MYANMAR CRISES HUMANITARIAN CRISES ANALYSIS 2018 (including Rohingya related assistance to Bangladesh) December 2017 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 and parameters 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 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 (including Rohingya related assistance to Bangladesh). For 2018, the Myanmar crisis (including Rohingya related assistance to Bangladesh) is allocated an initial 74 Million Swedish Kronor (MSEK). Close monitoring of the situation in Myanmar (and Bangladesh) will continue throughout the year for potential additional funding or amendments. 1. CRISIS OVERVIEW 1.1 Type of Crises Background of the Rakhine Crisis The increased violence in the Northern Rakhine State in the fall of 2017 caused more than 640,000 Rohingya to leave Myanmar and cross the border into Bangladesh. This large refugee exodus was an addition to the previous Rohingya refugee population of approximately 300,000 already living in Bangladesh. This event has overshadowed most other ongoing conflicts and natural hazards in Myanmar (and Bangladesh) in recent months. This large number of refugees crossing the border into Bangladesh created a rapidly escalating humanitarian crisis in the area of Cox s Bazar. Despite rapid response from many international humanitarian organisations and national organisations in Bangladesh, the situation in the large camps is still unsatisfactory in terms of disease outbreak control, lack of safe drinking water, insufficient shelter and many other areas of concern. Meanwhile, in Rakhine, humanitarian partners have been severely hampered by security issues and by cumbersome government regulations on aid organisations. Humanitarian operations in Rakhine are most likely insufficient given the level of response and estimates of remaining population in need. Little has been done in terms of preparing for a return of Rohingya refugees and it is unclear if their security and basic needs can be guaranteed. The present situation provides no easy solutions to the future of the Rohingya population. Staying in the camps in Bangladesh, they will first face the challenges of the 2018 rainy season. Long term conditions seem even more bleak given the limitations of the camps in terms of basic needs, but also livelihoods and a sustainable future. The political will of hosting the refugees may change quickly, especially in light of the upcoming 2019 elections.the other option, a return to Myanmar, has equally challenging obstacles. Uncertainties regarding freedom of movement, livelihoods and citizenship are only a few of the issues that will determine long term sustainability of a return. It is unclear how far the government of Myanmar is willing to go, in order to create real change in Rakhine. Myanmar has during the recent years experienced major political and economic reform processes and the country is continuing to undergo major transitions. In March 2016, a new democratically elected government took power with a huge popular mandate from the elections in November 2015. Nevertheless, the current 1
constitution still allows the military to assign important ministerial posts, and in Parliament 25 percent of the seats are reserved for the military and not subject to popular vote. A Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) between the Government and eight of the ethnic armed groups was signed in October 2015, leaving thirteen outside that arrangement. Since then, there has been an escalation of armed conflicts in Kachin and northern Shan. Addressing the ethnic minorities grievances in Rakhine, but also other conflict affected areas in Myanmar, is still one of the key challenges to achieve a sustainable peace process for the country as a whole. 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 chronic poverty as well as serious food and nutrition insecurity. If left unaddressed, these challenges pose significant risks to Myanmar s stability and progress on sustainable development. Natural Disasters in Myanmar In addition to conflicts, people in Myanmar remain highly vulnerable to natural disasters. Myanmar ranks 12 out of 191 countries in the INFORM Risk Index. Myanmar is prone to hazards including cyclones, storms, floods, landslides, earthquakes, tsunamis, drought, fire and forest fires. Historical data shows that there have been medium to large-scale natural disasters every few years. Since 2002, more than 13 million people have been affected by natural disasters, including three Category 4 cyclones, several major earthquakes, and in 2015 the country experienced the worst flooding in decades. Myanmar s vulnerability to extreme weather was visible again in 2016. Strong winds, heavy rains and hail storms in April affected around 40 townships across Chin, Kachin, Mandalay, Rakhine, Sagaing and Shan. From February to June 2016, Myanmar also experienced the effects of El Niño including extreme temperatures, unusual rainfall patterns, dry soil, high risk of fires and acute water shortages. In 2017, Myanmar was affected by unusually high river water levels in the northern parts as well, as cyclone Mora flooding in the Rakhine area. These recurring natural disasters are expected to continue, as little is done to increase resilience in disaster prone areas. Context in Bangladesh Analysis of Bangladesh s specific crises is not seen as a part of this Humanitarian Crisis Analysis (HCA) for the Myanmar crisis and is, therefore, not further described here. Humanitarian assistance to Bangladesh, outside of this HCA, may still be provided through Sida partner organisations, using the Rapid Response Mechanism. 