across four sectors during 2013, with a total cost of $1.78 million. Because of the active engagement of the

WASH sector and Education sector coordinators, the majority of proposals received and 81 per cent of funding allocated was to these two sectors. Activities in the Livelihoods and NFI sectors were also supported during 2013. Of the five projects approved in 2013, two projects were for Kachin and three for Rakhine.

The programmatic results shown in this 2013 ERF annual report come from five projects which were implemented during 2013, which are not all of the same projects that were funded during 2013. One project which was funded at the end of 2012 was implemented only in 2013, and one project funded at the end of 2013 will be implemented only in 2014. The total cost of the five projects reporting the results included in this report was $2.0 million.

The HMSF becomes an ERF

In 2007, the HC established a small fund to provide assistance to vulnerable people living in the “hard to reach” areas outside of Government control. This Fund, known as the Humanitarian Multi-Stakeholder Fund (HMSF), was one of the only channels that provided assistance to these isolated populations, as UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were not able to access these “hard to reach” areas.

Due to the politically sensitive operational environment, the HMSF remained small, funding only five projects during the first four years of the Fund's existence.

In 2013, the HMSF expanded to Rakhine, and began to fund more "traditional" ERF-type emergency humanitarian assistance projects, in areas that were not "hard to reach." To formalise this change and to align the Fund with the Global ERF Guidelines, the HC and the Advisory Board adopted significant reforms to the Fund’s governance and strategic direction, and re-launched the Fund as the Myanmar ERF. Reforms included the drafting of a Fund Strategy paper, the establishment of a Review Board, and the introduction of field monitoring of projects.

The establishment of a proposal Review Board (RB) has increased transparency of project selection, and ensures that funded projects correspond with the HC’s priorities, as described in the Fund Strategy


Page 2

paper. Prospective partners develop project proposals in in collaboration with the relevant sector coordinator. After a screening by the OCHA Humanitarian Financing Unit, the proposal is submitted to the RB for discussion and funding recommendation.

The OCHA CO conducted field monitoring visits to four of the five projects implemented during the year. These site visits represented the first field monitoring of projects since the establishment of the Fund. Under the field monitoring plan, OCHA CO will aim to conduct at least one site visit to each project during the project’s implementation.

Plans for 2014

During 2014, OCHA will enhance the technical aspects of field monitoring through the engagement of sector coordinators. In addition, projects will be assessed for the degree of gender sensitivity that has been integrated into project implementation.

To encourage more local Myanmar NGOs to apply for ERF support, the revised Global ERF Guidelines will be translated into Myanmar. Finally, a resource mobilization strategy and risk management framework will be drafted and adopted, and the monitoring and reporting framework will be updated.

Humanitarian Context Myanmar is vulnerable to a wide range of crises, both natural and man-made, which cause large-scale human suffering. Natural disasters, including cyclones, floods, earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis remain a constant threat, with seven major disasters occurring between 2008 and 2013. Continued internal conflict and inter-communal violence have caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people in Rakhine, Kachin, and the southeast states of the country 2013 Response Plans: Targeted population

Category Target Population Rakhine Total 176,000

IDPs 140,000 Isolated communities 36,000

Kachin Total 120,000 IDPs 100,000 Host families 20,000

Total Targeted during 2013 296,000

Inter-communal violence in Rakhine State in 2012 resulted in the displacement of 140,000 people across Rakhine, as identified in the 2013 revision of the Rakhine Response Plan. Throughout 2013, the majority of these internally displaced people (IDPs) remained in camps, some of which are in flood prone areas, or are staying in host communities. At least 36,000 additional people live in villages which have been isolated by the conflict, restricting their freedom of movement. The conflict-affected people have limited access to livelihoods and basic services, and require continued humanitarian assistance to survive.

In Kachin and northern Shan States in north-eastern Myanmar, the conflict between the Kachin Independence Army and the Union Government has resulted in the continued displacement of approximately 100,000 IDPs in camps or with host families, as identified in the 2013 Kachin Response Plan. Of the IDP population, an estimated 50,000 people live in areas beyond Government control in Kachin and northern Shan States. An estimated 20,000 additional people who host the displaced population have exhausted their resources and are increasingly stretched to continue to support the displaced. As the conflict continues unresolved, many of the people have been displaced for two years, and new displacements continue to occur. The long-term displaced now have renewed and additional needs of basic services, livelihood support and protection. To date, there have not been significant numbers of people returning to their homes because of landmine contamination and continued conflict.

In eastern Myanmar, along the border with Thailand, from central Shan State to the Tanintharyi Region, decades of unresolved conflict have left up to 400,000 people displaced in large areas which are outside of government control. The years of conflict have resulted in chronic poverty and under-investment in health and education services. Because of difficulty in accessing the affected areas by international organisations and UN agencies, comprehensive profiling of the displaced and assessment of the humanitarian needs remain to be carried out.


Page 3

Country Map


Page 4

Information on Contributions In 2013, the Myanmar ERF received $762,079 in contributions from only one donor. The $1.8 million in projects funded during the year was largely financed from the more than $2.2 million carried over from 2012 and prior years.

Since the ERF was created in 2007, it has been supported by three donors: Australia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In total, these donors have provided $7,875,647.

For the first 11 months of 2013, the only resources available to be allocated were from the $2,226,202 of funding carried over from 2012 and prior years. Eighty per cent of this carry-over was allocated to four projects by July 2013. The remaining balance was reserved to enable an urgent response should it be necessary. In December 2013, Sweden provided SEK 5 million ($762,079) to the ERF.

