Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Embassy of Denmark, Yangon File no.: 104.A.1.b.MRD.2.Myanmar.2-104.YGN Internal Grant Committee Meeting 4 December 2015 Agenda Item no.: 1 1. Title: Joint Peace Fund for Myanmar 2. Partners: UNOPS as Trustee of the Joint Peace Fund for Myanmar 3. Amount: 10.0 million DKK 4. Duration: 2016 5. Presentation to the Programme Committee: Presented as part of the concept note on the Myanmar Country Programme 2016-2020 on 20 August 2015 6. Previous Grants: N/A 7. Strategies and policy priorities: The Government s priorities for Denmark s development cooperation 2016 and its focus on, among others, contributing to preventing conflicts by investing in peace and state building in fragile states. 8. Danish National Budget account code: 06.32.02.05 9. Desk officer: Dorte Chortsen 10. Head of Representation:: Peter Lysholt Hansen 11. Summary: Myanmar is currently going through a critical phase in its transition to democracy. Aung San Suu Kyi s (ASSK) National League for Democracy in recent national elections won absolute majority in parliament and will be able to choose the next president of the country. One of the major tasks for ASSK and the new government will be to continue the peace process with Myanmar s Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) with a view to ending the ethnic armed conflict ongoing for the past 65 years. This will require support by the army as well as a solution based on a federal Myanmar with increased powers conferred to the states and a share in income from natural resources such as oil, gas, timber and minerals. In this she will need to collaborate both with those EAOs which in October 2015 signed a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) with the outgoing government as well as with those remaining EAOs on the border with China, which has yet to sign the NCA. Through the Joint Peace Fund for Myanmar (JPF), a new multi-donor trust fund aimed at delivering coordinated international financial and technical assistance to the peace process, Denmark will support efforts towards lasting peace, security, stability and sustainable development in Myanmar. The current grant of 10 million DKK for 2016 will be a first tranche of a longer term support to the JPF under the new Country Programme for Myanmar 2016-2020 of a total of 50 million DKK in planned commitments. The current grant allows Denmark to support the JPF from its start-up and secure a seat in the JPF governance system while the remaining part of the commitment will be made in 2017.
Objective: The objective of this grant is to contribute to lasting peace, security, stability and sustainable development in Myanmar through support for monitoring ceasefire, for carrying out a national political dialogue and for socio-economic recovery in former conflict-affected areas through activities such as building confidence of key actors in the transition to peace and transforming institutions directly related to the conflict. This will be done through support to the new Joint Peace Fund for Myanmar (JPF) which will deliver coordinated international financial and technical assistance to the peace process in a harmonized way in line with aid and development effectiveness principles. The JPF is currently in its final stage of formulation and is expected to be operational by end of 2015. Background: Myanmar is one of the world s most heterogeneous countries in terms of ethnicity with 135 officially recognized ethno-linguistic groups. Since the earliest years of independence it has faced widespread ethnic insurgencies and post-colonial Myanmar has never been at peace or entirely under central government control. In 2011, the now outgoing government of former general President U Thein Sein launched a comprehensive reform agenda while also acknowledging that its reform agenda could not succeed without an end to Myanmar s ethnic armed conflict, ongoing for the past 65 years. Decades of conflict has produced a complex array of Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) and different conflict and security dynamics in their areas of control. Many ethnic areas effectively function as independent enclaves, with rudimentary but established systems of governance, security, public services and foreign policy. As part of its overall reform strategy, the Thein Sein government committed to inclusive negotiations with EAOs to achieve a lasting political settlement. In October 2015, this lead to the signing of a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) which consolidates significant achievements during two years of negotiation, in a binding accord. Ethnic demands for a federal state, self-determination and decentralisation of some aspects of governance, and for the protection of ethnic rights and culture sit beside a commitment to maintain the non-disintegration of the union, national solidarity and sovereignty. The latter has been the military s core rationale for involvement in politics. However, the NCA is not nationwide as it