MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 1
Allocation Strategy Paper Myanmar Humanitarian Fund 2018 – Second Standard Allocation
Submission Deadline: Sunday, 25 November 2018 (23:59 Yangon time)
I. ALLOCATION OVERVIEW
A) Introduction / Humanitarian situation
The Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) is an OCHA‐managed country‐based pooled fund (CBPF) led by the Humanitarian Coordinator to provide emergency response to urgent needs of people affected by natural disasters or conflict. Since 2007, the MHF has mobilized $45.4 million, providing life‐saving assistance to 1.8 million people through 122 projects.1
A total of US$5 million will be made available from the MHF under this Second Standard Allocation for 2018, which will target humanitarian activities in Kachin, Shan, Rakhine and Chin States. As per analysis conducted, 62 per cent ($3.1 million) of the expected allocation will target activities in Kachin and Shan states, while 33 per cent ($1.65 million) will focus on activities in Rakhine State and 5 per cent ($250,000) in Paletwa Township, in Chin State.
Protracted crises in Kachin, Shan and Rakhine continue to bring suffering to many thousands of people in Myanmar, who are affected by displacement and serious protection issues. In the northern part of the country (Kachin and Shan states), civilians continue to bear the brunt of the conflict, with fighting often taking place in or near to civilian areas. Many people in Kachin and Shan have been displaced multiple times. The conflict has escalated since the beginning of the 2018 and about 28,000 civilians have fled conflict and been temporarily displaced since January 2018. In some areas, fighting broke out in or in close proximity to civilian areas, including villages and displacement camps. In other areas, particularly in Shan, temporary displacement was followed by return to areas of origin, which presents challenges in humanitarian planning, response, and monitoring of the protection risks faced by returnees. In Rakhine State, the situation remains very difficult for the nearly 600,000 Rohingya remaining in both central and northern Rakhine, after the exodus of more than 725,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh since August 2017. They continue to face serious hardships and are in need of humanitarian assistance due to displacement, restrictions on their freedom of movement, limited access to essential services, and other deprivations (this includes all those still in Rakhine, including displaced people in camps). More than 128,000 Muslims, the vast majority of whom are stateless Rohingya, remain confined in camps after the episodes of inter‐communal violence which occurred in 2012. They are living in deplorable conditions as a result of movement restrictions, lack of adequate access to healthcare, education and livelihoods, over‐crowded‐shelters, and other challenges. In Chin State, armed clashes between the Tatmadaw and Arakan Army since November 2017 have caused multiple displacement. According to the operation partners in place, about 2,600 people remain displaced in Paletwa Township.
B) Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) This Second MHF Standard Allocation in 2018 aims at covering critical funding gaps in alignment with the 2018 Interim HRP for Myanmar and its strategic objectives, particularly meeting needs of displaced people and
1 More information is available at the CBPF Business Intelligence website: https://gms.unocha.org/bi
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 2
supporting efforts to achieve durable solutions; ensuring that vulnerable crisis‐affected people have access to essential services and livelihoods opportunities; and ensuring the protection of civilians; all of them through the strengthening national capacities and the resilience of communities.
Considering the 2018 Interim HRP and the coming 2019 HRP, the funding already allocated by donors and the real‐ time analysis of the humanitarian situation, this Standard Allocation will prioritize humanitarian activities in Kachin, Shan and Rakhine states, with focus on key humanitarian sectors, particularly shelter and non‐food items (NFIs); water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH); and health. Funding will be also extended to other critical humanitarian interventions in food security and protection. Some specific activities in education and nutrition will be also covered. In the case of Chin State, a multi‐sectoral approach is required to respond to the most basic needs of the displaced population and the host communities.
In Kachin and Shan States, priority activities are concentrated in shelter and NFIs, but also supporting key priorities in WASH, food security, health and protection. Funding gaps in education and nutrition are also huge, and specific funding envelopes will be considered in these two sectors. Within these envelopes, humanitarian rapid response mechanisms (RRM) to sudden onset crises in Kachin and Shan states will be also listed as high priority, to cover immediate needs for relief assistance in relation to new displacements due to the increasing fighting or related to natural disasters.
In Rakhine State, priority activities are related to health, WASH, food security and nutrition. However, specific envelopes will be also considered for protection, education and shelter considering the huge funding gaps for some key activities in those sectors. A part of these priority activities are related to emergency interventions in some displacement sites in order to provide emergency repairs of shelters, temporary learning spaces and WASH infrastructures, as well as basic health and protection services, as defined in the Emergency Repairs and Activities Plan developed by HCT partners.