1.2 Geographical areas and affected populations within this HCA Myanmar: Rakhine state In the aftermath of the coordinated attacks on August 25, the heavy-handed military operation that followed and the following exodus of a majority of Rohingyas to Bangladesh, the situation in the Rakhine state remains a human rights and protection crisis with acute humanitarian consequences. The situation is critical for the remaining approximately 500,000 Rohingya. This remaining Rohingya population in Myanmar is subject to violence, restrictions on freedom of movement, and issues related to health care access, food, education, protection, access to livelihoods and other basic services. For many of these people, ongoing restrictions continue to result in a heavy dependency on humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs. The situation is dire for the IDPs living in collective shelters known as long houses, originally constructed in 2012-13 as a temporary measure, designed to last for only two years. For the Rohingyas living outside of the camps, the situation is not much better since they are subject to much the same restrictions and discrimination. Women and girls are more at risk of gender-based violence, trafficking etc. while men and boys are more at risk of arrest, detention or murder. Due to access restrictions, it has not yet been possible to verify the exact number of people affected and the magnitude of their needs. However, it is likely that the situation has deteriorated compared with last year s figures. Prevalence of global acute malnutrition (GAM) in Buthidaung and Maungdaw were in 2016 at 15.1 percent, and 19.0 percent respectively while the prevalence of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) was recorded at 2.0 percent, and 3.9 percent respectively. Chronic malnutrition was also a major concern with global stunting levels ranging between 28.2 (Sittwe urban) to 51.7 percent (Pauktaw) in Rakhine. 2
Bangladesh: Chittagong/Cox s Bazar The influx of Rohingyas to Bangladesh has been going on for many years due to the dire situation in Rakhine, despite attempts by Bangladesh to close the border. No official figure exists but approximately 300,000-500,000 Rohingya arrived in Bangladesh before the 2017 exodus, living in deplorable conditions far from meeting basic humanitarian standards, with shortage of food, water, and little access to basic services where they are subject to persecution, abuse and arrest. It is estimated that between August - November 2017, more than 640,000 additional Rohingya people from Myanmar crossed the border into Bangladesh to escape ethnic violence. After initial reluctance, Bangladeshi authorities decided to allow all refugees to enter the country. These, now live in severely overcrowded camps in the Cox s Bazar area. Assessments show that a large portion of newly arrived refugees are malnourished on arrival. Many of the arriving refugees are traumatised, and many are children. At present, a majority of the refugees live in spontaneous, makeshift camps, where the situation with regards to shelter, nutrition, water & sanitation, and access to health services is still limited. Furthermore, the region of Chittagong Division is vulnerable to disasters, such as recurring floods and cyclones. Notably, due to its geographical location along the Bay of Bengal and flat topography, Cox s Bazar district is one of the most cyclone-prone regions in Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi government, UN and NGOs are working to improve the situation, but the large number of refugees that arrived during a short period of time, to an area unsuitable for refugee camps, created a very difficult situation that will take time to resolve. Myanmar: Kachin and Shan states The situation in Kachin and Shan states is a protracted crisis, with many of the IDPs experiencing multiple displacements since 2011, facing corresponding high protection concerns as well as other humanitarian needs within livelihoods, shelter, health and WASH sectors. Humanitarian access in the affected regions 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. 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 forced labour, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killings as well as forced recruitment. Chronic malnutrition is a major concern in Kachin and Shan states with global stunting levels ranging between 37.0 to 47.6 percent.. Both Kachin and Shan states are highly contaminated by mines/explosive remnants of war, and it is reported that new mines are being placed. Still the highest contamination by mines and explosive remnants of war is in South-East Myanmar (Kayin and Kayah states in particular). Mine accidents are also reported from northern Rakhine in the border area with Bangladesh. In Kachin (and northern Shan) State about 98,675 people remain displaced in 165 camps/sites, of which about 77 percent are women and children. The situation remains volatile and there is a risk that new security incidents may trigger further displacement. Due to the proximity of armed personnel to civilians, there are serious ongoing protection concerns that require constant monitoring and attention. Advocacy related to international humanitarian principles will need to be further strengthened in 2018. This includes issues such as distinguishing between civilians and combatants; protection of civilians