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, NGOs directly. Because these local NGOs are formerly known as the Humanitarian Multi- often the most cost effective, I will continue to Stakeholder Fund, provides me, as Humanitarian support the Fund’s strategy to prioritise local NGOs Coordinator, with a rapid and flexible funding for direct implementation of ERF projects whenever instrument to respond to small scale emergencies possible. and gaps in the core humanitarian response with Looking ahead to 2014, I expect the ERF to grow in timely assistance for the people in need. size, including the number of projects funded, level During 2013, the ERF provided $1.8 million to five of funding provided, and the number of people projects to cover critical gaps in the humanitarian reached with humanitarian assistance. The ERF response that were not being addressed by other will continue implementation of the reforms donors. For example, although the disposal of introduced during 2013, such as the strengthening waste from overflowing latrines in Sittwe IDP camps of the governance mechanisms and needs-based had been highlighted by the WASH cluster as prioritization of projects, and take steps to develop a essential to preventing the spread of disease, no risk management framework to increase the project to dispose of the excreta had received donor transparency and accountability of the Fund. funding. To fill this gap, the ERF provided $472,000 I take this opportunity to extend my sincere to launch a response, and as a result more than 30 appreciation for the generous support provided by per cent of the latrines in Sittwe camps had been Australia, Sweden and the United Kingdom to the emptied and the waste treated by the end of 2013. Emergency Response Fund since 2007. Both the To ensure that the ERF has the resources recipients of humanitarian assistance and our necessary to continue to address this kind of urgent implementing partners benefit greatly from their un-met humanitarian need, the Fund should be cooperation and confidence. I would like to express expanded with additional donor support in 2014. my sincere gratitude to all humanitarian partners for their engagement and continued support. It has In addition to providing timely humanitarian been possible to address urgent humanitarian response, the ERF has built partnerships with civil needs of the people in Myanmar due to the joint society and increased capacity of local and efforts and commitment of all the stakeholders of community organisations through planning and the Myanmar Emergency Response Fund. 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. Renata Lok-Dessallien Despite this fact, few donors fund the national 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) Emergency Response Fund – Myanmar Annual Report 2013 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 Emergency Response Fund – Myanmar Annual Report 2013 Executive Summary The Myanmar Emergency Response Fund (ERF) WASH sector and Education sector coordinators, continues to play an important role in providing the majority of proposals received and 81 per cent essential humanitarian assistance to vulnerable of funding allocated was to these two sectors. people affected by conflict in Myanmar. During Activities in the Livelihoods and NFI sectors were 2013, the ERF received US$762,079 in new also supported during 2013. Of the five projects contributions and allocated $1.78 million to five approved in 2013, two projects were for Kachin and projects to cover critical gaps in the overall three for Rakhine. humanitarian response in Kachin and Rakhine The programmatic results shown in this 2013 ERF States. The total number of beneficiaries from ERF- annual report come from five projects which were funded projects implemented during 2013 was implemented during 2013, which are not all of the approximately 116,000. same projects that were funded during 2013. One The ERF has become an important tool of the project which was funded at the end of 2012 was Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) to provide urgent implemented only in 2013, and one project funded response to unmet humanitarian needs. Myanmar at the end of 2013 will be implemented only in 2014. remains vulnerable to a wide range of crises, both The total cost of the five projects reporting the natural and man-made which cause large-scale results included in this report was $2.0 million. human suffering, including the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Inter-communal The HMSF becomes an ERF violence in Rakhine State in 2012 resulted in the In 2007, the HC established a small fund to provide displacement of 140,000 people across Rakhine, assistance to vulnerable people living in the “hard to and additional needs of other conflicted affected reach” areas outside of Government control. This people. In Kachin, the conflict between armed Fund, known as the Humanitarian Multi-Stakeholder groups and the Myanmar Government has resulted Fund (HMSF), was one of the only channels that in the continued displacement of approximately provided assistance to these isolated populations, 100,000 IDPs in camps or with host families. as UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were not able to access Donor support for the ERF these “hard to reach” areas. Between 2007 and 2013, the ERF received $7.9 million Due to the politically sensitive operational in contributions from three donors: Australia, Sweden, environment, the HMSF remained small, funding and the United Kingdom. Largely due to the Fund’s low only five projects during the first four years of the profile, the ERF has not received additional consistent Fund's existence. or predictable donor support during these years. In 2013, the HMSF expanded to Rakhine, and In 2013, the ERF received one contribution of began to fund more "traditional" ERF-type $762,079 from Sweden. All allocations made to emergency humanitarian assistance projects, in projects during the year came from the $2.2 million areas that were not "hard to reach." To formalise carried over from 2012. To remain a viable