In Chin State, the intervention will consider a multi‐sectoral approach including emergency activities for the displaced people but also for the surrounding host communities.
II. ALLOCATION STRATEGY
A) Purpose of the Allocation Strategy and linkages to the HRP
This Second Standard Allocation in 2018 prioritizes projects that are in line with the MHF operating principles,2 ensuring the application of minimum humanitarian standards (depending on the local context), particularly in displacement sites, and preventing a worsening of the situation and increased vulnerability. The allocation follows the overarching goal of the 2018 Interim HRP for Myanmar to ensure that the lives, dignity, well‐being and rights of persons affected by conflict, natural disasters and other emergencies are protected.3 The MHF aims at achieving three main objectives through this allocation:
To fill underfunded priority activities in protracted crisis in Kachin and Shan States. To address urgent needs of internally displaced people and other vulnerable people in Rakhine State. To address basic needs of displaced people and host communities in Paletwa Township, Chin State.
This allocation strategy paper is the result of consultations with stakeholders in October; including national and international NGOs, UN agencies, donors, the Inter‐Cluster Coordination Group (ICCG) and the MHF Advisory Board. Consultations at sub‐national level have been also conducted, with the involvement of partners, clusters and
2 MHF Operational Manual (July 2018): http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/governance‐policy‐and‐guidance 3 See full document at: https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/2018‐interim‐humanitarian‐response‐plan‐myanmar
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 3
sectors in Kachin, Shan and Rakhine states within the existing coordination mechanisms. In addition, in‐depth analysis has been conducted on the funding levels recorded by the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) and other additional information. After feedback provided by the MHF Advisory Board (AB) on 8 November 2018, the allocation strategy paper has been endorsed by the HC on 9 November 2018.
Throughout 2018, the MHF has received $14.3 million in contributions from ten donors4, including a pledge of $1.14 million. The MHF has already allocated $7.8 million through two allocations, supporting 21 projects and targeting 455,000 persons, of which 52% are women and girls, and 44%, children and adolescents under 18. Additional contributions from other donors are expected in the coming months.
B) Allocation Breakdown
Indicative Envelope5 Priority funding level TOTAL US$ Kachin / Shan Rakhine Chin
Shelter and NFIs 1 900,000 800.000 100.000 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 1 800,000 500.000 300.000 Health 1 800,000 450.000 350.000 Food Security 2 750,000 500.000 250.000 Protection 2 600,000 400.000 200.000 Education 3 500,000 300.000 200.000 Nutrition 3 400,000 150.000 250.000 Multi‐sector (Paletwa, Chin) 4 250,000 250,000 TOTAL 5,000,000 3,100,000 1,650,000 250,000
C) Prioritization of Projects / Envelopes
The selection of projects will be done against the agreed MHF operating principles6 and the prioritization provided by clusters, sectors and partners, as below. All the submitted project proposals will be strategically assessed by the MHF Review Committee using a general score card and sector‐specific criteria.
For project proposals related to activities in Kachin and Shan states, the Review Committee will observe all the questions related to the coverage of the most underfunded activities, as per sector prioritization. Special attention will be paid to interventions addressing the most urgent needs of those people who have been newly displaced in the past months. According to the last Shelter/NFIs/CCCM Cluster Analysis Report7, the numbers of people displaced by conflict in Kachin and Shan has increased since the start of 2017 with over 107,000 people now displaced. The conflict has escalated since the beginning of the 2018 and about 28,000 civilians have fled conflict and been temporarily displaced since January 2018. Conditions in the places of origin, mostly in Kachin State, suggest that the people sheltering there will not be returning home in the near future. About 36 per cent of those displaced people are in non‐Government controlled areas which makes difficult the access of the affected populations to the humanitarian partners.
4 The MHF is supported by the generous contributions from the Governments of Australia, Canada, Germany, Luxemburg, Malta, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. 5 Funding envelopes are only indicative and will depend on the quality of the proposals submitted by partners, the recommendations made by the MHF Review Committee, the comments provided by the MHF Advisory Board and the final decision of the HC. 6 MHF Operational Manual (July 2018): http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/governance‐policy‐and‐guidance 7 Monthly Shelter/NFIs/CCCM Cluster Analysis Report, September 2018.