against indiscriminate attacks: protection of children in armed conflict; preventing and responding to gender-based violence; freedom of movement for civilians; and humanitarian access and safe passage for conflict-affected civilians. Prolonged displacement has put a strain not only on the displaced but also on host communities coping mechanisms. Despite contextual differences, many issues concerning humanitarian access and protection challenges are similar in Rakhine as well as Kachin and northern Shan, and it is important to keep this in mind in advocacy efforts. South-eastern Myanmar and refugee camps in Thailand: post-conflict context towards development In south-eastern Myanmar, decades of armed conflict has resulted in a large number of people being displaced, including 106,000 refugees who remain in nine temporary shelters in Thailand. In the refugee camps, the resettlement of refugees to third countries continued on a small scale during 2017 while spontaneous returns of refugees to Myanmar remains limited. 3
The needs of the population in south-eastern Myanmar are closely interlinked with peace and state-building agendas, and include landmine risks, land ownership and equal access to public services. In this context it is difficult to separate humanitarian needs from longer term development needs. Although the ceasefire has largely held in south-eastern Myanmar there have been sporadic clashes and the ongoing peace process still has a long way to go before there can be a peace agreement and peace. Ceasefire is not equal to peace, and an example of the fact that the peace process and trust-building still has long to go is the fact that neither of the parties in the conflicts are ready to allow de-mining yet. 1.3 Critical Assumptions, risks and threats A serious risk to the already vulnerable population of Myanmar, as well as to those who are displaced in Bangladesh, is the frequent exposure to natural disasters; foremost floods, landslides, droughts and earthquakes. This underlines the critical importance of building long-term resilience including focusing on disaster risk reduction measures. When it comes to risks to the humanitarian operations in Myanmar, these are mainly related to a continued deterioration of access to people in need, by cumbersome travel permits, which significantly hinders delivery of humanitarian aid. Aid organizations have to negotiate access with a large variety of actors, including the government, Myanmar Army, and non-state ethnic armed groups. The highly militarized presence continues to have an impact on the protection environment and 2017 has shown negative developments in several parts of the country in this regard. Another risk is that the humanitarian assistance is not always conducted in a conflict sensitive way and risks to contribute to increased tension and reinforced segregation between communities, not least in northern Rakhine. The risk for corruption is high in Myanmar and the country ranks as number 136 out of 167 on Transparency Internationals Index from 2016. It is clear that, considering the complex humanitarian context 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. The interlinkages between corruption and conflict needs to be well understood in order to ensure conflict sensitivity, especially in contexts where rules and restrictions provide ample opportunities for corrupt practices at the expense of those who are already marginalised. Myanmar: Rakhine The violence in Rakhine has had serious negative effects on relations between Muslim populations and other populations in Myanmar. Although the Myanmar government, in a recent agreement with Bangladesh, seems to have accepted the return of the Rohingya population to Rakhine, the obstacles for an actual return and a sustainable peace process, are many. It is also unlikely that a majority of the Rohingyas in Bangladesh will choose to freely return to Rakhine without guarantees of safety and establishment of basic services/freedom of movement. The wide spread racism towards Rohingya people among many non-muslims in Myanmar is worrying. Any acts of support to the Rohingya, politically or by aid, is often met by protests from the general public in Myanmar. Bangladesh: Cox Bazar No one knows how long refugees will be allowed to stay in Bangladesh and under which conditions. Assuming that Bangladesh will not force Rohingyas to return, there are still major challenges to living in the camps. Most alarming is probably the oncoming 2018 rainy season which is likely to create further problems in already poorly functioning camps. Mudslides, flooding and contamination of drinking water are only few of the likely effects expected with the arrival of the rainy season in April/May 2018. Other issues, unrelated to weather are protection issues, violence, lack of livelihoods and the risk of radicalisation. Myanmar: Kachin and Shan Escalating conflict situations and humanitarian access constraints remain problematic. Efforts to achieve nationwide peace are continuing, and ceasefire agreements are in place with many of the ethnic armed groups. However, some of the armed conflicts have intensified. This is particularly true in Kachin, northern Shan and Rakhine but it is also true in the hitherto comparatively peaceful Chin state where fighting has been on-going close to the border to Rakhine and Bangladesh since the beginning of November 2017, resulting in 4