was ratified by only eight of the 18 organisations that participated in the ceasefire negotiations and/or earlier indicated their willingness to sign. The eight organisations are based mainly in the South East of the country and comprise only a limited percentage of the ethnic fighters still under arms. The largest EAOs on the border with China are outside of the agreement, and fighting in some of these areas is currently on the rise. The current agreement is, however, a platform for future negotiations in spite of the fact that not all EAOs are signatories in as far as: - All parties have publicly acknowledged their agreement with the ratified text, the issue of inclusion notwithstanding, and their interest in participating in the political dialogue phase. - The outgoing government was careful to state that the agreement remains open for other EAOs to sign at a later date. - Ethnic leaders have taken care to signal that different choices by ethnic organisations on signing should not be taken as a breakdown in their unity. Armed organisations agreed to consult on implementation of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, and to coordinate their activities. - Non-signatory organisations indicated their interest and willingness to accede to the agreement, when conditions are right. 2
The landslide election victory in parliamentary elections in November 2015 by Aung San Suu Kyi (ASSK) and her party NLD which did not sign on to the NCA as a witness will likely affect the foreseen speed in these negotiations. It is, however, clear that ensuring a lasting peace in Myanmar will be high on the new government s agenda. Furthermore, in the NLD election manifesto peace features prominently, including the commitment to political dialogue with EAOs and to the establishment of a federal democratic union based on freedom, equal rights and self-determination. Project Description: The Joint Peace Fund for Myanmar (JPF) is in the final stages of establishment as a multi-donor trust fund and is expected to be formally established by end of 2015. It will be administered by the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) with the aim of supporting national efforts to achieve a final and lasting settlement of ethnic armed conflict in Myanmar based on the NCA and/or other peace instruments that may be signed in the future between the Union Government and EAOs. The Joint Peace Fund will support: a. The Myanmar peace process and implementation of the current NCA comprising: - Implementation of the ceasefire agreement, and the bodies, processes and activities that are outlined in the agreement. - The negotiation of a Roadmap for Political Dialogue, providing the framework for a Political Dialogue process, and the relevant bodies, processes and activities. - The Political Dialogue process, leading to a final settlement of ethnic armed conflict in Myanmar, and the relevant bodies, processes and activities. b. National efforts for an inclusive peace process, including but not limited to efforts that promote the accession of non-signatory armed organisations to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, and/or other processes, negotiations and agreements as determined between the Parties. c. Activities that follow ratification of a National Peace Accord or other final peace agreement, including those broadly related to: - The normalisation of relations between the Myanmar State and Ethnic Armed Organisations. - Reform to the security sector, and other provisions of the final agreement that are deemed relevant to sustaining the peace process. d. Processes in Myanmar society which reinforce the peace process and, in this framework, enhance safety and security at the community level. Programmes and projects funded through the JPF will be based on the needs and priorities of the peace process, comprising the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement and/or other processes and agreements as determined by the Parties. The JPF may develop programmes in the following three areas: (1) Core support to institutions, processes and activities that form the architecture of the NCA and/or other peace instrument(s) that may be negotiated in the future; (2) peacebuilding support to initiatives that increase trust, confidence, engagement and participation in the peace process and/or enhance safety and security at the community level. Support may include smallscale early recovery activities that are related to the peace process and have peacebuilding as their primary objective; and (3) applied research and innovation for national solutions, which strengthens stakeholder understanding of peace and conflict dynamics, issues and needs related to the peace processes and technical issues related to its effective implementation. The Fund s priorities may change over time, as implementation of the peace process itself evolves. It is anticipated that the content of these programme areas will change over time, or that the programme areas themselves may need revision. 3