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 4
In Rakhine State, the Review Committee will consider those project proposals that address the most urgent funding gaps on the ongoing response, particularly in relation to people displaced in sites since 2012, but also covering critical needs of other vulnerable people in Rakhine state. The Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) has developed an Emergency Repairs and Activities Plan for central Rakhine to help ensure dignified living conditions in the camps that have been operating for six years while at the same time continuing advocacy towards durable and rights‐ based solutions to displacement. Partners are encouraged, under this allocation, to submit immediate needs in accordance with the respective sectors/clusters’ prioritization which may be directly or indirectly related to the Plan.
In Chin State, the Review Committee will consider those projects proposals that address the most basic needs of the displaced people due to the armed clashes between the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army, including the surrounding host communities. According to partners operating in the area, about 2,600 people are still displaced, affecting also the already precarious life conditions of 7,400 people from the host communities. A unique multi‐ sectoral intervention will be considered to ensure effectiveness and higher impact of the response.
The Review Committee will ensure that all project proposals should include a conflict‐sensitivity analysis to ensure that any harm or aggravation of the current situation between communities is prevented. Specific information on potential risks, assumptions and mitigation actions will be attentively assessed by the Review Committee.
Funding support to national NGOs through this allocation will be prioritized, based on their access and experience in the prioritized geographical areas. However, the decision to fund through this allocation either a national or international NGO, or a UN Agency will be determined by the demonstrated comparative advantage of each organization to deliver the articulated response. The MHF will only fund activities in areas where sufficient access to affected people can be expected in order for projects to be implemented.
Specific details about the allocation strategy by geographical area (Kachin/Shan, Rakhine and Chin), including priority sectors, justification, activities, targets, locations and funding envelopes are indicated in the following pages.
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 5
KACHIN / SHAN ‐ ALLOCATION STRATEGY Funding Sector / Justification Priority activities Target Locations Envelope Cluster (US$)
Existing gap on shelter intervention of 5,134 units, which Kachin: Myitkyina, represent $3.6 million. Priority will be given to newly displaced, Construction of new shelters, Hpakant, Tanai, Shelter and displaced people who have been living in makeshift shelters in renovation and repairs 3,914 Sumprabum, Mogaung 800,000 non‐food non‐Government controlled areas and addressing shelter Rapid Response Mechanism households and NGCAs (Je yang Hka, needs in relocation/resettlement sites to support items (RRM) Hpun Lum and Maga durable/transitional solutions. Rapid response mechanism is Yang sites) also considered in case of new displacements.
Out of 148 sites, 132 have WASH gaps including water supply Hygiene promotion and operation and maintenance, desludging services and family community mobilization hygiene kits. Some partners are facing gaps in terms of Menstrual hygiene renovation of latrines, solid waste disposal services, menstrual management Kachin: Bhamo, hygiene management and desludging services, particularly in Hygiene kit supply and Momauk, Mansi, Water, 46,000 urban setting displacement sites. In NGCA displacement sites, distribution Shwegu, Myitkyina, sanitation affected 500,000 diarrhea incidence has dramatically increased due to poor Water and sanitation facilities Waingmaw, Mogaung, people and hygiene hygiene practices, water sources with fecal contamination and construction and repair Tanai, Sumprabum, poor fecal sludge management. Escalating armed clashes are Operation, maintenance and Putao increasing the number of displaced people in existing camps solid waste system and new locations, with needs of hygiene kit, latrines, Rapid Response Mechanism household water treatment facilities, etc. (RRM) Intensified armed clashes have increased the needs of food Food assistance for newly 5,000 new assistance during short term displacement and livelihood displaced population in Kachin displaced Kachin: Mansi, Moe support upon their return to the villages of origin. Food and Shan Mauk, NGCA production is limited due to land access limitation and small Rapid Response Mechanism Food 3,000 business development remains hindered by the lack of financial (RRM) 500,000 Security protracted Shan: Namtu, Hseni, capital and linkages to the markets. Daily work remains Livelihood support for displaced and Kutkai, Namkham, Muse seasonal and irregular and highly competitive. Conflict protracted displaced people other affected exacerbated rural‐urban migration with associated protection and affected population in people issues. Kachin and Shan
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 6
