MYANMAR CRISIS (including Thailand and Bangladesh) HUMANITARIAN CRISES ANALYSIS 2016

Transcription

1 MYANMAR CRISIS (including Thailand and Bangladesh) HUMANITARIAN CRISES ANALYSIS 2016 Each year, Sida conducts a humanitarian allocation exercise in which a large part of its humanitarian budget is allocated to emergencies worldwide. This allocation takes place in the beginning of the year as to ensure predictability for humanitarian organisations and to allow for best possible operational planning. In an effort to truly adhere to the humanitarian principles Sida bases its allocation decisions on a number of objective indicators of which the most important are related to the number of affected people, vulnerability of affected people and level of funding in previous years. One of the indicators is also related to forgotten crises in order to ensure sufficient funding also to low profile crises. Besides this initial allocation, another part of the humanitarian budget is set aside as an emergency reserve for sudden onset emergencies and deteriorating humanitarian situations. This reserve allows Sida to quickly allocate funding to any humanitarian situation throughout the year, including additional funding to the Myanmar crisis. For 2016 the Myanmar crisis is allocated an initial 40 MSEK in January Close monitoring of the Myanmar crisis follows throughout the year for potentially additional funds. 1. CRISIS OVERVIEW 1.1 Background and type of crisis The humanitarian situation in Myanmar is complex and is characterized by protracted crisis situations in very different contexts. The humanitarian needs and challenges differ between the contexts and relate to, among others, armed conflicts, displacement, ethnic violence, statelessness, repressive policies and systematic discrimination, trafficking, as well as natural disasters. The protracted nature of the crises adds to vulnerability and protection concerns which should be taken into account in the humanitarian response. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that Myanmar is, after years of isolation and social and economic mismanagement, one of the least developed countries in the world with some areas experiencing serious food and nutrition insecurity. Myanmar has experienced major political and economic reform processes in recent years, including a general election in November 2015, in which the opposition party, New League for Democracy (NLD) won a landslide victory. The relatively free and fair election has generally been regarded as an important step towards democracy but it is too early to say what the long-term outcome will be. The current constitution still grants a lot of power to the military, and the transition to a new government may bring a turbulent period in A Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) was signed in mid-october between the government and some of the ethnic armed groups. The peace process will now move into the next phase of monitoring and political dialogue, but a number of ethnic armed groups are not included in the NCA and in some areas fighting has since continued and even escalated. Myanmar has, since its independence in 1948, experienced a large number of armed conflicts between the Burmese army and armed ethnic groups, originating in disputes over resource and power sharing, regional autonomy, socio-economic development and minority rights as well as discrimination, inequalities and human rights abuses. Addressing the ethnic minorities grievances is still one of the key challenges to achieve a sustainable peace process for the country as a whole. Myanmar is according to the INFORM risk index one of the countries most prone to natural hazards, with the majority of damage in the past caused by floods, cyclones and to some extent earthquakes. Historical data indicate the likelihood for a medium to major-scale natural disaster to affect Myanmar every 2-3 years and this cycle is more or less confirmed by the major disasters having struck Myanmar in the last few years: cyclone Nargis in 2008, cyclone Giri in 2010 as well as earthquakes in 2011 and 2012 and flash floods in More recently the floods and landslides in July-August 2015 affected over 9 million people in 12 of the country s 14 states and regions, temporarily displacing 1.7 million people, out of which 11,000 remain displaced. The emergency response covered most of the immediate essential needs, but the medium term impact of the loss of crops and livelihoods is of high concern, as the floods had a severe impact on the livelihoods of families that rely on agriculture and production. 1