The intervention logic behind the JPF and the rationale behind Denmark s proposed support to the Fund is that external support can play an important role in the peace process by providing technical knowledge and financial resources, in combination with diplomatic/political outreach to support a peace agreement that is durable. The ultimate goal is to support national efforts to achieve a final and sustainable settlement to ethnic armed conflict based on the above mentioned activities which reflect the vision and roadmap agreed by all relevant stakeholders having a direct relationship with the NCA and the participation of the national parties to the agreement. By implementing the range of activities mentioned above the JPF will be able to contribute to achieving the main expected outcomes of the peace process. Governance and Management set-up: Governance: The JPF will be governed by a High Level Committee, which will be a deliberate body, comprising the government, EAOs, donors and the UN and World Bank as well as other interested parties. An Executive Working Group (EWG) of the High Level Committee consisting of 12 members, of which four donors, will have the final decision-making authority on the JPF s strategy and priorities as well as its funding criteria and operational plans. The JPF Fund Board, which will initially only comprise donors, will have up to eight donor members. The Board will make decisions on funding allocations to projects and provide oversight. A minimum grant of USD 1 million per year over three years is required for a seat on these governing bodies of the JPF. The two largest donors will automatically be members of both the EWG and the Fund Board. It is expected that a contribution of 10 million DKK in 2016 and subsequent commitment of an additional 40 million DKK in 2017 under the new Country Programme for Myanmar will secure Denmark a seat in the Fund Board or alternatively the EWG. Lastly, to ensure ownership and participation from the directly involved stakeholders, State-Level Working Committees in regions/states where an EAO is signatory to the NCA will be established to lead in identifying needs and priorities, support national projects as well as make funding recommendations on projects in their areas.. Management: Final negotiations are underway with UNOPS as Trustee and Contract Manager of the JPF which means that UNOPS will be the legal entity under which the JPF is established. As such UNOPS will be accountable to the Executive Working Group/Joint Fund Board and have the responsibility for management and reporting on Fund accounts. Hence, all bilateral funding agreements will be entered into with UNOPS based on UNOPS standard agreement. UNOPS has extensive experience in managing trust funds in Myanmar and manages some of the largest development funds in Myanmar, including the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT) and the Three Millennium Development Goal Fund (3MDG), both of which receive support from Denmark. Nordic International Support Foundation, NIS, a Norway based technical organization which works to support the state-building and reconciliation processes necessary to stabilise fragile political environments will be directly contracted by UNOPS for the function of technical secretariat. As such NIS will assume overall responsibility for operations and programmes and for providing analysis, advice and support to the Fund s governance bodies. NIS has long experience in Myanmar and in 2014 established the Peace Support Fund (PSF) with funding from the UK. The PSF provides funding to demand-driven, small-scaled and tailored initiatives which either provide direct, 4
tangible support to the peace process or seek to directly contribute to a reduction in intercommunal violence. NIS also provided administrative and management support to the Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MPSI), operational until early 2015, and was also managing a small project fund under MPSI directly with local project partners. Collaboration among donors and UNOPS on support to the JPF will be governed by a Joint Collaboration Arrangement which aims to harmonise donor collaboration, set out ground rules for donor collaboration with UNOPS as well as outline donor agreement on the allocation of donorallotted seats in the JPF governing organs. Budget: The funding needed to underpin the peace process will be vast. The draft budget outlined below estimates a need for almost USD 70 million over the first four years with 84.6 per cent of the budget being allocated to grants and contracts. The budget is subject to revision, including e.g. also an increase in the budget set aside for grants to implementing partners. Given the large funding needs, up front donor commitment to the JPF is therefore also substantial. A number of key and like-minded development partners are expected to contribute to the JPF with the UK and EU expected as by far the largest donors. The current grant of 10 million DKK will cover 2016 and be formally committed through the signing of a bilateral funding agreement with UNOPS in the first quarter of 2016. These funds will be a first tranche of a longer term support to the JPF under the new Country Programme for Myanmar 2016-2020 of a total of 50 million in 5