KACHIN / SHAN ‐ ALLOCATION STRATEGY Funding Sector / Justification Priority activities Target Locations Envelope Cluster (US$) Primary health care including Kachin: disease surveillance, 88,000 people Kachin: Mansi, Momauk, In Kachin and Shan States, the majority of the displaced people, immunization support and (83,500 Myitkyina, Shwegu, particularly in areas beyond the Government control, continue advocacy for health access. displaced and Tanai, Waingmaw, to rely on humanitarian health support through local and Sexual and reproductive health other 4,500) Bhamo Health international organizations. People in Kachin and Shan remain care. 450,000 highly vulnerable to natural disasters and armed conflict. Patient referrals. Shan: 21,006 Shan: Kutkai, Kokang SA, Ensuring humanitarian health support remains a priority in Emergency preparedness people Konkyan, Muse, Kachin and Shan. including needs assessment. (15,000 Laukkaing, Namkhan, Mental health and psychosocial displaced and Namtu support other 6,000) Protection monitoring and analysis Kachin: Momauk, GBV prevention and response Myitkyina (Sinbo sub‐ services (case management township), Sumprabum, In Kachin, the prioritization focused on gaps in services and and psychosocial support) Tanai, Mansi, Hpakant, assistance in overlooked existing displacement sites and also Disability inclusion Mogaung, Mohnyin, hard‐to‐reach areas. There are identified gaps and urgent Kachin: programming Shwegu, Waingmaw, needs for services and basic GBV prevention and response 11,800 Empowerment to Child Chipwe, Tanai interventions in displacement sites. The prioritization for Shan displaced Protection Groups focused considers the temporary nature of displacement as people Protection Protection services, including Shan: Manton, Muse, 400,000 well as gaps in assistance and services for the most vulnerable safe and effective referral, and Lashio, Kyaukme, protracted displaced people. Need for specifically targeted Shan: 30,500 community‐based mechanisms Hsipaw, Nam San, protection monitoring, response, and assistance that addresses displaced for communities temporarily Namtu, Hseni, Kutkai, their needs. Identified gaps and urgent needs for services and people displaced Namhkan, Hpai Kaung, basic GBV prevention and response interventions for both Child Protection (RRM, CBMs, Man Kang , Kadaw displaced people and host communities. case management, life skills Kawng, Man Loi, Mung support, awareness‐raising) Si, Mung Hawm, Rapid Response Mechanism Tangyan, Naung Cho (RRM)
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 7
KACHIN / SHAN ‐ ALLOCATION STRATEGY Funding Sector / Justification Priority activities Target Locations Envelope Cluster (US$) 1,000 adolescents Kachin: NGCA of Reported increase of children dropping out of school especially accessing Waingmaw (Laiza and for middle and higher primary schools in non‐government post‐primary Mai Ja Yang area), controlled areas due to the extremely poor conditions of schools Moemauk and Chipwi learning spaces, lack of trained teachers, lack of education Catch up classes townships. materials and supplies and for girls, lack of latrines. Children Activities related to completion Education in 1,000 primary aged 13‐17 in NGCAs are at highest risk of dropping out of of the school year with focus in 300,000 school Shan: Kutkai, Namkham, emergencies school and to be engaged in harmful and risky behavior NGCA children Namtu, Hsipaw, Muse, including recruitment by armed groups; poor quality of Education supplies. Hsinni, Kyaukme, Naung education in non‐government controlled areas is increasingly 400 ECCD‐ Cho. leading to separation of families as older children seek for aged children better education in government controlled areas. and learning personnel Improve access for nutritionally vulnerable groups to key preventive nutrition services Enhance infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices (counselling, behavior change 1,250 children communication, cooking and under 5 Gaps on preventive nutrition services within displaced responsive feeding Kachin: Myityikna, Tanai, Nutrition population, including the promotion of infant and young child demonstrations, and 150,000 580 pregnant Chipwi, Mansi feeding practices. monitoring breast milk and lactating substitute violations). women Capacity building on nutrition practices for better response in case of emergency Establishment of breastfeeding safe spaces in case of emergency
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 8
RAKHINE ‐ ALLOCATION STRATEGY Funding Sector / Justification Priority activities Target Locations Envelope Cluster (US$) Primary health care including disease surveillance, Access to health services in Rakhine State remain low for all identification, screening and communities. While all communities suffer from inadequate 526,500 referral of suspected Kyauktaw, Buthidaung, health services, access to health care is particularly low within people tuberculosis cases and Maungdaw, Sittwe, the Rohingya community in the northern and central parts of (129,000 Health immunization support. Myebon, Pauktaw, 350,000 Rakhine State. Movement restrictions to Rohingya patients displaced and Sexual and reproductive health Rathedaung, Mrauk‐U, prevent access to health facilities. Humanitarian health 398,000 non‐ care. Kyaukphyu, Minbya interventions remain essential until all populations have displaced) Patient referrals equitable access to inclusive health services. Mental health and psychosocial support. Prioritizes activities should focus on interventions to ensure minimum WASH standards displacement sites, followed by stateless villages. Apart from the routine water sources/points construction/rehabilitation, the proposed activities would include enhancing water quality monitoring, treatment and testing mechanism both at source and end user level in the displacement sites which have been prioritized under the Hygiene promotion and improving living conditions