new displacements. Not only does this show that the risk for further displacement stemming from ongoing armed clashes and military operations remains a likely scenario. There is also a risk that the recent escalations may undermine and destabilize the peace process. 1.4 Strategic Objectives and Priorities of the Country Interim Humanitarian Response Plan The HRP targets a total of 832,000 people (660,000 in Rakhine, 127,000 in Kachin and 39,000 in Shan). Out of this, about 300,000 people are displaced, remaining in camps or camp-like situations. The budget for HRP 2018 is USD183.4 million through 51 humanitarian partners. Due to the ongoing access constraints in Rakhine, where the situation changed dramatically in the last few months of 2017, the Humanitarian Country Team has not been able to carry out a detailed needs assessment and is not yet in a position to present a detailed response plan. For this reason, this is an interim plan, subject to a substantive revision in 2018, when there is more access and when more information about needs, gaps and response capacities is available. For Rakhine, the aim is to issue a revised plan in February or March 2018, focusing not only on humanitarian response for those already in Rakhine, but also taking into consideration any new developments relating to the future return of refugees (once conditions are conducive for the their safe, voluntary and dignified return), and including a focus on addressing the longer term development needs of all communities, as well as governance, conflict-resolution, social cohesion and peacebuilding issues. Based on the needs outlined in the 2018 Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO), the following are the four strategic objectives identified in the HRP: Meeting needs of displaced people and supporting efforts to achieve durable solutions. Ensuring that vulnerable crisis-affected people have access to essential services and livelihoods opportunities. Ensuring the protection of civilians. Strengthening national capacities and the resilience of communities. The HRP continues to give a central place to protection in humanitarian response. This entails ensuring that the protection of affected communities informs all humanitarian decision-making and response as well as all engagement with the government and non-state actors, at every stage of the humanitarian operation, from the preparedness phase, throughout the duration of the crisis and beyond. The HRP stresses the solutions-oriented advocacy, accountability to affected people, conflict-sensitive and gender-inclusive programming, achieving durable solutions for displaced people and close collaboration with the government in all aspects of the response. Other issues highlighted are commitment to strengthening linkages between relief, recovery and development, reducing long-term dependency on humanitarian aid, and building national capacity to prepare for and respond to humanitarian needs. The HRP also stresses that the Humanitarian Country Team is committed to implementing the Agenda for Humanity in line with the outcomes of the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit. The HRP focuses only on in-country humanitarian consequences of the crisis, i.e. regional consequences foremost in Bangladesh are not included in the HRP. Geographically, the HRP focuses on Kachin, Shan and Rakhine states, which have the most urgent humanitarian needs. In the case of south-eastern Myanmar, where much of the displacement occurred many years ago, it is difficult to separate humanitarian needs from longer term development needs and therefore the south-east is considered to be beyond the scope of the Humanitarian Response Plan. 2 IN-COUNTRY HUMANITARIAN CAPACITIES 2.1 National and local capacities and constraints Rakhine In relation to the crisis in Rakhine state, the local capacities are limited, as few of the local NGOs do humanitarian work. In addition, the constraints put in place by Myanmar military in terms of access (travel 5
permits) for international organisations, their movement and activities, severely hamper humanitarian operations which normally require both international and national/local NGOs working together. Recently, additional UN organisations and NGOs have been permitted to resume work, but at a minimal scale as access is still limited and some of the INGOs need to recruit staff that has left. Food distribution is being done by WFP, but on an ad hoc basis, with no real possibility of doing distribution based on needs. It is also worth noting that access issue has always been difficult, even before August 2017. Access is more limited in northern Rakhine compared to central Rakhine. The recently created Union Enterprise is a government led humanitarian initiative, but it remains unclear how this organisation will develop and to what extent international donors will accept to fund it. There is 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. In meeting the conflict-related humanitarian needs, the actual role played by the Myanmar government is limited. Possible scenarios for a return of Rohingya, from Bangladesh to Myanmar, are unclear at present, both in scope and time. It is important to be clear that any return needs to be voluntary and that this requires that root causes are credibly addressed and measures put in place to prevent a third repetition of the same scenario that has now happened twice in October 2016 and August 2017. Returnees should not be put in camps but allowed to return to their homes as far as possible, and where that is not possible other durable solutions should be sought