2 1.2 Geographical areas, affected population and humanitarian consequences Rakhine state: ethnic violence and protection crisis The situation in Rakhine state remains a human rights and protection crisis with acute humanitarian consequences. About 143,800 people remain displaced after the violence which broke out in 2012, and which continued sporadically in 2013 and 2014, and a further 333,900 people are in need of humanitarian assistance. The large majority of these people are Rohingya, a stateless Muslim population who, according to the UN, is one of the most persecuted minorities in the world. The Rohingya have for a long time been subject to repressive policies and systematic discrimination, including movement restrictions, and to serious human rights abuses. The situation is dire for the people living in overcrowded make-shift camps with inadequate water, sanitation and health facilities, limited access to livelihoods and in constant threat of violence. For the Rohingyas living outside of the camps, a majority of them living in Northern Rakhine State, the situation is not much better since they are subject to much the same restrictions and discrimination. Girls suffer disproportionately from malnutrition and women from the lack of reproductive health services. Domestic violence is highly prevalent, and likely to worsen by a situation of increasing desperation and deprivation. Rakhine continues to be one of the poorest and least developed regions in Myanmar with a lack of economic and social development, high population density, malnutrition and weak infrastructure. The acute malnutrition rates for children under five in Northern Rakhine are at emergency thresholds (GAM at 19% and SAM at 3.9%) and there have been reports of a drastic increase since August 2015 in SAM children admissions, which may be related to the floods and the consequences on people s inability to find sufficient food. Rakhine was one of the worst-hit parts of Myanmar during the floods in 2015 and the damage to crops and people s livelihoods will be felt by communities well into There have been some positive signs during 2015 with more trading and interaction between the Rohingya and Rakhine communities as well as some returns or relocations of IDPs, even if these have not been as many as planned. However the discrimination, segregation and tensions remain and measures taken during 2015 like the abolition of voting rights for Rohingya as well as the disqualification of most Muslim candidates in the 2015 election and other new discriminatory legislation are worrying trends. The crisis in Rakhine state is protracted and displacement, segregation, statelessness and vulnerability are likely to persist for years. A political solution is needed in Rakhine but it still remains to be seen how the new government will handle the situation. The dire situation of the Rohingya in Rakhine has led to many people risking their lives by departing by sea towards Thailand and beyond. These people rely on smuggling networks and are highly vulnerable to human trafficking as was shown during the boat migrant crisis during spring About 25,000, the large majority of whom are Rohingya, are estimated to have departed by sea from Rakhine state and the border areas of Bangladesh during the first quarter of 2015, twice as many as in the same period last year. None of the affected countries in the region have ratified the Refugee Convention and even though a high-level meeting was held during the boat migration crisis earlier in 2015, where there was some discussion on the root causes of the crisis, no response to address these root causes have been noticed, at ASEAN or the individual country level. The situation should continue to be monitored as the monsoon season subsides and the sailing season is expected to start again. Kachin and Shan states: armed conflicts intensifying in 2015 An estimated 96,400 people remain displaced in Kachin and Shan states as a result of the on-going armed conflicts between the Burmese army and ethnic armed groups, the largest one being KIA, the armed wing of Kachin Independence Organisation. In addition there are about 20,000 people hosting IDPs in need of support. The conflicts intensified during 2015 with heavy clashes and resulting in additional displacement, including in the Kokang Self-administered Zone leading to a displacement of over 80,000 people, of which most into neighbouring China, about 8,000 remain displaced. In addition, armed clashes broke out in central and southern Shan in October and 4,000 remain displaced. The situation in Kachin and Shan is a protracted crisis situation, with many of the IDPs experiencing multiple displacements since 2011, with corresponding high protection concerns as well as other humanitarian needs within livelihoods, shelter, health and WASH. There are distinct gender dimensions to the humanitarian needs: women and girls are at a higher risk of domestic violence and trafficking as well as SGBV while boys and men face higher risk of 2

3 forced labour, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killings as well as forced recruitment. Humanitarian access in the region remains a key protection concern since a large part of the displaced live in areas beyond government control where humanitarian access for most international organizations remains severely restricted, despite repeated requests to improve the situation. Local NGOs, supported by the international community, have in many cases been the only regular source of assistance since the beginning of the crisis. The situation in Northern Shan is the most precarious with little local capacity and very restricted international access. In 2015 access to Kokang as well as to the Sumprabum area was blocked for months. The conflict has been fuelled by the region s wealth of natural resources and economic