During May 2013, the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) announced its intention to provide GBP 1.5 million ($2.5 million) over three years to the ERF. Prior to entering into a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with OCHA, DFID conducted a "due diligence" assessment of the Myanmar ERF and OCHA's organisational capacity. OCHA Myanmar successfully completed the DFID assessment, but the MOU was not finalised until March 2014. DFID's multi-year commitment will be provided during 2014 and 2015.

Additional donor outreach during 2014 is required to expand the donor base of the Myanmar ERF. The ERF depends on the continuity of funding in order to serve as a reliable and efficient humanitarian funding tool in emergencies.

Annual donor contributions since the Fund's inception (2007 to 2013)

Donor Contributions received in US$

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL Australia 1,047,200 1,047,200

Sweden (Sida) 1,563,540 2,199,674 762,079 4,525,293

United Kingdom (DFID) 801,603 1,086,957 414,594 2,303,154

Total 801,603 1,086,957 1,978,134 - 2,199,674 1,047,200 762,079 7,875,647


Page 5

Fund Overview

ERF funds available During 2013, the ERF had $3.0 million in funding available to be allocated to new projects. While the ERF received only one new donor contribution of $762,079 in 2013, the Fund carried over $2.2 million of funding from 2012.

Requested for 2013 (US$)

Carry over from 2012 (US$)

Amount received in 2013 (US$)

Total available in 2013 (US$)

5 million 2,226,202 762,079 2,988,281

ERF funds allocated to projects The ERF allocated $1.8 million to five projects during 2013, averaging $356,115 per project. Because the ERF Advisory Board has limited ERF funding eligibility to NGOs (and Red Cross movement), 100 per cent of the funding was provided to NGOs. Four of the five projects were implemented by international NGOs, and only one project, representing 17 per cent of the annual allocation, was provided to a national NGO.

Partner Type Number of Projects Funds allocated (US$) % allocated UN Agencies 0 0 0% International NGOs 4 1,474,373 83% National NGOs 1 306,202 17% Total 5 1,780,575 100% Of the $1.8 million allocated by the ERF during 2013, $1.7 million was allocated to four projects which provided emergency response to identified humanitarian needs in Myanmar. One innovative project in Kachin provided an emergency WASH response to expected displacement in an area of ongoing conflict. This early action project was designed to provide emergency potable water and sanitation to the expected continued displacement of people in southern Kachin. Project Type Number of Projects Funds allocated (US$) % allocated Emergency response 4 1,701,630 96% Preparedness 0 0 0% Early Action 1 78,945 4% Total 5 1,780,575 100%


Page 6

Results of ERF Projects implemented during 2013 The 2013 results presented in this section are from the five projects that were implemented during 2013, but not necessarily funded during the year. The total value of the five projects which were implemented during the year is $2.0 million. The value is different from the $1.8 million that was allocated to projects during 2013 as it includes a project that was funded during December 2012 and continued implementation during 2013. In addition, a project that was funded at the end of December 2013, which will be implemented only in 2014, is not included in these results. Of the five projects showing results, four were implemented by international NGOs and one by a national NGO. The four international NGOs worked with camp management committees and community associations, but did not provide funding through local NGOs because of the limited number of local NGOs that are operational in Rakhine State. The following table shows the level of funding allocated to each sector through the five projects that were implemented during 2013. Three of these five projects were multi-sector, impacting more than one sector.

Sector Funds allocated (US$) % allocated

Education 619,322 31% Health 95,795 5% Livelihoods (of Early Recovery) 154,411 8% NFI 206,921 10% WASH 940,920 47% Total 2,017,370 100%

Overview of the Education Sector

No. of projects with an Education component Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area

3 projects

619,322

31% of all ERF funds allocated

Adventist Development and Relief Agency International (ADRA), Karuna Myanmar Social Services (KMSS), Save the Children Fund (SCF)

Kayin State: Hpapun Township Kachin State: Bhamo, Mansi, Momauk, Shwegu Townships Rakhine State: Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries (targeted and reached):

o Targeted: 10,377 people, including IDP and non-IDP children, teachers, and parents o Reached: 7,494 people (target has not yet been reached because the SCF education project will continue to be

implemented for nine months during 2014)

■ Beneficiary data disaggregated by sex and age: Girls: 3,550; Boys: 3,760, Women: 85, Men: 99

■ Project results:

o Construction or renovation of 11 Temporary Learning Spaces (TLS) and three Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) centres: In Rakhine, nine of a planned 16 TLS have been newly constructed in IDP camps (project on-going)


Page 7

In Kachin, two TLS were expanded and reinforced in IDP camps, two ECCD centres were renovated, and one ECCD was newly constructed, providing a safer learning environment for children.

o School learning materials and NFIs distributed to 7,310 students and 97 teachers: In Rakhine, 2,631 primary school students living in IDP camps have received education kits, including pens,

pencils, exercise books, school bags, rain coats/umbrellas. In addition, 27 teachers received teaching materials.

In Kachin, 3,079 displaced pre-school, primary and secondary students were provided with school supplies, including containing text books, exercise books, pen, pencils, and rulers. The remaining students received educational support from other projects not funded by the ERF.

In Kayin, 1,600 students each received a student kit which included plastic slippers, back pack, school uniform, stationary, raincoat, and an umbrella. In addition, 70 teachers each were provided with a teaching kit including basic teaching materials.

o 844 desks and benches provided to schools and temporary learning spaces to support 4,348 students In Kachin, 484 desks and benches were provided to the schools and TLS in IDP camps supporting 1,717 IDP

children. In Rakhine, 360 desks and benches were distributed to the newly established TLS in 9 camps and host

communities supporting 2,631 children. o 27 volunteer primary school teachers recruited and basically trained from within the IDP population of IDP camps in

Rakhine. o Six Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) established in Rakhine with a total of 87 members (15 female and 72 male).