plan. To handover the community mobilization infrastructure to community members, partners will be Menstrual hygiene building/maintaining capacity of targeted communities on management Water, 89,000 Buthidaung, operation/maintenance and water safety plans. As part of the Hygiene kit supply and sanitation affected Rathedaung, Sittwe, 300,000 Emergency Repairs and Activities Plan, provision/rehabilitation distribution people Kyauktaw and hygiene of sanitation facilities for people with special needs and Water and sanitation facilities children will be a priority activity. Construction/rehabilitation construction and repair of primary, secondary and tertiary storm/greywater collection Operation, maintenance and and drainage system. Include/scale up participatory solid waste system methodologies and community centered approaches, through a baseline survey along with KAP surveys to measure the level of understanding vs practices within the communities. Special attention would be given for management of menstrual hygiene and working on removing taboos within the communities.
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 9
RAKHINE ‐ ALLOCATION STRATEGY Funding Sector / Justification Priority activities Target Locations Envelope Cluster (US$)
Lack of livelihood opportunities and recurrent climate‐related Food/Agriculture/Cash Food shocks continue impacting the productivity, stability and Support Assistance to the 4,000 – 5,000 Townships in the central 250,000 Security availability of food supplies as well as physical and economic vulnerable population in HH part of Rakhine access to food. Central Rakhine
Rakhine state has the worst nutritional status among children 15,000 in Myanmar: 38% of children stunted, 18% severely stunted, Support and promoting of IYCF children under 34% underweight and 3.7% suffering from Severe Acute practices 5 Malnutrition (SAM). Diet diversity and Infant and Young Child Conduct awareness sessions on Feeding (IYCF) and care practices are sub‐standard: only 17% of nutrition‐sensitive agriculture 10,000 children 6‐23 months meet acceptable minimum dietary and support to diet women diversity, 34.5% of children have minimum meal frequency and Maungdaw, Buthidaung, Nutrition diversification including 250,000 less than 2% of children 0‐5 months are exclusively breastfed. Sittwe, Mrauk‐U, Minbya Detection, referral and 3,000 PLWs In the northern part of Rakhine State particularly, a recent food treatment and follow‐up of security assessment indicated that two‐thirds of households children with severe and 7,000 people are unable to meet their food intake needs. The progressive moderate acute malnutrition (80% host reopening of this area to humanitarian actors and the and PLWs. communities, forecasted huge needs that may appear will require more 20% Rohingya) resources. 1,500 Rohingya children, Psychosocial support activities Minbya is an under‐serviced township regarding gender‐based 1,000 for children and youth violence response and prevention interventions and child Rohingya Protection Positive parenting 200,000 protection activities. The proposed funding attempt to cover adults, 600 Minbya Women and girls space this gap. adults from prevention of GBV host community, and 500
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 10
RAKHINE ‐ ALLOCATION STRATEGY Funding Sector / Justification Priority activities Target Locations Envelope Cluster (US$) children from host communities (50% Boys and 50% girls) Prioritization focuses on the critical gaps identified in the Emergency Repairs and Activities Plan, specifically on the rehabilitation of temporary learning spaces and ensuring that Rehabilitation of Temporary 2,000 primary‐ physical infrastructures align with the recently agreed EIE Learning Spaces in camps (as school aged Sector standards relating to classroom partitions and size of per Emergency Repairs and children classes vs. no. of students. The focus on adolescents remains a Activities Plan) priority, specifically through the facilitation of access to post‐ Provision of post primary 800 Education in primary opportunities for adolescents (formal and non‐formal), opportunities for adolescents adolescents Sittwe, Maungdaw 200,000 in particular through facilitating youth access to services emergencies (formal and non‐formal) and accessing non‐ provided by the mainstreamed system. Rehabilitation of bridging support for accessing formal Government schools that are enrolling Rohingya children is also Government schools. education in included in the prioritization process as to support longer term Resuming of EIE activities in the sites and sustainable solutions. Resuming EiE interventions in the northern part of Rakhine State villages northern part of Rakhine remains a priority given the limited engagement of EIE actors in this area since the August 2017 events. Urgent repairs and reconstruction of shelter in two displacement sites, including communal spaces, have been Rehabilitation of Communal identified. These spaces mostly provide access to education Spaces (TLS, informal school, Maw Thi Nyar and Shelter and and youth empowerment as well as places where the youth center, CMC office) 6, 820 IDPs That Kay Pyin non‐food community can gather. Regarding the long houses, 75% of Reparation of Long Houses 20 zone 100,000 displacement sites needs are still uncovered, mostly regarding the roofing sheets (Roofing sheets distribution) leaders items (Sittwe township) which are in poor condition and need to be replaced. Shelter Shelter kits distribution for kits for zone leaders need to be distributed to allow the zone leaders beneficiaries to fix the roofing sheets.