benefits from illegal trade of drugs, arms and human trafficking are important factors motivating an on-going conflict. In addition Kachin and Shan states are highly contaminated by mines/explosive remnants of war. South-eastern Myanmar and refugee camps in Thailand: post-conflict context towards development An estimated 400,000 people remain displaced in the south-eastern states of Myanmar. In addition there are about 106,000 Burmese refugees in camps in Thailand, mainly originating from the south-eastern parts of Myanmar. It is too early to say how the nationwide ceasefire agreement (NCA) signed in mid-october will affect the situation in the region. On the one hand the ceasefire signatories included one of the major ethnic groups in the region, the KNU (Karen National Union) but on the other hand the ceasefire agreement is only a first step in a long process to sustainable peace. In addition after more than sixty years of civil war there is a high level of mistrust towards the army and the peace processes among the people in the region as well as the refugees in Thailand. The signing of the NCA may lead to an increase in spontaneous returns of IDPs and refugees in 2016 but it is for the moment not clear if this will also lead to developments in relation to a voluntary return process. It is clear that the needs in the southeast are becoming increasingly development-oriented and that the need for a strong link between humanitarian response and development assistance cannot be over-emphasized. Vulnerability is high and there are many outstanding protection concerns including a high level of landmine contamination, land grabbing, increased militarization and SGBV as well as continued human rights abuses, lack of access to justice and civil documentation and widespread impunity. Other humanitarian needs also remain for IDPs and the conflictaffected communities such as limited livelihoods and access to land and inadequate access to basic services such as shelter, WASH, health and education. Even though it has improved in recent years, access to many of the south-eastern states by humanitarian agencies is still tightly controlled. In Thailand, the political situation was relatively quiet during In the refugee camps, the resettlement of refugees to third countries continued on small scale during the year while spontaneous returns of refugees to Myanmar remained limited. There are relatively large differences between the nine camps, in terms of vulnerability and main protection concerns, opportunities for livelihoods and what restrictions apply. The rapid changes in Myanmar in recent years have clearly impacted on the work in the camps and have led to prospects of a future return of refugees which was unimaginable only a few years ago. This context is no longer a clear-cut humanitarian crisis, but as long as the camps remain, basic humanitarian needs will exist. The socio-economic reasons for staying in the camps should not be underestimated nor should the lacking conditions for a durable return in south-eastern Myanmar be ignored. Bangladesh: Rohingya crisis No official figure exists but approximately 500,000 Rohingya live in Bangladesh, most of them in deplorable conditions far from meeting basic humanitarian standards, with a shortage of food, water, little access to basic services and they are subject to persecution, abuse and arrest. About 230,000 live in and around refugee camps but only 32,000 are recognised as refugees and live in two UNHCR camps in Cox s Bazar district in the Chittagong Division. Others live in unofficial makeshift sites which receive limited assistance from humanitarian agencies. The conditions in the makeshift camps in Kutupalong and Leda are particularly difficult. Bangladesh has severely restricted international relief organisations to provide humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya population as it believes their activities create a pull-factor for refugees from Myanmar. Humanitarian activities in Cox s Bazar are largely limited to life-saving activities. The space for an increased focus on Cox s Bazars has opened up now with the Government s strategy on Rohingya from However provision of humanitarian assistance to unregistered Rohingya, which make out the majority of the Rohingya, remains very challenging. The Rohingya crisis is classified by ECHO as a forgotten crisis. 3

4 1.2 Risks and threats Overall risks and threats to people and communities with a potential impact to the humanitarian situation in Myanmar in 2016 are on the one hand related to risks of natural disasters (recurrent phenomena in Myanmar as well as that the El Niño phenomenon is expected to hit Southeast Asia in 2016) and on the other hand related to a stalling or backtracking of political reforms and/or of the peace process. Another more general risk which could be applicable to all humanitarian contexts in Myanmar is related to a possible deterioration of access to people in need, the access already being very restricted in many parts of the country, significantly hindering delivery of humanitarian aid to extremely vulnerable groups. Some of the more context-specific risks include a continued escalation of conflict in Kachin, Shan and Kokang