planned commitments. This early commitment of 10 million DKK will allow Denmark to support the JPF from its start-up and secure a seat in the JPF governance system while the remaining 40 million DKK will be committed in 2017. A first indicative overview of expected contributions to the JPF is outlined below. They are not formally confirmed, especially not in outer years. Currently only the UK, EU, Denmark and Australia are in the process of committing funds and the likelihood of overfunding is therefore minimal. Furthermore, the budget outlined above may likely also increase later in the process. Donor / Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 European Union 14,508,477 11,000,000 20,000,000 United Kingdom 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 Denmark 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Finland 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Norway 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 United States 1,000,000 1,000,000 Australia 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total USD 24,508,477 26,000,000 14,000,000 32,000,000 2,500,000 1,500,000 Accounting and auditing: UNOPS will as Trustee of the JPF be responsible for fund management. Contributions to the JPF via UNOPS will be subject to the internal and external procedures laid down in its Financial Regulations and Rules. UNOPS will provide quarterly progress reports and interim financial statements and annual certified financial statements. Results Framework and Risk Management The provisional JPF results framework provides the impact and outcome indicators for the JPF as well as indicative outputs and indicators for programmes and operations through to the end of the inception phase. A revised results framework will be developed by NIS and UNOPS. A provisional risk management matrix assessing contextual, political and conflict-related risks is also part of the Description of Action for the JPF. Given the nature of the peace process and the NCA as well as the uncertainties surrounding the transition and the incoming government s approach to the peace process, risk management will remain a key element in JPF operation with ongoing needs to monitor, review and adapt the provisional risk matrix. Both are annexed below for easy reference. Annexes: 1. Provisional Joint Peace Fund Results Framework 2. Provisional Risk Management Matrix 3. Joint Collaboration Arrangement between the Donors and with UNOPS in relation to the Joint Peace Fund for Myanmar, draft version 19 November 2015 (not for publication). 4. Description of Action, Joint Peace Fund for Myanmar, draft version 20 November 2016 (not for publication). 6
Annex 1: Provisional Joint Peace Fund Results Framework The provisional results framework for the Joint Peace Fund provides: a. Impact and Outcome indicators for the Fund. b. Indicative Outputs and indicators, for programmes and operations, through to the end of the Inception phase, the inauguration of the Fund s governance bodies and approval its strategy, programme framework and Standard Operating Procedures. A revised results framework will be developed by the Secretariat and Contract Manager, prior to inauguration of the Fund, and set in this Description of Action as an amendment to Annex 7.1. The process will be led by the Secretariat and conducted by the Fund s joint monitoring and evaluation unit, comprising the Secretariat and the Contract Manager. Purpose of the Joint Peace Fund Impact Impact Indicators Means of Verification The Joint Peace Fund shall support national efforts to achieve a lasting and sustainable settlement of ethnic armed conflict in Myanmar. Impact 1: National efforts achieve an inclusive, final and lasting settlement of ethnic armed conflict in Myanmar are strengthened. Impact Indicator 1: National Peace Agreement and/or other peace instrument(s) signed by the Parties and under implementation. Signed National Peace Accord and/or other peace instrument. Qualitative interviews with key Parities on their level of satisfaction with content of an agreement (s) and confidence in its implementation. Level of participation and inclusiveness of ethnic armed groups in the peace instrument. Survey on perception in society on a final peace agreement(s). Gender disaggregated data on participation in the peace Impact Indicator 2: National Peace Agreement or other peace instrument(s) inclusive of all Ethnic Armed Organisations. Indicator 3: Ethnic Armed Conflict significantly reduced or ended. process. Signed National Peace Accord or other peace instrument. Consultation with Parities on existence and content of agreement and level of satisfaction Data on: I. Incidence of armed conflict between Tatmadaw and EAOs. II. III. IV. Number and location of victims of armed conflict Conflict related displacement and IDPs New forms of violence that emerge and can be directly or indirectly related to the peace pro-