PTA members received a two-day training on education and child rights, and the roles and responsibilities of PTA in emergency education.

■ ERF’s added value to the response:

o The Education in Emergency sector remains chronically under-resourced in Myanmar. The ERF remains an important source of funding for the sector. The funding provided by the ERF during 2013 for education in Kachin represents the only humanitarian funding provided to the sector in Kachin according to the Funding Tracking Service (FTS). In Rakhine, the ERF represents 17 per cent of the funding provided to the education sector under the 2012-2013 Rakhine Response Plan.

A newly constructed Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) Centre in Momauk Man Bung Camp in Momauk, Kachin State. Photo Credit: OCHA

Children eating lunch in the new ECCD centre, Momauk Man Bung Camp, Kachin State. Photo Credit: OCHA


Page 8

Overview of the Health Sector

No. of projects with a Health component Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area

1 95,795 5% of all ERF funds

allocated

ADRA Kayin State: Hpapun Township

Outputs


o Targeted: 6,790 population of 15 villages o Reached: 4,734 consultations

■ Beneficiary data disaggregated by sex: Of 30 Village Health Workers trained, 25 were women and 5 were men. The medical consultation data was not disaggregated.


o Through the deployment of two mobile medical teams to 15 villages in “hard to reach” areas of Kayin State, 4,734 medical consultations were conducted. Each village was visited seven or eight times during the period of the project, for a total of 113 visits by mobile clinics.

o A total of 30 village healthcare workers (two from each of 15 villages targeted) attended an intensive six week training on primary health care. Each village health worker was provided with safe delivery kits and medical equipment to enable them to provide primary health care services in their villages


o The ERF provided access to primary healthcare services for 6,790 people living in isolated villages in “hard to reach” areas of Kayin State. By training village healthcare workers to provide basic primary healthcare, the ERF has increased healthcare access beyond the period of project implementation.

A child is examined by medical staff of a mobile clinic in a village in Hpapun, Kayin State. Photo Credit: ADRA

Volunteer Health Workers participate in a six week primary health care training in Mawlamyine, Mon State. Photo Credit: ADRA


Page 9

Overview of the Livelihoods (Early Recovery) Sector

No. of projects with a Livelihoods component Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area


allocated

ADRA, CDN Kayin State: Hpapun Township Rakhine State: Minbya, Mrauk-U, Pauktaw Townships

Outputs


o Targeted: 1,170 households (estimated 5,850 people) o Reached: 1,253 households (estimated 6,265 people)

■ Beneficiary data disaggregated by sex and age: 542 people, including 345 women and 197 men participated in home gardening training conducted in Kayin State. Because the remaining beneficiaries are households, the data has not been disaggregated. Sex disaggregated data for the individuals selected to receive small business development will be available when this activity is fully implemented (on-going into 2014).


o In Rakhine State, 300 IDP households were selected to receive support to develop “multi-story gardens”, an innovative gardening technique to maximize production on small plots in IDP camp settings.

o In Kayin State, 542 vulnerable people received home gardening training on "low cost farming". 375 households received home garden kits including basic gardening tools such as shovel, rake and buckets.

o In Rakhine State, 6 rice seed banks were under construction (14 to be constructed in total) and 14 rice bank management committees were organized by selecting memberships and providing training on seed replenishment. 498 households have been organised to participate in the rice banking system.

o In Rakhine State, 80 households were selected to receive support to develop small businesses such as opening a shop or producing soap.


o ERF support to livelihoods projects will enable the targeted communities to begin to support themselves, thereby reducing their reliance on humanitarian assistance. Increasing the production of vegetables in small home gardens will provide diet diversity for populations reliant on food assistance. The inclusion of rice banks in the Rakhine programme design added minimal cost to the project, but should enable that targeted camps and villages to ensure sufficient rice seed for future planting seasons.

A sign displayed in Pa Rain village, Mrauk U, Rakhine State, publicly presents the number of beneficiaries and type of livelihood assistance. Photo Credit: OCHA

A man shows off the vegetables he is growing in his home garden plot in Hpapun, Kayin State. Photo Credit: ADRA


Page 10

Overview of the Non-Food Items (NFI) Sector

Number of projects with an NFI component Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area


allocated

CDN, KMSS Rakhine State: Minbya, Mrauk-U, Pauktaw Townships

Kachin State: Bhamo, Mansi, Momauk, Shwegu Townships

Outputs


o Targeted: 1,000 households and 4,735 IDP students, approximately 9,735 people o Reached: 1,165 households and 5,575 IDP students, approximately 11,400 people

■ Beneficiary data disaggregated by sex and age: Girls: 2784 Boys: 2791. Data is provided for the IDP students only, as the remaining NFI assistance was targeted to households.


o In Kachin, a total of 5,575 displaced pre-school, primary and secondary students each received rain coats, plastic slippers, and a warm sweater for the winter season.

o In Rakhine, 1,165 IDP households received blankets (2 for each HH), 962 HH received plastic mat (1 for each HH), and 339 HH received cooking pots (1 for each HH).