in consultation with the concerned returnees. It is of utmost importance to continue to support the implementation of the Rakhine Advisory Commission s recommendations, in particular with regards to its recommendations concerning citizenship and rights, in order to create an environment conducive to returns. Under no circumstances should the refugees be forced to return to the same circumstances that they have fled from. Shan and Kachin However, national and local NGOs, supported by the international community in Kachin and Shan, 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. However, there are still challenges related to capacity and absorption. Bangladesh There are more local and national NGOs involved in humanitarian operations in Bangladesh, compared to Myanmar and especially in Rakhine. Some of the Bangladeshi national NGOs, such as BRAC, has a very large capacity, as one of the largest NGOs in the world. In addition, as a response to the August events and the influx of refugees to Cox s Bazar, a large number of INGOs quickly established a presence in the area. Initially INGOs were allowed to work with temporary permits, but lately INGOs have been increasingly required to obtain permanent permits in order to continue their work. Apart from formal permits for NGOs, the limitations in Bangladesh are mainly related to the haste at which the camps were planned/constructed, absence of roads, unsuitable terrain, and limited physical area allowed for construction of camps. National government structures are faced with lack of resources, unclear mandates and internal power struggles related to the work in Cox s Bazar. The direction of work is also made unclear by discussions on the return process and/or relocation of refugees to other areas of Bangladesh (the island solution ). Response to Natural Disasters in Myanmar When it comes to response to natural disasters, the government has proven willingness although capacity and resource constraints are significant. Emergency preparedness and disaster risk reduction have improved in recent years but access, capacity and funding are the persistent challenges. The Humanitarian Country Team maintains and regularly updates its own emergency preparedness response plan and contingency plans to support the government in responding to natural disasters and other emergencies. 6
2.2 International operational capacities and constraints The number of operational aid organisations in Rakhine, was for a period after august 2017, limited to only ICRC and the Myanmar Red Cross as regulations were imposed by the Myanmar government/military. Lately, other aid organisations have slowly been allowed to restart their activities in Rakhine. In other areas of Myanmar, many international NGOs and UN organisations are present, although their deep field prescence is restricted/ limited by GoM/Military regulations and by cumbersome permits for movement and staff visas. The Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) in Myanmar is led by the Humanitarian Coordinator who also is the UN Resident Coordinator. Representation of the Humanitarian Country Team has been increased through the inclusion of national actors: the Myanmar Red Cross Society and the Local Resource Center that represent a consortium of a number of local NGOs. The HCT is currently supported by a GenCap adviser and the HNO and HRP for 2017/ 2018 have been assessed to reflect gender issues relatively well. The coordination mechanisms include national clusters and sectors and national inter-cluster coordination as well as clusters/sectors and inter-cluster coordination at regional levels. There is also a coordination forum for INGOs. Sweden, and Sida in particular, 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. 2.3 International and regional assistance The major humanitarian donors in Myanmar include Japan, the US, ECHO, DFID, Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden. These donors have traditionally been important donors to Myanmar and are expected to continue to be so in the next few years. Main donors to the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh are ECHO, US, Sweden, UK and the UN-CERF. 3 SIDAs HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLAN 3.1 The role of Sida 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 in Bangladesh. The humanitarian support during 2017 saw a huge increase in funding, reaching an unprecedented 205 MSEK (163 MSEK in Bangladesh and 42 MSEK in Myanmar) for protection and life-saving humanitarian operations to displaced Rohingya population in Myanmar and Bangladesh. In general, Sida-funded activities for the Myanmar crisis response during 2017 have been implemented according to plans and expected results have been achieved. However, several planned activities in Rakhine were stopped in the wake of the military operations and mounting insecurity after attacks on border guard police posts on August 25. A large part of the 2017 Sida humanitarian funding for activities inside Rakhine was re-distributed to other partners, or used in alternative ways/areas. The main sectors for Sida s humanitarian support in 2017 were similar in both Myanmar and Bangladesh. These are protection, health, nutrition and food as well as some support within WASH, livelihoods and resilience. The geographical focus in 2017 was, except for the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh and Rakhine, mainly Kachin and Shan states. During 2017, Sida finalised its phase-out of support to the refugee camps in Thailand. 2.2 Response Priorities in 2018 The focus of Sida s humanitarian assistance to the Myanmar crisis in 2018 will continually lie on protection and life-saving humanitarian needs of displaced populations as well as other conflict-affected groups. The funding of the refugees in Bangladesh (and also in Rakhine in the event of a return process) will continue to be a priority during the year. Funding of activities aimed at assisting the remaining caseload of Rohingyas in Rakhine will also be prioritised together with ongoing activities in Shan and Kachin. 7