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 11
CHIN ‐ ALLOCATION STRATEGY Funding Sector / Justification Priority activities Target Locations Envelope Cluster (US$) Education in emergencies: School rehabilitation; training for teachers and educational personnel; provision of education supplies; vocational skills As a result of continuous armed clashes and life skills; awareness campaign for parents between the Myanmar Military and the and educational activities for out of school Arakan Army in Paletwa Township since 2017, children; 2,600 2,600 people remain displaced as per Food security: emergency food and cash displaced operational partners in place. Authorities and assistance; livelihood support is required for people local civil society organizations based in displaced population and other affected Multi‐sector Paletwa have been active in meeting the population in the areas 7,400 people Paletwa Township 250,000 response needs of the displaced people, but it is still Health: primary health care including from the requested the support of humanitarian immunization support; host partners to assist displaced people and Nutrition: nutrition prevention activities; communities alleviate the pressure on host communities. Protection: gender‐based violence response, . Needs are present across sectors: education, case management psycho‐social support and life
food security, health, nutrition, protection skills; child protection monitoring psychosocial and shelter and non‐food items. support; Shelter and non‐food items: renovation/care maintenance of existing shelters for people in a protracted displacement.
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 12
III. TIMELINE AND PROCEDURE
Submission of project proposals for this MHF Standard Allocation will be open from 9 to 25 November 2018 online via the MHF Grant Management System (GMS) at https://cbpf.unocha.org. Applications must be submitted in English due to auditing requirements. The standard allocation will be implemented as per the MHF Operational Manual and the revised Operational Handbook for CBPFs that can be found (together with additional information on CBPFs) at: http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about‐mhf.
Project proposals from eligible partners who did not address key questions requested by the MHF during current or previous projects’ implementation, e.g. monitoring/audit recommendations, will not be considered and be excluded of the strategic review. Any technical questions with regards to eligibility and/or partnership arrangements can be directed at OCHA: MHF‐[email protected], +95 12305682 ext. 204.
Depending on the context, humanitarian responses would comprise either direct provision of humanitarian supplies, contributing to overheads8 and / or direct cash transfers. Multi‐sector project proposals will be prioritized. The applicant can lead a consortium of organizations but only one grant9 will be awarded by funding envelope.
Guidance for project submission
Allocation size US$ 5,000,000 distributed as per indicative funding allocation envelopes. This Standard allocation is limited in time, scale and scope to the prioritized activities and Scope sectors indicated in the allocation strategy. Any project proposal beyond this scope will be not considered. Humanitarian partners (international and national NGOs, as well as UN Agencies) with demonstrated and existing operational capacity, reach and presence in the targeted Eligible partners geographical areas and operational sectors. The applicant can lead a consortium but only one grant will be awarded by each funding envelope. Allocation per project A minimum of US$ 100,000 and a ceiling as per indicative funding envelope.10 Maximum of 12 months. No‐cost extensions may be considered case by case, after strong Duration of projects justification, and for a maximum of 3 months. Promoting gender11 equality (Gender Marker 2A/2B) and protection mainstreaming are Gender and Protection mandatory requirements. That includes a clear risks analysis and a mitigation plan, provision mainstreaming of sex and age disaggregated data where possible and explaining how the proposed activities will meet differentiated needs of women, men, boys or girls, when possible. Completion of the due diligence process on GMS. Pre‐requisites for Capacity assessment conducted by OCHA. applicant organizations MHF requests on previous and ongoing projects have been addressed. Active participation in coordination at national and/or sub‐national level. Narrative and financial As identified by the MHF Operational Manual (July 2018). reporting Implementing partner(s) are the primary responsible of regular project monitoring. Field site monitoring by MHF, including financial spot checks. Project monitoring Remote monitoring will be used as last resort in case where there are no other options to conduct physical project visits.