areas. In relation to the signing of the NCA, the different ethnic groups are trying to maintain an inclusive approach but a possible rift between the signatories and non-signatories of the NCA is a real threat and needs to be taken into account when providing support to Myanmar. The more specific risks in Rakhine include an escalation of violence as well as the risk of humanitarian aid not being performed in a conflict sensitive way and contributing to increased tension and reinforcing segregation between communities. While misperceptions and distrust continues to be high from the side of the Rakhine community towards international organisations there have been no major incidents towards humanitarian actors in 2015 (following the attacks on international humanitarian organisations in March 2014). Assistance to the refugee camps in Thailand and to the southeast also requires a substantial conflict sensitivity analysis, with strong communication and coordination on both sides. The risk for corruption is high in Myanmar and the country ranks as number 156 out of 175 on Transparency Internationals Index for It is clear that, considering the complex humanitarian contexts in Myanmar, Sida s humanitarian partners need to be able to perform regular qualitative context-specific analyses and demonstrate strong capacity to analyse and manage contextual, operational and financial risks. Humanitarian assistance should be programmed and delivered in a conflict-sensitive way and, increasingly, as part of a holistic approach. 1.3 Strategic objectives identified in the Humanitarian Response Plan Based on the needs outlined in the 2016 Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO), the following are the strategic objectives identified in the Myanmar Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) 2016: 1) Meeting lifesaving needs; 2) Access to basic services and livelihoods opportunities; and 3) Early recovery and durable solutions. The HRP continues to give a central place to protection. It also stresses the importance of searching for durable solutions, of advocacy on humanitarian issues, of ensuring a conflict-sensitivity approach, of accountability to affected people, of emergency preparedness and response, of relief, recovery and development linkages, of developing comprehensive regional plans and of cash programming. The HRP also says it will ensure a strong focus on gender, although the gender dimension is weak in the response plan, with limited analyses as well as no gender disaggregated statistics or gender sensitive objectives or indicators (the education area the only exception). Priority is also given to working with the new government. The HRP 2016 is a light revision of the HRP 2015 and it will be more thoroughly reviewed in 2016 once the new government is in place. The HRP is geographically focused on the crisis context in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states but it also covers a flood response in areas recovering from the flooding in The HRP targets a total of 1,020,000 people in need (560,000 in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan and 460,000 in flood-affected areas). There are ongoing discussions among donors that the number of people in need in flood-affected areas is considerably higher than those as per the HRP. The HRP does not cover the crisis context in south-eastern Myanmar which instead is covered by a separate framework for Supporting durable solutions in South-East Myanmar led by UNCHR. As for the situation in Thailand, the UNHCR Strategic roadmap on voluntary repatriation (updated in 2015) outlines the strategic directions for a voluntary repatriation. There is still room for improvement of coordination between actors working with refugees in Thailand and IDPs and other conflict affected communities in the south-east. The HRP does not target the Rohingya population in Bangladesh, which is part of Sida s target as part of the support to the Myanmar crisis. 4

5 2. IN COUNTRY HUMANITARIAN CAPACITIES 2.1 National and local capacities and constraints National and local humanitarian capacity to respond to disasters in Myanmar remains limited, partly due to the many years of isolation as well as the underdevelopment of the country. There is also still reluctance from the government to invest in regions like Kachin and Rakhine for political reasons and a significant level of resistance to acknowledge fundamental human rights of displaced persons and ethnic minorities, in particular the Rohingya. The World Risk Report 2015 lists Myanmar as one of the countries in the world with the absolute lowest coping capacities in terms of low capacities and resources to respond to a major disaster. There have however been many lessons learned from recent years natural catastrophes, and the government s response to the flooding in 2015 has been appreciated for its fast and efficient response which was led by the Emergency Operations Centre and, in addition, a Recovery Coordination Committee was established. The Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement is the designated lead ministry in charge of providing relief assistance to affected communities and it is also where