Sida s humanitarian assistance does not have a specific project or single sector approach, but is based on multi-year cooperation with a limited number of pre-selected humanitarian partners. Many of these partners are active in several different areas of work, mainly protection, health, nutrition and food, water and sanitation as well as support within livelihoods. The following specific areas are also of special interest to Swedish humanitarian assistance: Trafficking: As many as 60% of refugees are children and many have been separated from their parents. Different child trafficking groups are active in the region, which makes children and adolescents, especially girls, vulnerable to trafficking. Hence, child protection issues will be prioritised, including the issue of trafficking. Maternal health: Save the Children estimates that 48,000 babies will be born in the refugee camps in Bangladesh this year. Sida s partner ACF and UNFPA (with embassy support) are supporting different activities related to maternal health in Bangladesh. Trauma/Psycho-social support: Unicef and Save the Children have been active in this area of work using Sida funding during 2017. The issue of psycho-social support to traumatised children, men and women, remain high on the agenda for Swedish humanitarian assistance. Prioritized dialogue issues to follow up, both in Myanmar and Bangladesh, will be protection concerns including GBV, conflict sensitivity as well as efficient synergies between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation. When it comes to aid modalities, cash transfer programming may be used where possible. During 2016, the HCT initiated a study to better understand and assess cash feasibility, especially in parts of Rakhine State. The study concluded that scale-up would be feasible in the more urban areas, depending among others on markets, financial infrastructure and capacity of partners. For displaced populations, particularly those in camps, it was noted that restrictions on movement and on access to markets are debilitating factors. Cashtransfer may be a better option in Bangladesh due to the growing and functioning markets around the camps. 3.2 Partners Sida proposes to work with the following partners in Myanmar and Bangladesh during 2018, all of which have a long and solid experience on the Myanmar crises context: IOM (Bangladesh) Due to Bangladeshi government s unwillingness to work with UNHCR, IOM was selected as the government s main partner for implementing its strategy on Rohingya from 2014 and as such had a unique mandate and capacity in place to respond to the Rohingya crisis during 2017. IOM is assessed to be a strong implementation partner in this context and Sida is likely to continue to support IOMs work to stabilise the refugee situation in Cox s Bazar. Recent changes allowing UNHCR better access, may decrease IOMs role in the future. ACF (Bangladesh) During the August 2017 influx of Rohingya to Bangladesh, ACF was already in place in Cox s Bazar district targeting the existing Rohingya population in registered and unregistered settings. ACF was the only major implementer of integrated nutrition projects in the district covering prevention and treatment in coordination with governmental and local actors while having a national coverage. As a response to the massive influx of refugees, ACF operations in Cox Bazar were rapidly scaled up to meet urgent needs related to food, nutrition and health. Sida will continue to support the refugees in Cox s Bazar with urgent food, nutrition and health needs, until the humanitarian crisis stabilises. Sida considers ACF to be a relevant humanitarian partner in terms of technical capacity within nutrition, as well as experience of working in the geographical area. 8
ACF (Myanmar) Due to the recent developments in Rakhine State it is expected that the humanitarian conditions result in a significant increase of children and women in need of appropriate treatment of acute malnutrition, health and psychosocial care for an already critically vulnerable population. ACF is one of the major partners of the HRP nutrition sector, has long experience in working in Northern Rakhine State and is one of very few international actors operational in the area. ACF is also the only actor intervening in the field of mental health and care practices in the area. ACF has a strong technical expertise within nutrition and health and of managing a large-scale operation in an extremely difficult context. Therefore, Sida assesses ACF to be an important humanitarian actor in the context of Northern Rakhine State, considering the organization s previous access to extremely vulnerable groups, its long experience and strong technical and operational expertise. The support to ACF should therefore be continued in 2018. Country Based Pooled Fund (Myanmar) The Myanmar Humanitarian Fund (MHF) has steadily grown and is now similar in size to Jordan, opt and