Indicator 4: Plan for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of Ethnic Armed Organisations approved and under implementation. Indicator 6: National Security Sector Reform plan approved and under implementation. Indicator 7: Ethnic political actors represented and active in political processes. Indicator 8: National Peace Agreement has broad participation and support in Myanmar Society. cess. V. Incidence of gender based violence. Survey on perception of security and safety at the community level. Approved disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration plan and evidence the plan is under implementation. Verification by Joint Monitoring Committee, or other entity responsible for verifying the ceasefire and demobilisation process. Perception survey with EAOs and demobilising cadres and recipient communities, on their confidence in, and satisfaction with, the DDR process. Approved National Security Sector Reform plan and evidence the plan is under implementation. Verification by Joint Monitoring Committee, or other entity responsible for verifying the ceasefire and demobilisation process Qualitative interviews with key EAO stakeholders on their confidence in, and satisfaction with, the SSR process Data on ethnic political actors (individuals and parties) participation in political parties, elected positions and other forms of political engagement and activity. Data should be gender disaggregated. Data demonstrating the scope of National Society involvement in the negotiation and finalisation of a national peace agreement. Perception survey of: i. Satisfaction with National Society involvement in the peace process. ii. Satisfaction with the terms of a final peace agreement. iii. Confidence in the agreement, and prospects that the agreement will end ethnic armed conflict. 8
Joint Peace Fund Outcomes and Indicators Objectives of the Joint Peace Outcome Outcome Indicators Means of Verification Fund The Joint Peace Fund shall support the Myanmar Peace Process, inclusive of national efforts to: Outcome 1: Achievements of the current peace process sustained and advanced until a comprehensive and fully inclusive nationwide agreement is reached. Indicator 1.1: Status of the peace process, and number of bilateral ceasefire agreements of non-nca signatory in effect and supported by the Parties. i. Achieve and implement an inclusive Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, and / or other peace instrument(s); and ii. Build Broad-based participation and support for an agreement and its implementation. Outcome 2: Bilateral and nationwide ceasefire agreements are implemented, as the basis for: i. Expanding ceasefire negotiations to include organisations that have not signed the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. ii. Negotiation of a framework for Political Dialogue. Indicator 1.2: Occurrence and status of negotiations for accession of non-nca signatory organisations being conducted. Indicator 1.3: Perception of peace and security in conflictaffected communities that fall under the scope of the peace instrument. Indicator 2.1: Mechanism established in the bilateral and/or nationwide and agreements are functioning according to mandate. Number of bilateral ceasefire agreements between Government and non-signatory EAOs. Data on armed conflict in areas under bilateral ceasefire agreements from: - Official monitoring and verification bodies, on compliance with ceasefire provisions and number and nature of violations. - Other entities generating data on compliance with ceasefire provisions and number and nature of violations. Confirmation with the Parties and other sources of the occurrence and status of negotiations. Perception Survey on security and safety at the community level, with gender disaggregated data. Joint Monitoring Commission data and reporting. Monitoring data on trends in violation of ceasefire provisions. Perception survey at the community level on whether safety and security are enhanced with gender disaggregated data. 9
Outcome 3: National strategy to manage the accession of nonsignatory organisations to a nationwide ceasefire agreement or other peace instrument(s), implementation of the current Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement and establishment of institutions to support the process. Outcome 4: The framework for National Political Dialogue negotiated, with participation from Myanmar society. Outcome 5: National Political Dialogue implemented, leading to a National Peace Accord or other final settlement agreement. Indicator 3.1: Ceasefire monitoring mechanism established and functioning. Indicator 3.2: Mechanisms established to negotiate accession of EAOs to a nationwide ceasefire agreement or other peace instrument(s). Indicator 4.1: An inclusive and effective framework for national political dialogue is established and functioning. Indicator 4.2.1: Broad-based participation includes the Parties and organisations in Myanmar society. Indicator 4.2.2: Level of satisfaction and extent to which minorities (ethnic groups and women) are involved in the national dialogue process. Indicator 4.3.3: Increased confidence in the peace process Indicator 4.1: Political Dialogue process conduced, according to the process negotiated between Joint Monitoring Commission data and reporting. Outputs/analysis from a future EAO coordinating structure/body. Confirm existence of framework agreement. Review of: I. Official and other participation documentation, at the national, State/regional and local levels. II. Review of: Media reporting and Perception Survey I. Official and other participation documentation, at the national, State/regional and local levels. the Parties. Indicator 5.2.1: Broad-based participation includes the Parties and organisations in Myanmar society. II. Media reporting and Perception Indicator 5.2.2: Level of satisfaction Survey and extent to which minorities (ethnic groups and women) are involved in the national dialogue process Outcome 6: National Society plays a meaningful and effective Indicator 6.1: Inclusion of civil Official statements by national 10
role in the peace process, at the local, State/Regional and Union levels. society agendas and positions in ceasefire and / or peace accords. Indicator 6.2: Increased confidence in the peace process. society and documentation. Perception Survey, with data disaggregated by gender. Joint Peace Fund Programme Outputs and Indicators Joint Peace Fund Programme Outputs Outputs Output Indicators Means of Verification In support of an inclusive Myanmar peace process, the Joint Peace Fund shall implement programme activities in three areas: Output Indicator 1.1: Interim Fund strategy and priorities approved by the relevant JPF governance body. JPF documentation i. Support to the core institutions and processes of the Myanmar peace process. ii. Peacebuilding efforts that increase inclusion, trust, confidence, engagement and participation in the peace process and/or enhance safety and security at the community level. iii. Applied research that improves stakeholder capacity to be effective participants in the peace process, and develops policy and innovation related to the needs of the peace process. Output 1: Joint Peace Fund strategy and priorities approved and guide programme development (interim strategy during Fund inception moving to a full Fund strategy at Fund inauguration) Output 2: JPF supports core institutions and processes of the Myanmar peace process, under Programme 1. Output 3: JPF supports peacebuilding through increased inclusion, confidence, engagement and participation in the peace process and/or enhance safety and security at the community level, under Programme Output Indicator 1.2: Comprehensive Fund strategy approved by the relevant JPF governance body (ies). Output Indicator 2.1: Programme 1 framework developed by Secretariat and approved by the Executive Working Group at inauguration of the Fund. Output Indicator 2.2: Number of core peace process institutions requesting and/or receiving JPF support under the Fund s interim strategy. Output Indicator 2.3: Perception of key Myanmar Peace Process institutional stakeholders on the relevance, quality and timeliness of JPF role and support, and ease of the JPF application process. Output Indicator 3.1: Programme 2 framework developed by Secretariat and approved by the Executive Working Group at inauguration of the Fund. Decisions of JPF governance bodies. JPF reporting and data. Qualitative interviews with representatives of institutions requesting and/or receiving JPF support. Decisions of JPF governance bodies. JPF reporting and data. Qualitative interviews with representatives of organisa- 11
2. Output Indicator 3.2: Number of peacebuilding initiatives under development and/or receiving JPF support under the Fund s interim strategy. Output Indicator 3.3: Perception of key peacebuilding project stakeholders on the relevance, quality and timeliness of JPF role and support, and ease of JPF Output 4: Improved stakeholder capacity to effectively participate in the peace process, and policy development and innovation related to the needs of the peace process informed by JPF supported applied research, under Programme 3. the application process. Output Indicator 4.1: Programme 3 framework developed by Secretariat and approved by the Executive Working Group at inauguration of the Fund. Output Indicator 3.2: Number of applied research initiatives under development and/or receiving JPF support under the Fund s interim strategy. tions requesting and/or receiving JPF support for peacebuilding initiatives. Decisions of JPF governance bodies. JPF reporting and data. Qualitative interviews with representatives of organisations requesting and/or receiving JPF support for applied research initiatives. Output Indicator 4.3: Perception of key applied research initiative stakeholders on the relevance, quality and timeliness of JPF role and support, and ease of JPF the application process. Joint Peace Fund Operational Outputs and Indicators Joint Peace Fund Operational Output Operational Outputs Operational Output Indicators Means of Verification JPF governance bodies established and functioning. Operational Output 1: Fund Board established and functioning as the interim JPF governance body during inception. Output Indicator 1.1: Fund Board convened and approves interim strategy and standard operating procedures. Output Indicator 1.2: Fund Board meets on a regular basis during interim period. Qualitative interviews with Fund Board members 12