Overview of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Sector

Number of projects with a WASH component Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area


allocated

ADRA, The Coalition of Dutch NGOs (CDN), KMSS, Oxfam International

Kayin State: Hpapun Township Kachin State: Bhamo, Mansi, Momauk, Shwegu Townships Rakhine State: Minbya, Mrauk-U, Pauktaw, Sittwe Townships

Outputs


o Targeted: 87,322 people and 3,458 households (total population targeted approximately 105,000 people) o Reached: 87,942 people and 3,165 households (total population reached approximately 104,000 people) – two

projects on-going at the end of 2013

■ Beneficiary data is difficult to disaggregate by age and sex as WASH assistance is provided at the household or community level.


o 162 latrines have been constructed In Minbya, Mrauk-U and Pauktaw townships of Rakhine State, 140 out of 250 planned latrines have been

constructed in IDP communities. In Kayin State, 11 units of permanent two-room school latrines were constructed in 9 villages to improve

school sanitation. o Excreta disposal management established at 16 IDP camps in Sittwe Township covering 82,587 IDPs.

1,505 latrines “de-sludged”, representing 32 per cent of all latrines in targeted camps


Page 11

Onsite sludge disposal and treatment facilities established at six IDP camps Central Sludge Treatment Site identified and development started.

o 20 bathing structures for women were constructed in Minbya, Mrauk-U and Pauktaw townships in Rakhine State o 34 water points have been constructed or renovated:

In Minbya, Mrauk-U and Pauktaw townships of Rakhine State, 8 of 19 new water points were constructed, improving access of IDP households and their surrounding communities to drinking water.

In Kayin State, 25 new wells were dug and one well renovated to provide safe water for vulnerable communities which had depended upon streams for drinking water and domestic use.

o 2,462 households have increased access to safe drinking water In Minbya, Mrauk-U and Pauktaw townships of Rakhine State, ceramic filters were provided to 1,212 affected

households in IDP and affected communities to ensure the supply of safe drinking water In Kayin State, 1,250 of 42-gallon water containers and buckets were provided to vulnerable households in15

villages to storage capacity of potable water. o Distribution of hygiene supplies to an estimated 21,000 vulnerable and/or conflict-affected people

In Minbya, Mrauk-U and Pauktaw townships of Rakhine State,1,915 households (approximately 9,600 people) received hygiene supplies including toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, and detergent

In Kachin, 5,355 IDP students were provided with hygiene kits containing soap, detergent, toothbrushes, toothpaste, and sanitary napkin (for older girls only).

In Kayin State,1,217 households (approximately 6,000 people) received hygiene supplies including mosquito net, toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, and detergent

o 3,331 people were provided training on improved sanitation and hygiene practices: In Minbya, Mrauk-U and Pauktaw townships of Rakhine State, 140 trained “Behavioural Change Agents” from

within the communities conducted on-going hygiene promotion sessions to 2323 targeted IDP households. In Kachin, 207 IDP students attended hygiene promotion training about clean water and personal hygiene. In Kayin, 801 people attended hygiene promotion training in 15 villages.


o ERF funds have been used to fill two critical funding gaps in the WASH response in Rakhine State. The ERF ensured the IDPs in three townships had access to sufficient supply of potable water, hygiene supplies and had access to proper sanitation facilities. The ERF also launched the first excreta disposal project in Sittwe camps to de-sludge latrines and treat the waste to reduce the risk of disease.

A woman in Yai Thei village in Mrauk-U, Rakhine State shows the women’s bath house constructed near to her home. Photo Credit: OCHA

A child in Hpapun, Kayin State carries a new water bucket and water storage container home from the distribution point. Photo Credit: ADRA


Page 12

Project Monitoring

The Myanmar ERF adopted the Global ERF Guidelines mid-2013. To ensure that ERF projects were monitored in accordance with these guidelines, the establishment and implementation of an effective monitoring system was one of the top priorities for the Myanmar ERF for 2013.

Between 2007 and 2012, all ERF-funded projects were implemented by or through local Myanmar NGOs in areas outside of the control of the Myanmar Government. These projects, implemented in "hard to reach" areas, could not be accessed by OCHA international staff or ERF Advisory Board members to conduct field monitoring visits of project sites. As a result, OCHA staff did not conduct any field visits during these years.

To improve the capacity of OCHA’s Humanitarian Financing Unit (HFU) and to launch systematic project monitoring, the OCHA Country Office (CO) hired a national humanitarian financing officer during 2013 to work with the ERF Fund Manager (FM). During the year, OCHA conducted the first monitoring site visits to ERF-funded projects since the Fund was established in 2007.

Proper project monitoring is the joint responsibility of ERF implementing partners and the OCHA CO. The primary responsibility for monitoring lies with each implementing partner (IP), which must ensure the continual monitoring of all activities throughout project implementation. The OCHA CO, through the HFU and with the support of OCHA sub-offices, monitors project implementation to verify that IP monitoring is effective and accurate and to:

• Independently verify results reported by the IP and to monitor the performance and achievements of individual projects at the output level.

• Identify best practices and lessons learnt to inform the funding strategy and future funding decisions of the ERF.

• Manage risk by increasing transparency and improving accountability of the use of ERF funds.

Under OCHA Myanmar’s ERF monitoring plan, field visits to project sites are conducted by the ERF manager, humanitarian financing officer (HFO) and/or OCHA field coordination staff to assess the

performance and achievements of each individual project. Field monitoring of an individual project includes an assessment of the progress and achievements against the project’s implementation plan, and interaction and discussion with beneficiaries to understand first-hand the beneficiaries’ perspectives on the project. In addition to assessing results, the monitoring visit can identify issues to be addressed to improve project implementation.