8 If direct material support is available from other sources, recipient partners may also use the funds to cover transport and delivery overheads. 9 After initial strategic review, the MHF Review Committee could recommend splitting the proposed funding envelopes among several proposals, with a clear justification on the added value of this recommendation. 10 For multi‐sector project proposals, the Review Committee will provide a justified recommendation to the MHF Advisory Board. 11 OCHA CBPF Section is still working on updating the online GMS to start the application of the new Gender with Age Marker.
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 13
Allocation Timeline
Phase Step What Who Key Date HC 1. Start of the consultation Preparation HC and ICCG priorities ICCG 15 October 2019 process OCHA HC 2. Development of the draft HC and ICCG priorities ICCG 4 November 2018 allocation strategy paper OCHA 3. Advisory Board’s Draft allocation HC comments on the allocation 5‐8 November 2018 strategy paper AB strategy paper
4. HC endorsement of the Draft allocation HC 8 November 2018 allocation strategy paper strategy paper
5. Launch of allocation Allocation strategy OCHA 9 November 2018 strategy paper paper
6. Proposal submission Proposal preparation Partner 25 November 2018 Proposal deadline Development Strategic project Review Committee and Review 7. Strategic Review 30 November 2018 prioritization OCHA 8. Advisory Board’s AB comments on the comments on project project prioritization HC 3 December 2018 prioritization and HC and HC provides AB preliminary approval preliminary approval Technical review of 9. Technical and Financial Review Committee endorsed projects, 10 December 2018 Review OCHA partner feedback Partner address 10. Proposal Revision and Partner feedback, OCHA final 17 December 2018 Adjustments OCHA clearance 11. Grant Agreement GA prepared/start date OCHA 20 December 2018 Final Approval Preparation agreed with partner and Grant 12. HC Grant Agreement HC approves project HC 20 December 2018 Agreement signature 13. Partner Grant Partner signs / start of Partner 21 December 2018 Agreement signature eligibility 14. Grant Agreement final GA cleared and signed OCHA 26 December 2018 Disbursement clearance and Project Payment request 15. First disbursement OCHA 31 December 2018 Implementation processed
16. Project implementation Start of project Partner 1 January 2019
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 14
IV. MHF INFORMATION AND COMPLAINTS MECHANISM
A) OCHA Humanitarian Financing Unit
Mr. Narciso Rosa‐Berlanga, Head / MHF Manager rosa‐[email protected] Ms. Naw Gay Htoo, Humanitarian Financing Specialist [email protected] Ms. Wai Wai Moe, Monitoring and Grants Management Officer [email protected] Ms. Thet Mon Soe, Monitoring and Grants Management Officer [email protected] Ms. Ei Kalayar Lwin, Programme Associate [email protected]
+95 12305682 ext. 204
OCHA MHF‐[email protected]
HFU www.unocha.org/Myanmar/about‐MHF
B) Complaints Mechanism
MHF implementing partners with insufficiently addressed concerns or complaints regarding MHF processes or decisions can at any point in time send an email to [email protected]. Communications can include also reports on fraud and malfeasance. Complaints will be compiled, reviewed and raised to the HC, who will then take a decision on necessary action(s). When relevant, the HC will share with the Advisory Board any concerns or complaints and actions taken thereof.
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf
MHF Allocation Strategy Paper | 15
V. ANNEXES
Annex 1: MHF Operating Principles and Strategic Review
Annex 2: Cross‐cutting issues when developing a project proposal
Annex 3: MHF Budget Guidance
Annex 4: Cluster/sector contacts
Annex 5: List of acronyms
Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) http://www.unocha.org/myanmar/about-mhf