Lebanon s country based pooled funds and it has six contributing donors, UK, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark and Sweden. The fund has during recent years been strengthened in terms of due diligence, risk management, administration and monitoring and has adopted the global CBPF guidelines. The MHF targets strategic humanitarian response identified within the HRP as well as emergency humanitarian response. The MHF allocated USD9 million during 2017 which is equivalent to about 9 percent of the funding to the 2017 HRP in Myanmar. The MHF aims to ensure that at least 50 percent of its funds are channelled through national and local NGOs, in recognition of the critical role they play in service delivery and to strengthen their response capacity. This is supported by the investment in developing the capacity of local organizations to manage funding in an accountable and transparent manner. For 2017, the MHF allocated 40 percent of its funding to national NGOs, 40 percent to international NGOs and 20 percent to UN organizations. Sida believes in the CBPF mechanism and supports the aim of MHF to grow into a fund that can significantly contribute to humanitarian assistance and coordination in Myanmar. Sida sees that common strategic humanitarian coordination and planning through the Myanmar Humanitarian Fund is important and should continue to strengthen the MHF. ICRC (Myanmar) Since August 2017 violence in Rakhine, the ICRC (together with the MRCS) was selected, by the GoM as the only aid organisation allowed to work in the area. This request for increased ICRC operations has stretched ICRC capacity to the limit, despite increasing the number of staff significantly. ICRC works to provide vital assistance to people affected by armed conflict in Rakhine State, but also in the northeast of the country. ICRC will support and work in close co-operation with the MRCS. The geographical focus of ICRC s work during 2018 will be mainly on Rakhine, but also on Kachin and Shan states. In general, ICRC has an important role and unique role in Myanmar and Sida should continue to support ICRC s operations in 2018. Swedish Red Cross (Myanmar) Continuing support to the SRCs work through the MRCS is assessed to be relevant as MRCS is a vital community-based organization and a main actor in response and preparedness for disasters in Myanmar with a nation-wide coverage. The capacity of MRCS needs to be further strengthened including the MRCS s independence and neutrality. Sida specifically wants to support the community based health and first aid programme in Rakhine state, which is building on the experiences from more development oriented work in the area. The programme complements existing ICRC health programme and targets both Buddhist and Muslim populations in communities with limited access to public health in central Rakhine. OCHA (Myanmar) Coordination of humanitarian assistance remains a challenge in Myanmar although initiatives have been taken by DFID an ECHO. The Role of OCHA and RC function is key in the efforts to improve it. OCHA presence is also needed for a well-functioning Myanmar Humanitarian Fund. It is suggested that Sida continues to support OCHA in Myanmar. 9
UNHCR (Bangladesh) Due to the history of UNHCRs strained relationship with Bangladesh authorities, UNHCRs mandate has been limited, as has its capacity in-country. In light of the large-scale influx of refugees in august, UNHCR has a more important role. UNHCR has increased its staff in country and discussions are ongoing regarding the division of work between UNHCR and IOM in terms of operations (and with OCHA in terms of coordination). 3.3 Synergies with Long-term Development Aid Myanmar A new results strategy for Swedish long-term development assistance to Myanmar is currently being developed. In relation to humanitarian assistance, the new strategy will, among other things, facilitate opportunities to increase cooperation in the area of the humanitarian-development nexus. The new results strategy will build on Sweden s current international development cooperation in Myanmar, which comprises a combined maximum of 750 MSEK million for 2013-2017. The purpose of activities within the strategy is to contribute to peaceful and democratic development, as well as reducing poverty in all its dimensions in Myanmar. The current country strategy for Myanmar specifically spells out the target groups to be ethnic minorities and women. In September 2016, Sida conducted a mid-term review exercise of the current strategy. During the exercise, resilience and increased synergies between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation was one of focused topics. There are great opportunities to increase the focus of resilience and strengthen synergies between development and humanitarian work in Myanmar. Today, it is in the health portfolio that the strongest complementarities between development cooperation and humanitarian support is to be found, even though they are more of an ad hoc nature rather than made for strategic reasons. In addition, support to UNDP s country programme includes early recovery coordination and work specifically for Rakhine and Kachin as well as to core support to Action Aid Myanmar and their work with disaster preparedness. Another example is support to UNFPA including focus on SRHR and GBV in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states which targets extremely vulnerable groups. In the Peace portfolio, Sida supports the Paung Sie Facility (formerly known as the Peace Support Fund) including dialogue activities in Rakhine to decrease tensions and help solve conflicts between communities, as well as support to the Commission mentioned above. When it comes to conclusions from the mid-term review and recommendations to the new strategy for Myanmar, which will be developed during 2017, the humanitarian unit has given input along the following lines: In line with the commitment through Core Responsibility Three in the SDG-agenda to leave no-one behind, i.e. to increase the ambition to specifically address the most vulnerable and marginalized people, such as people affected by conflict, disasters and protracted crises. In Myanmar, certain areas of the country are not reached by the positive political development and ongoing transition. It is therefore key that overall long term development cooperation considers how to ensure to reach those furthest behind first. Continue building on existing experiences foremost in the health portfolio but also in the peace portfolio, in building resilience and strengthening synergies between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation. Explore opportunities to strengthen resilience and synergies with humanitarian support within the democracy and human rights portfolio, in particular with regards to the situation of the Rohingyas. Since Myanmar is extremely prone to recurring natural disasters, there is great need for disaster risk reduction and initiatives aimed at strengthening capacity to minimize risk as well as prepare for and respond to natural disasters on national as well as local level. During recent years, 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 people of Myanmar. There have also been humanitarian voices raised fearing that the development agenda is being pushed forward at the expense of humanitarian needs. The 2017 HRP have introduced a new fourth strategic objective Strengthening national capacities and the resilience of communities. This shows an increased ambition to support efforts to strengthen national capacities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters and to enhance the resilience of communities as well as support efforts to promote early recovery. 10
Sida has, for many years, supported the refugees in Thailand with humanitarian funding. Sida has during the past five years gradually decreased its humanitarian support to the camps in Thailand, and 2017 was the last year of humanitarian support. As this post-conflict context moves towards development, there is potential for strengthening synergies between development and humanitarian assistance. Since the end of 2015, with the new Government and the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement in place and renewed emphasis on national reconciliation there is an expectation that the socio-political and economic situation in south-eastern Myanmar will further progress. However, durable solutions must be voluntary, and present experience from repatriation now seems to more or less rule out returns to Myanmar. Voluntary durable solutions need to focus primarily on Thailand, because in all likelihood, this is where most refugees see their future. Sida s long-term development assistance in Myanmar will most likely not be able to address the needs of Myanmar refugees in Thailand. Bangladesh In Bangladesh, the embassy has allocated development funding for UNFPA to support activities to fight GBV in Cox s Bazar area. This funding has, in a timely and pragmatic way, addressed issues that are critical for normalisation and longer-term development involving government capacities and staff. Support to the humanitarian and development nexus is an important tool to ensure effective links between international lifesaving aid and national development programmes. Further synergies between humanitarian and long-term development in Bangladesh is outside the scope of this specific HCA. PROPOSED SIDA HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO MYANMAR 2018 (including Rohingya related assistance to Bangladesh) Recommended partner for Sida support Sector/focus of work (incl. integrated or multi sectorial programming) Proposed amount by Sida in Myanmar (MSEK) ACF Nutrition, PSS 8 15 ICRC Multi-sector, protection 15 UNHCR Protection 5 IOM Shelter, NFI 10 OCHA Coordination 2 SRK WASH 4.5* 5.4 MHF Multi-sector 10 Total for 2018 35 35.4 Overall Total (74.9 = 70.4 +4.5*) 39.5 35.4 * Multi-year funding, Category A 1 Key References: Myanmar Humanitarian Needs Overview, 2018 Myanmar Humanitarian Response Plan, 2018 Joint Response Plan for the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis, 2018 Proposed amount by Sida in Bangladesh (MSEK) 1 Sida supports multi-year humanitarian interventions with one of the following purposes: a. Humanitarian assistance in protracted crises, in line with multi-year Humanitarian Response Plan (only in contexts with multi-year humanitarian planning) b. Transition/phase out of humanitarian assistance (handing over to development and national/local actors according to a proposed plan within a specific time-frame). c. Humanitarian assistance in specifically hard-to-reach areas. Based on the observation that in many of today s humanitarian contexts, few actors tend to have access to those with the greatest needs, Sida would like to encourage partners to build strong and durable relations with concerned stakeholders in a view to facilitate swift and efficient access also to areas considered more challenging to reach. 11