In addition to monitoring visits, the HFU systematically reviews the narrative and financial reports submitted by IPs. When necessary, the IP is requested to provide additional information or clarification before the reports are accepted. Furthermore, projects that require modification of scope or duration due to unforeseen events, must submit an interim financial report to verify the financial status of project implementation.

2013 Monitoring of ERF Projects

Following the adoption of the Global ERF Guidelines, OCHA CO launched the first field monitoring of ERF projects during September 2013.

The 2013 ERF Myanmar monitoring work plan aimed to conduct at least one field monitoring visit to each ERF project during the project’s lifetime. The goal of 100 per cent monitoring coverage is possible due to the small number of projects implemented during the year. During the final four months of 2013, four out of five on-going projects each received a visit of at least two days by OCHA staff. One project in Kayin State, which completed implementation during September 2013, was not visited due to continued access limitations. A sixth project, which was only approved during the last week of December 2013, will be monitored during 2014. Therefore, for 2013, the HFU visited four of five, or 80 per cent of ERF projects implemented during the year.

The monitoring visits were carried out by the FM, the HFO, and OCHA sub-office national and international staff. ERF Advisory Board members did not participate in the monitoring missions. Monitoring reports were shared with implementing partners, the ERF Advisory Board members, and the sector coordinators.


Page 13

Results of Monitoring

The monitoring visits conducted to the four ERF projects provided useful information for the effective management of current and future ERF projects. In addition to project specific issues that were followed up with the implementer, broader lessons have been integrated into future planning.

Where possible, projects should be visited twice – at both the mid-point and the completion of a project. A monitoring visit conducted at the mid-point of project implementation can ensure that there is sufficient time to address issues that are observed.

For KMSS’s project in Kachin, the monitoring visit revealed that the partner was unaware of the budget line item flexibility of ERF projects. Because the cost of rehabilitation of temporary learning spaces was higher than planned, the partner reduced the number of rehabilitations carried out to remain within the value of the budget line. If the project had been visited earlier during project implementation, this issue could have been discovered when there was sufficient time to complete the planned number rehabilitations, as there had been significant cost savings found in other line items. In the end, the partner had to return a large portion of the budget unspent.

In Rakhine State, inter-communal tension between the Muslim and Buddhist (Rakhine) communities continues to severely restrict humanitarian space. Amongst the Rakhine community, there is a widely held perception that the assistance provided by the NGOs and UN agencies is unfairly biased toward the Muslim community. In an attempt to address these misperceptions, all three ERF partners implementing projects in Rakhine State have employed a conflict-sensitive approach that provides ERF assistance to conflict affected people in both the Rakhine and Muslim communities. Discussions during field monitoring visits with both Rakhine and Muslim people who have benefitted from ERF projects in Rakhine State have confirmed that the provision of balanced assistance is necessary to avoid exacerbating ethnic tensions.

Both project monitoring visits and the review of financial and narrative reports has revealed that most partners require continued support in understanding ERF rules and regulations. In addition, local partners require continued support to build their financial management capacity. During 2014, the HFU plans to provide regular information sessions to explain ERF procedures and processes.

Mainstreaming Gender Consideration

Under the 2012 ERF Global Guidelines, ERF proposals are expected to mainstream gender consideration into the design of the proposal. For a project proposal to successfully integrate gender consideration into project design, it must describe the differing needs of girls, boys, women, and men

and propose a humanitarian response that equitably addresses these needs.

To encourage ERF implementing partners to better integrate gender, they are required to evaluate their project proposals prior to submission using a tool called the Gender Marker (GM). During 2013, implementing partners began to regularly employ the Gender Marker in the evaluation of their project proposals.

During the project design, each IP assigns a GM score (see table) to the project proposal indicating the degree to which the project will ensure that women, men, girls, and boys will benefit equally from the humanitarian response and whether the project will advance gender equality. The use of the GM tool during the design of the project proposal helps to ensure that gender is considered

The Gender Marker Scoring System

GM Score Description

GM 0 Gender is not reflected anywhere in the project design.

GM 1 The project will contribute in a limited way to gender equality.

GM 2a The project will contribute significantly to gender equality.

GM 2b The principal purpose of the project is to advance gender equality.


Page 14

throughout the assessment, planning, implementation and monitoring of a project.

Implementing partners of all five ERF projects which were funded during 2013 evaluated their projects in their proposals as having potential to contribute in a limited way to gender equality (GM 1). Upon evaluation of these proposals, however, at least three of these projects more fully integrate gender consideration into project implementation and would more accurately be given a GM 2a. For these projects, in addition to the collection of sex and age disaggregated data, the differentiated needs of girls, boys, women and men are considered in the project design.

During 2013, OCHA successfully advocated for an IASC Gender Capacity (GenCap) advisor to be deployed to Myanmar. The new GenCap advisor arrived in early 2014, and is a member of both the ERF Advisory and Review Boards. The GenCap advisor will participate in the 2014 technical review of proposals and monitor ERF-funded projects to support the IPs’ integration of gender into project implementation.

In 2014, the Gender Marker will be used during monitoring visits to assess the degree to which project implementation integrates gender sensitivity. In addition, the GenCap advisor will provide training to partners on how to ensure that gender is properly considered during project design.

Risk Management OCHA’s management of a country-based pooled fund, including the Myanmar ERF, represents a potentially consequential organisational and reputational risk to the United Nations. To minimise the consequences of managing the Myanmar ERF, the OCHA CO has identified potential risks, and implemented procedures to mitigate these risks. During 2014, the process for identifying and managing risk will be formalised in a Risk Management Strategy.