the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) is located. The Ministry of Border Affairs is in charge of regulating assistance in border areas. While the government has taken the lead in responding to natural disasters, their role in meeting conflict-related humanitarian needs has been limited. The government controls and restricts international humanitarian assistance through limiting which organisations have MoUs, without defined criteria and a complex process of travel authorizations apply. The role of ethnic authorities and ethnic armed groups in the provision of humanitarian assistance and basic services varies a lot between areas. The Myanmar Information Management Unit is actively involved in mapping activities of both national and international actors in both humanitarian and development work. National and local NGOs, supported by the international community, have played an important role in the delivery of humanitarian aid, especially in areas where access is restricted. These NGOs have traditionally also had large operations in service delivery, trying to compensate for low national budgets. There are however challenges in relation to capacity and absorption in relation to implementation via national and local NGOs. In Kachin a Joint Strategic Team was set up by local NGOs to strengthen coordination and a joint humanitarian strategy has been developed. Emergency preparedness and DRR have improved in recent years but remains a major challenge due to lack of access, capacity and funding. 2.2 International operational capacities and constraints The Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) in Myanmar is led by the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) who also is the Resident Coordinator (RC) and consists of a core group of UN Agency country representatives as well as NGO country representatives. There is also a an expanded HCT (HCT+), which is mainly for information sharing, and open for a wider participation, including donors. The HCT was supported by a GenCap adviser in parts of 2014 and 2015 and the HNO and SRP for 2015 were assessed to reflect gender issues relatively well. The HNO and HRP for 2016 is not up to par which might indicate that it is a challenge to keep capacities and progress made. A new GenCap adviser will be deployed to the HCT and hosted by UNFPA in late 2015/early The coordination mechanisms include national clusters and sectors and national inter-cluster coordination as well as clusters/sectors and inter-cluster coordination at regional level in Rakhine and Kachin. There is also a coordination forum for INGOs. Sweden and Sida have had a relatively limited role in these forums, considering the low Swedish humanitarian capacity in-country in Myanmar. There is a strong need for strengthening coordination and increasing transparency in Myanmar, both in terms of coordination between different humanitarian actors as well as in strengthening synergies and coordination between humanitarian and development actors. There have been discussions among donors that donors should be included in the HCT to increase coordination and strengthen transparency. There are also fears among humanitarian actors that the development agenda in Myanmar is being pushed too far at the expense of humanitarian needs. Some of the main INGOs have been doing joint analysis work in relation to Rakhine during 2015 and has commissioned a Rakhine strategic positioning paper to be presented at the end of the year. Recently there has been a new senior position created in Rakhine to support improved coordination and to improve humanitarian-development synergies. 5

6 2.3 International and Regional assistance The most important humanitarian donors in Myanmar in 2015 include Japan, the US, ECHO, DFID, Germany, Australia, Switzerland and Sweden. There has also been a relatively large allocation from CERF in response to the flooding in These donors have traditionally been important donors to Myanmar and are expected to continue to be so also in the next few years. The main donors to the refugee camps in Thailand 2015 are the US, Sweden, the UK and Australia. Main donors to the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh are EU, CERF, the US, the UK and Sweden. 3. SIDAs HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLAN 3.1. Sida s role Sida s humanitarian support to Myanmar has in the past included both the humanitarian work inside of Myanmar as well as support to refugees in Thailand and most recently also in Bangladesh. Sida provided a relatively limited humanitarian support to Myanmar until 2008 when cyclone Nargis caused major destruction in the country, after which Sida s humanitarian support to Myanmar has remained on a higher level than before 1. The focus of last years humanitarian support has been on addressing the consequences of natural disasters (mainly cyclone Naris and cyclone Giri) as well as on protracted and emergency operations in relation to on-going armed conflicts and violence (mainly in Rakhine State, southeastern Myanmar as well as Kachin/northern Shan states). Sida s humanitarian support to the Myanmar crisis in 2015, including the support to the refugee camps in Thailand and the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh, amounted