Operational Output 2: High Level Committee is established and functioning. Operational Output 3: National Society Advisory Panel is established and functioning. Operational Output 4: Executive Working Group of the High level Committee established and functioning. Operational Output 5: Fund Board is established and functioning. Operational Output 6: State-level Working Committees are established and functioning. Output Indicator 1.3: Fund Board prepares transition to inauguration of fully operational JPF governance. Output Indicator 2.1: Inaugural meeting of the High Level Committee is convened. Output Indicator 2.2: Participation in the inaugural meeting broadly inclusive of potential JPF stakeholder. Output Indicator 2.3: High Level Committee endorses its mandate and Standard Operating Procedures. Output Indicator 3.1: Standard Operating Procedures for a National Society Advisory Panel drafted by the Secretariat during the inception process. Output Indicator 3.2: Potential members of a National Society Advisory Panel are identified by the Secretariat. Output Indicator 3.3: At inaugural meeting, High Level Committee endorses: i. Standard Operating procedures for a National Society Advisory Panel ii. Nominations for committee members. Output Indicator 4.1: Inaugural meeting of the Executive Working Group is convened. Output Indicator 2.2: Participation in the inaugural meeting broadly inclusive of the Union Government, EAOs and Donors. Output Indicator 3.3: Executive Working Group endorses its mandate and Standard Operating Procedures, and the procedures of other JPF governance and management bodies. Output Indicator 5.1: Inaugural meeting of the Fund Board is convened. Output Indicator 5.2: Fund Board endorses its mandate and Standard Operating Procedures. Output Indicator 6.1: Strategy for SLWC developed by Secretariat and approved by the Executive Working Committee. Output Indicator 6.2: Standard Operating Procedures for the SLWC approved by the Executive Committee. Qualitative interviews with High Level Committee members 13
Output Indicator 6.3: Secretariat directed to begin establishment of the SLWC, leading to their formation. JPF management bodies established and functioning JPF has adequate funds to support the peace process. Operational Output 7: Trustee appointed and functioning. Operational Output 8: Contract Manager is appointed and functioning. Operational Output 9: JPF Secretariat Manager is appointed and functioning. Operational Output 10: JPF Donor make sufficient commitments and deposits for the Fund to become operational. Output Indicator 7.1: Trustee appointed and contract signed. Output Indicator 7.2: Interim Standard Operating procedures for the Trustee approved by the Fund Board. Output Indicator 7.3: Legal and operational activities necessary to establish Fund systems undertaken, as relevant to the Trustee s mandate. These shall include contributing to development of the Fund s Standard Operating Procedures. Output Indicator 8.1: Contract Manager appointed and contract signed. Output Indicator 8.2: Interim Standard Operating procedures for the Contract Manager approved by the Fund Board. Output Indicator 8.3: Activities necessary to establish Fund systems undertaken, as relevant to the Contract Manager s mandate and in collaboration with the Secretariat. These shall include contributing to development of the Fund s Standard Operating Procedures. Output Indicator 9.1: Secretariat Manager appointed and contract signed. Output Indicator 9.2: Interim Standard Operating procedures for the Secretariat approved by the Fund Board. Output Indicator 9.3: Activities necessary to establish Fund systems undertaken, as relevant to the Secretariat s mandate and in collaboration with the Contract Manager. These shall include contributing to development of the Fund s Standard Operating Procedures. Output Indicator 10.1: Donors sign Joint Collaboration Agreement and Bilateral Contract Agreements. Output Indicator 10.2: JPF receives sufficient deposits to fund the first year of operations. Output Indicator 10.3: JPF receives sufficient pledges and commitments to support medium-term operations and planning 14