During 2013, the OCHA CO assessed two areas of risk as the most likely to negatively impact the fund: the governance of the Fund, and the ERF strategy for the use of funds. Insufficient monitoring of project performance through field visits, as described in the Monitoring Section above, was also assessed as a risk. During the year, OCHA made significant progress towards mitigating these most critical risks of managing the Myanmar ERF.

Governance Risk

During 2013, the OCHA CO assessed the ERF governing bodies as having limited engagement in the Fund and as out of compliance with the ERF Global Guidelines. While the Advisory Board (AB) received regular communications about ERF projects, the board had not met since 2011 to discuss the Fund and its strategic priorities. Furthermore, the ERF had not established a project Review Board (RB) for the technical review of

proposals, relying instead upon AB members to conduct email consultation on each submitted proposal.

To address this weakness, the OCHA CO organised a meeting of the AB to adopt a new Terms of Reference (TOR), to establish the RB, and to define the funding strategy of the Myanmar ERF. By adopting these changes, the governance of the Fund became aligned with the Global ERF Guidelines.

The new Advisory Board TOR elevates the role of the AB to the strategic level, and increases the membership of NGOs from one to four, including two national Myanmar NGOs. As the ERF provides funding only to NGOs, the inclusion of additional NGOs on the AB, together with UN agencies and donors, is important to ensure that NGO priorities are taken into consideration in the allocation of funds.

The revised TOR requires that the AB meet twice annually in person to determine the strategic direction of the Fund for the following six months. The newly established RB reflects the membership of the Advisory Board at the technical level (although without donor representation), and meets in person to conduct the technical review of proposals.

The adoption of the reforms to the AB and the establishment of the RB have improved the


Page 15

governance of the fund, mitigating the risk to OCHA of managing the ERF.

Strategic Risk

At the start of 2013, the ERF was operating under the same strategic guidance as when it was established in 2007: as a mechanism to provide humanitarian assistance to communities located in “hard to reach” areas. These guidelines limited the assistance to conflict-affected communities in these areas, but did not describe the nature of the assistance that could be provided. The lack of a clear strategic direction for the funding resulted in the ERF funding many projects that provided a mixture of humanitarian and development activities to impoverished conflict-affected communities, and did not focus exclusively on humanitarian priorities.

In 2013, in response to the inter-communal violence in Rakhine State, the HC agreed to provide ERF

assistance to the newly affected population despite them not being located in “hard to reach” areas. As a result, and in recognition of the departure from the funding strategy of the original guidelines, the AB approved a new strategic direction for the Fund. This strategy was described in a new strategy paper that clarifies the role of the Fund, and the nature of the projects that can be funded.

With the adoption of the Fund Strategy paper, the ERF has a more narrowly defined humanitarian funding strategy. The 2013 Fund Strategy enables the ERF to respond to any urgent or chronic humanitarian need of people affected by natural disaster or conflict, anywhere within Myanmar. Projects must respond to critical humanitarian needs, and while the Fund has not formally adopted the CERF Life-Saving Criteria, these criteria are influential in determining which assistance projects to fund.

Achievements and Conclusion Years of conflict between armed groups and the Government of Myanmar, and recent inter-communal fighting in Rakhine State continue to cause long-term internal displacement resulting in humanitarian, protection and security challenges in Myanmar. For several more years, humanitarian assistance is expected to be required to support conflict-affected communities which have little or no access to livelihoods and essential services.

During 2013, the crises in Rakhine and Kachin States were the focus of the overall humanitarian response in Myanmar. Although Myanmar did not have a consolidated appeal document for 2013, the humanitarian community developed two response plans, one for the crisis in Rakhine State and one for Kachin and northern Shan States. These two response plans provided strategic guidance for the use of ERF resources during the year.

Increasing relevance of the Myanmar ERF

The 2013 decision taken by the HC, with the support of the Review Board, to expand the scope of the Myanmar ERF response strategy to include humanitarian needs throughout Myanmar has greatly increased the relevance of the Fund to the overall humanitarian response. This strategic change made it possible for the ERF to consider

responding to humanitarian needs in Rakhine and other parts of the country which were not “hard to reach.”

The $1.78 million provided to the five projects that were approved in 2013 represents the highest level of funding allocated in a single year since the creation of the ERF. As Myanmar continues the process of political and economic reform, the Fund’s operational environment has become more

A woman in Pa Rain Kone village in Mrauk-U, Rakhine State explains that her family has reduced incidence of diarrhea because of access to potable water. Photo Credit: OCHA


Page 16

permissive, allowing the ERF and its partners to operate more openly. As the visibility of the Fund has increased, so has the demand for ERF support. The ERF received 12 proposals/concept papers during 2013, more than in any previous year. The actual number of proposals received would likely have been higher if more outreach to new potential partners had been conducted as planned. Because of insufficient available Fund resources, however, several potential partners were discouraged from applying.

2013 Funding Priorities

As is the case in most humanitarian emergencies, the humanitarian requirements in Rakhine and Kachin exceeded the available bilateral donor funding, especially during the first half of 2013. Through close cooperation among the sector coordinators, OCHA sub-offices, humanitarian organisations, and the OCHA HFU, critical gaps in the on-going core humanitarian response were identified.

By July 2013, the ERF had allocated 79 per cent of the $2.23 million carried over from 2013 to four new projects that addressed some of these critical gaps. With no new commitments or pledges of new donor funding for 2013, the HC and OCHA decided to reserve the Fund’s balance for an unforeseen emergency during the second half of the year. As a result, only one additional project was funded during 2013, following the deposit of Sweden’s contribution during December.