to about MSEK 93. In general Sida-funded activities to the Myanmar crisis contexts during 2015 have been implemented according to plan and expected results have been achieved. Sida has provided support with a focus on protection, health and food but also within sectors like nutrition, WASH, livelihoods, education, shelter, coordination and DRR. Sida has during 2015 continued to support humanitarian responses in Rakhine, including to extremely vulnerable people in Northern Rakhine State, and increasingly in Kachin but has also provided some limited support to humanitarian needs of displaced people in the southeast. Sida also provided timely support to the flooding response through its Rapid Response Mechanism. In addition Sida was one of only three donors to the ERF. Sida also provided some limited funding to the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh. Despite a decreased funding in 2015 Sida continued to be an important donor to the refugee camps in Thailand Response Priorities 2015 Sida s humanitarian focus 2016 The focus of Sida s humanitarian assistance to the Myanmar crisis in 2016 will lie on protection and lifesaving humanitarian needs of displaced populations as well as other conflict/violence-affected groups. Sida s support will be needs-based and focus on girls, boys and women (including pregnant and lactating women) and other most vulnerable people. This will often include support to ethnic minorities, displaced or otherwise affected by violence and conflict, living in remote rural areas with restricted access to protection and basic essential services. Considering that the nature of needs are not expected to change dramatically during 2016 there will be no major changes in terms of sector focus of Sida s humanitarian support to Myanmar in 2016 compared to The sector priorities for Sida s humanitarian support will be within protection, health, nutrition and food as well as some support within WASH, livelihoods and resilience. The geographical focus will be on Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states as well as on the refugee camps in Thailand and the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh. Some support will also be provided to south-eastern Myanmar. Sida will continue its phase-out of its support to the refugee camps in Thailand. Prioritized dialogue issues for Sida in assessing partners projects as well as in follow up will be to ensure that gender analysis is integrated and that GBV prevention and protection concerns are taken into account. 1 About MSEK 119 (2008), 109 (2009), 69 (2010), 96 (2011), 94 (2012), 113 (2013) and 90 (2014) 6

7 Synergies with development There are large potentials for strengthening synergies between development and humanitarian work in Myanmar. Humanitarian assistance in Myanmar has to date had a large focus on meeting immediate humanitarian needs and there has been a lack of a more long-term strategic approach, considering the protracted crisis contexts. Opportunities for building resilience and emergency preparedness have not been strategically considered. Recently however, there have increasingly been calls from both humanitarian and development actors in Myanmar on the necessity for a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to address the complex challenges that the country faces, in order to enhance the resilience of the Burmese people. This is particularly true for Rakhine state where most actors now seem to agree that it is imperative with a more long-term and holistic response to address the challenges in the state, with an integrated approach between humanitarian and development programmes emphasizing inclusiveness, conflict sensitivity and vulnerability in a state-wide approach supported by political dialogue and advocacy. There is a need to move towards transitional programming where possible, while at the same time recognising the important humanitarian needs among an extremely vulnerable population. It would however also be important to highlight that there are fears among humanitarian actors that the development agenda is being pushed forward at the expense of humanitarian needs. Also in the south-east, within a post-conflict context moving towards development, there are large potentials for strengthening synergies between development and humanitarian assistance, especially if developments like the elections and the signing of the NCA will strengthen potential for development in the area and lead to increases in the return of refugees and IDPs. There is no specific opening for strengthening the synergies between the Swedish development assistance and humanitarian aid in the Results strategy for Sweden s international development cooperation in Myanmar Though the strategy has no focus on resilience, it has a focus on ethnic minorities, some of which is the same target group in the humanitarian aid, and there are potential linkages connected to the strategy s focus on strengthening ethnic minorities participation in the peace process as well as on increased access to basic health services for women and children. Indeed, there are already on-going or planned projects funded within the Swedish development budget to Myanmar with close