The five projects approved by the HC during 2013 provided critical funding to fill gaps in the core humanitarian response for the conflict-affected people in Kachin and Rakhine States. Because of the scale and urgency of the needs in Rakhine, more than three-quarters (78 per cent) of ERF funding allocated during 2013 was provided to projects in Rakhine State.

2013 ERF Regional and Sectoral Allocation

The five projects funded in 2013 provided support to four sectors: WASH, Education, NFIs, and Early Recovery (Livelihoods component). Half of all ERF funding allocated during the year was provided to WASH for critical life-saving activities that had

received no other donor funding. One-third of ERF resources were provided to the chronically underfunded education sector to ensure that displaced children had access to educational opportunities.

The WASH and Education sectors together received over 80 per cent of all ERF resources during 2013. While the humanitarian needs in these sectors were priorities for the ERF during the year, the high level of funding provided to these sectors compared with other sectors is due in part to the level of engagement of the WASH and Education sector coordinators in the Fund. For these two sectors, the Myanmar ERF has served as an important tool for strengthening the coordination between the coordinators and the members of the sectors.

During 2014, the OCHA CO will conduct renewed and additional outreach to other humanitarian sectors is necessary to ensure that implementers in all sectors have equal access to ERF funding.

The Establishment of the Myanmar ERF

Until 2013, the Myanmar ERF was not formally an OCHA Emergency Response Fund, but rather a fund created by the Humanitarian Coordinator and managed by OCHA to provide humanitarian support to communities in areas outside of control of the Union Government. During 2013, the HC and the Fund’s Advisory Board agreed to formally adopt the Global ERF Guidelines and change the name of the Fund from the Humanitarian Multi-Stakeholder Fund (HMSF) to the Myanmar Emergency Response Fund.

To bring the ERF into compliance with the Global ERF Guidelines, several reforms were introduced during the year.

• Adoption of a new terms of reference for the Advisory Board to strengthen it as a strategic body, reform its membership to include more NGOs, and ensure a bi-annual review of the Fund’s strategy.

• Establishment of a Review Board for project review and recommendation.

• Introduction of a bi-annual Fund Strategy Paper to provide guidance on the use of ERF funds.

• Development of a field monitoring system of ERF project implementation.


Page 17

The Fund Strategy adopted by the AB broadened the HMSF’s existing static funding strategy. Under the new strategy, which will be reviewed during the first half of 2014 and biannually thereafter, the ERF can now respond to the humanitarian needs created by both natural and man-made disasters throughout Myanmar. The AB agreed that the ERF should be used to only fund NGO projects, and exceptionally the Red Cross movement. UN agencies and IOM are not eligible for Myanmar ERF funding under the Fund Strategy. Among NGOs, the AB agreed that national and local NGOs should be prioritised over international NGOs, and that, when possible, international NGOs should implement through local NGOs.

The new Review Board is a technical board, made up of three sector coordinators; one international NGO selected by the international NGO forum and two national NGOs that do not apply for funding, the GenCap advisor, and OCHA as secretariat (represented by the Fund Manager). A representative of the three donors may participate in the review as a non-voting observer, however no donor participated during 2013. Before each proposal is submitted to the RB for consideration, it is reviewed by the HFU to ensure that the project fits within the Fund Strategy and ERF guidelines, and has been developed in coordination with the relevant sector. The project may be rejected or returned to the partner to address any concerns. Only proposals of acceptable quality are submitted to the RB for consideration.

The RB meetings to discuss project proposals are held in person when possible. The greater participation and involvement of the sectors in the review of project proposals, especially during the meeting of the RB, has improved the technical quality of ERF projects, reinforced accountability, and enhanced the ERF’s role in strengthening overall coordination and response.

CERF Complementarity with the ERF

The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) provided $8 million to Myanmar in 2013 through the Rapid Response and Underfunded Emergencies windows. The availability of ERF resources influenced the funding priorities for through both allocations. In Rakhine, CERF provided a $5 million early action grant for shelter, WASH, and health activities. To maximize the impact of the available WASH resources, the ERF funded a complementary emergency excreta disposal project.

In Kachin, CERF provided $3 million through the Underfunded Emergencies window. To facilitate the prioritisation of funding needs, the ERF agreed to fund an emergency education activity to enable the HCT to allocate more resources to other sectors. This complementary activity will be funded in early 2014. Despite the small size of the ERF, the ERF complements the CERF and has the potential to complement other in-country funds which target longer term initiatives.

Challenges for 2014

Despite the great advances made in the management of the Myanmar ERF during 2013, challenges remain for 2014.

Field monitoring will be enhanced through the participation of sector coordinators to provide feedback on the technical aspects on project implementation. In addition, with the support of the GenCap advisor, projects will be assessed for the degree of gender sensitivity that has been integrated into project implementation. When possible, members of the ERF Advisory Board will be encouraged to take part in the field visits. OCHA will continue to improve the flow of information with members of the Advisory Board, the Review Board and humanitarian partners to ensure transparency and accountability of the Fund.

To encourage more local Myanmar NGOs to apply for ERF support, the revised Global ERF Guidelines will be translated into the Myanmar language.

Resource mobilization and risk management frameworks will be drafted and adopted, and the monitoring and reporting framework will be updated.

To ensure current and potential partners understand the expected changes in the forthcoming 2014 revision of the Global ERF Guidelines, the HFU will conduct regular information sessions in both Yangon and the field.

Finally, the greatest challenge for the Myanmar ERF in 2014 will be to broaden the number of contributing donors to the Fund to increase the ERF’s relevance and viability in the current context.

Throughout 2014, the OCHA CO will maintain and improve its collaboration with different ERF stakeholders, including the HC, AB, RB, donors, NGO partners, and sectors, to effectively manage the Fund and efficiently allocate the resources to the highest priorities in accordance with the Fund’s strategy and corporate guidelines.


Page 18

Annex I: Glossary

AB Advisory Board ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency International CBO Community-based Organization CDN Consortium of Dutch NGO's CERF Central Emergency Response Fund DFID Depart for International Development, United Kingdom ERF Emergency Response Fund FBO Faith-based Organization FM Fund Manager GM Gender Marker HC Humanitarian Coordinator HFO Humanitarian Financing Officer HFU Humanitarian Financing Unit HH Household HMSF Humanitarian Multi-Stakeholders Fund HoO Head of Office IDP Internally Displaced Person KMSS Karuna Myanmar Social Services M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NFI Non-Food Item NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PTA Parents and Teachers Association RAT Rapid Assessment Team RB Review Board RC Resident Coordinator SCF Save the Children Fund SI Solidarités International SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene


Page 19

Annex II: Advisory Board Membership (as at end 2013)

Chair

Humanitarian Coordinator

Secretariat

OCHA

Donors

Australia

Sweden (Sida)

United Kingdom (DFID)

UN Agencies / IOM

IOM

UNDP

UNHCR

UNICEF

WFP

WHO

International NGOs

Chair, INGO Forum

VACANT

National NGOs

Community Development Association (CDA)

Environmental Conservation, Livelihood and Outreach Fund (ECLOF)

Border Area Development Association (BDA) - Alternate

Gender Capacity Advisor


Page 20

Annex III: Projects Funded in 2013

Year Partner Project

code Sector Project Title State Townships / Villages

Imp. Period Budget

2013 Karuna Myanmar Social Services

HMSF-DMA-O358-12

Education Comprehensive Response to IDPs through supporting of Education, Health, Nutrition, WASH, NFIs and Protection in Bhamo District, Kachin State.

Kachin 13 IDP camps in Bhamo District (seven camps located in hard to reach areas and six camps in Government areas )

2/ 2013 – 9/ 2013

159,917

NFIs 104,739

WASH 41,546

2013 Consortium of Dutch NGOs

HMSF-DMA-O358-13

Livelihoods Provision of life saving assistance to conflict affected families and their surrounding communities

Rakhine Pauktaw, Minbya, Mrauk in Rakhine State

2/2013 - 2/2014

131,929 NFIs 102,182 WASH 288,610

2013 OXFAM HMSF-DMA-O358-14

WASH Emergency excreta removal (desludging) for Sittwe IDP camps

Rakhine 16 IDP camps in Sittwe Township

6/2013 – 4/2014

472,492

2013 Save the Children Fund

HMSF-DMA-O358-15

Education Emergency education for children affected by conflict in Rakhine

Rakhine Sittwe and Pauktaw townships

7/2013 – 9/ 2014

400,215

2013 Solidarités International

ERF-DMA-O358-016

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene rapid response to internal displacements in Kachin and Northern Shan States

Kachin & Northern Shan

Mansi, Mogaung, Bhamo

1/2014 – 6/2014

78,945

Total 1,780,575


Page 21

Annex IV: Projects Implemented during 2013

Year Partner Project code Sector Project Title State Townships /

Villages Imp.

Period Budget

2012 Adventist Development and Relief Agency

HMSF-DMA-O358-11

Education Health, Education and Protection Support for Karen Communities Emerging from Conflict (HEPS)

Kayin Khyo day, Nayka, Lay Poe Hta (East and West), Lay Kawthtay, Shwe Yay, Kyauk Kwin (East and West), Ye Pu (East and West), Mae Kalar, Pwae Kae, Hmaw Hta, Moe Lo Par, No Khel Hta,Southern Hpapun Township

12/2012-9/2013

59,190

Health 95,795

Livelihoods 22,482

WASH 138,273

2013 Karuna Myanmar Social Services

HMSF-DMA-O358-12

Education Comprehensive Response to IDPs through supporting of Education, Health, Nutrition, WASH, NFIs and Protection in Bhamo District, Kachin State.

Kachin 13 IDP camps in Bhamo District (seven camps located in hard to reach areas and six camps in Govt areas)

2/ 2013 – 9/ 2013

159,917

NFIs 104,739

WASH 41,546

2013 Consortium of Dutch NGOs

HMSF-DMA-O358-13

Livelihoods Provision of life saving assistance to conflict affected families and their surrounding communities

Rakhine Pauktaw, Minbya, Mrauk U in Rakhine State

2/2013 - 2/2014

131,929 NFIs 102,182 WASH 288,610

2013 OXFAM HMSF-DMA-O358-14

WASH Emergency excreta removal (desludging) for Sittwe IDP camps

Rakhine 16 IDP camps in Sittwe Township

6/2013 – 4/2014

472,492

2013 Save the Children Fund

HMSF-DMA-O358-15

Education Emergency education for children affected by conflict in Rakhine

Rakhine Sittwe and Pauktaw townships

7/2013 – 9/2014

400,215

Total 2,017,369

Emergency Response Fund Myanmar - UNOCHA · Emergency Response Fund – Myanmar Annual Report 2013...

Documents

Transcript of Emergency Response Fund Myanmar - UNOCHA · Emergency Response Fund – Myanmar Annual Report 2013...