linkages to the humanitarian aid, even though the link seems to be more of an adhoc nature rather than made from a strategic choice. These include on-going support to UNDP s country programme which includes early recovery coordination and work specifically for Rakhine and Kachin as well as to core support to Action Aid Myanmar (including support to their work as lead on disaster preparedness in Myanmar). A new support to UNFPA includes a focus on GBV in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states which targets extremely vulnerable groups also from a humanitarian perspective. In addition, the recent support to the Peace Support Fund includes dialogue activities in Rakhine to decrease tensions and help solve conflicts between communities. Some funds from Swedish development assistance were also re-allocated to the flooding response in With the strengthening in capacity of the Swedish section office in Yangon there is room for enhancing the joint work between development and humanitarian assistance including coordination, joint analysis and programming focusing on risk, vulnerability and resilience etc. There is an opportunity to advance this work during 2016 through the plans to include a resilience perspective in the Mid-term review of the results strategy planned for September Partners Sida proposes to work with the following partners in Myanmar during 2016, all of which have a long and solid experience from working within the Myanmar crisis context: Diakonia/TBC It is too early to say how developments like the elections and the signing of the NCA will affect the situation in the refugee camps in Thailand and how these will affect return of refugees in However, as long as the camps remain, basic humanitarian needs will also remain. Sida has been an important donor to the camps for many years but has since 2013 gradually reduced its funding, mainly because support to the camps have been disproportionate in relation to other global humanitarian emergencies. In addition to a decreasing camp population, TBC has also implemented more efficient targeting of its humanitarian assistance. In light of continued humanitarian needs and considering Sida s long-term commitment to the camps Sida will continue to provide support to the camps in 2016 through Diakonia/TBC but through a further phase out of its support and with 2017 likely being the last year of support. However, the developments in relation to a possible return process as well as the humanitarian situation in the camps will 7

8 be closely monitored during 2016 to ensure that the humanitarian aid does not contribute to push- or pull factors. TBC has developed a solid experience of service provision in the camps as well as trust within the refugee community and it will continue to be an important actor in the preparedness and possible return process during The conclusion of the recent evaluation of Diakonia is that the work of Diakonia within TBC s programme has been relevant and relatively efficient and the recommendation is that Sida should continue to fund Diakonia through the phasing out of the support. IOM Sida has been supporting IOM s work with the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh since 2014 and IOM is assessed to be a strong implementation partner in this context. IOM is the government s partner for implementing its strategy on Rohingya from 2014 and as such has a unique mandate to provide services and coordinate and provide capacity building of other humanitarian actors in relation to the Rohingya crisis. Sida should continue to support this work with an extremely vulnerable group in a forgotten crisis. ICRC Since 2013 ICRC has significantly expanded its activities in Myanmar and today has an appropriate mandate and scale of operations for a crisis context like Myanmar. For 2016 the focus of ICRC operations will lie on assistance within health, WASH and livelihoods, mine-risk education, rehabilitation of hospitals and prisons, physical rehabilitation and within protection support to medical emergency referral, detainees visits and family-links services. ICRC will also continue to work on promotion of IHL. It will support and work in close co-operation with the MRCS. The geographical focus of ICRC s work will during 2016 focus mainly on Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states. ICRC has grown to be a vital humanitarian actor in Myanmar and Sida should continue to support ICRC s operations in ACF ACF has a long experience in working in Northern Rakhine State and is one of very few international actors operational there. ACFs work in 2016 will focus on detection and treatment of acute malnutrition through active and passive screening and supplementary and therapeutic feeding as well as mental health and care and psychosocial support. In addition the linkages between WASH and nutrition interventions will be strengthened. Target groups will be children and pregnant and lactating women. ACF has a strong technical expertise within nutrition and health and of managing a large scale operation in an extremely difficult context. Sida assesses ACF to be an important humanitarian actor in the context of NRS, considering the organisation s access to extremely vulnerable groups, its long experience and strong technical and operational expertise. The support to ACF should therefore be further strengthened in Swedish Red Cross (SRC)/Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) Continued support to the SRCs work through the MRCS is assessed to be relevant as MRCS is a vital community-based organisation and a main actor in response and preparedness for disasters in Myanmar with a nation-wide coverage. The approval of a new Red Cross Law in Myanmar in 2015 should contribute to strengthen MRCS s independence and neutrality, where the close links to the government in the past has made it difficult for MRCS to operate in conflict areas and access vulnerable groups. The capacity of MRCS needs to be further strengthened. OCHA Myanmar ERF The OCHA ERF is one of the smallest ERFs globally with only three contributing donors and has to date at most provided 2% of the humanitarian funding in Myanmar. However the fund has been strengthened in terms of due diligence, risk management, administration and monitoring since its establishment in 2007 and has recently adopted the global CBPF guidelines. The ERF targets strategic humanitarian response identified within the HRP as well as emergency humanitarian response. During 2015 the fund has struggled to establish the required CBPF grant management system and there have been long delays in terms of allocation and disbursement. The limited awareness of the fund and its small size remain a challenge. However the grant system is now in place and during 2015 the fund still managed to fund a relatively large number of projects, including floods response, and 26% of the funded projects were directly implemented by local partners. An ambitious resource mobilization strategy was developed in 2015 which aim to increase the efficiency of the ERF and in combination with the move to the global guidelines this should help the ERF grow it into a fund that can significantly contribute to humanitarian assistance and 8

9 coordination in Myanmar. Sida should continue to support the strengthening of the ERF, in particular in view of Sida s limited own capacity for humanitarian monitoring. MSF MSF has a long experience from Myanmar and its operations there is one of its largest globally. MSF will during 2016 continue to provide healthcare (including TB and HIV/AIDS) to vulnerable groups in Kachin that would otherwise lack access to healthcare due to displacement and conflict. In Kachin MSF is, together with the ICRC, the only international organisations with direct access to non-government controlled areas and to very vulnerable camp populations. Sida considers MSF a strong implementation partner in terms of its technical capacity within health care as well as its access to vulnerable groups but also as an advocate for humanitarian needs of marginalised populations. Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) NRC is one of the main actors for humanitarian assistance to the displaced and conflict affected populations in south-east Myanmar. NRC is a long-term partner to Sida in Myanmar and is assessed to be a competent organization with a good experience in the complex and sensitive operational environment built on a close co-operation with community-based organizations. It was for a number of years one of few international organisations with access to the region. NRC s transition work in the south-east is assessed as highly relevant; especially in light of scenarios pointing towards that return could increase in OCHA Further support should be provided to the coordination work of OCHA in Myanmar. There is ample room for strengthening humanitarian coordination and OCHAs role in Myanmar and Sida should support this process. Through its support to OCHA, Sida should also continue to support a stronger role of gender in humanitarian programming and implementation, for example through a stronger role of GenCap advisers in the humanitarian programme cycle as well as in capacity work with implementing partners and government authorities. SIDA s humanitarian assistance to the Myanmar crisis in 2016 Recommended partner for Sector/focus of work Proposed amount Sida support by Sida Diakonia/TBC Food security, camp management, 10 livelihoods IOM Bangladesh WASH, health, nutrition 9 ICRC Protection, health, WASH, livelihoods, 7 prison visit, IHL ACF Nutrition, psychosocial support, WASH 7 (NRS) SRC Health, resilience, water/habitat, IHL 6 (Kayin, Chin, Sagaing, Mandalay, Kachin) OCHA ERF Multisectoral (Focus Kachin/Shan, 5 Rakhine) MSF Health, HIV/TB (Kachin) 4 NRC Education, ICLA (Southeast) 4 OCHA Coordination 2 TOTAL: 54 9

10 Main sources: Humanitarian Response Plan Myanmar 2016 (OCHA December 2015) Humanitarian Needs Overview Myanmar 2016, (OCHA November 2015) Humanitarian Implementation Plan 2016 Southeast Asia and the Pacific (ECHO, Oct 2015) Humanitarian Implementation Plan 2016 South Asida (ECHO Oct 2015) Strategic Roadmap for Voluntary Repatriation (UNHCR March 2015) The Border Consortium Programme Report Jan-June 2015 Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea Proposals for Action (UNHCR, IOM UNDOC, May 2015) Input from Sida Strategic Partners, including from initial submissions 10