Annex 2: Provisional Risk Management Matrix Operational and fiduciary risk shall be assessed, in the processes of appointing a Trustee / Contract Manager and a Secretariat Manager and design of Fund programmes and operating procedures. The follow contextual risks, political and conflict-related, were identified during the design process, with management and mitigation provisions integrated into Fund governance and management systems. Potential Risk (Political and Conflict) Risk Level Management and Mitigation of Potential Risk The NCA is not fully inclusive. The Parties are not able to conclude an all-inclusive and nationwide ceasefire agreement. Some EAOs do not sign the current agreement, and not all of these non-signatory EAOs have bilateral ceasefires agreements with the Union Government. The roadmap for accession of non-signatory EAOs to an NCA is unclear. Certain ii. Partially inclusive NCA is divisive. Signing of a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement that is not fully inclusive creates divisions between EAOs. Unity and cooperation between EAOs in undermined, contributing to uncertainty in the peace process. JPF perceived as not being impartial, and favouring the Parties to the current NCA. Medium NCA signed October 15, 2105 by eight of 16 EAOs that were involved in the negotiations. Union Government unwilling to sign with organisations that do not have pre-existing bilateral agreements. Joint Peace Fund scope, purpose and governance adapted for: i. A ceasefire agreement that is regional (or preliminary) and not national in scope. The probability that ceasefire negotiations with non-signatory EAOs will continue at the same as the Parties to a signed NCA implement their agreement. JPF will support national efforts to achieve a fully inclusive peace agreement. The challenge will be to expand the current ceasefire into a fully inclusive nationwide agreement. Dialogue with Parties on the roadmap for ceasefire negotiations and NCA implementation ongoing, within JPF governance bodies and conducted by the Secretariat at an operational level. In public statements, EAOs have pledged to maintain unity and cooperation. Also that they consider the NCA a platform for protection of all EAOs, signatory and non-signatory. However, the processes and mechanisms to facilitate unity are still under discussion as the JPF moves to establishment. Secretariat to conduct an assessment of the dynamics between signatory and non-signatory EAOs, agreements and mechanisms for cooperation and coordination between EAOs, and measures necessary to avoid exacerbating tensions. As further measures, JPF: i. Strategy further informed by dialogue between the national Parties within JPF governance bodies. Fund also maintains consultation with the non-signatory EAOs, bilaterally and through the processes agreed between signatory and non-signatory EAOs. ii. Works to protect and preserve ethnic unity, positive relations between EAOs, and inclusivity in all aspects of the peace process. 15
Electoral uncertainty and commitment of a newly elected government to the peace process, and the JPF. Possibility that elections are disrupted, or that unclear post-election process, results and/or dynamics between political actors create uncertainty for the peace process. As examples: i) a new government changes the State s policy and approach to the peace process; ii) a change in the governing party produces unclear relations between the Government and the Tatmadaw. There may further be a disruption in the peace process as a new government is installed, clarifies its policy and approach to the peace process, appoints its representatives and resumes the process. Uncertainty in Ethnic Regions, signatory and nonsignatory. Signing of ceasefire and peace instruments produces incursions into areas under EAO control, by government, companies and potentially international Donors. These entities act outside of the interim arrangements established under the NCA, and contribute to escalating tensions. In areas controlled by non-signatory organisations, tensions with government leads to renewed fighting. Medium High iii. iv. Provides support to the institutions and processes for coordination and joint action between the signatory and non-signatory EAOs. Provides support to the existing bilateral ceasefires, and efforts to arrive at a fully inclusive national agreement. v. Takes such actions in ongoing dialogue with EAOs and their coordinating structures. Major political parties have committed to the peace process. However, the peace process may lose momentum in the aftermath of an election, and until the new government is installed and clarifies its policy and approach. JPF Secretariat maintains ongoing assessment of political context during the establish process, and provides advice to governance bodies. JPF can provide ongoing support to sustain the institutions and process during transition period, and then support to the resumption of the peace process. National Parties engaged with JPF establishment through governance bodies and consultation, managed by the Fund Board on an interim basis. JPF benefits from higher level diplomatic support through the Peace Support Group. JPF further maintains consultation with civil society bodies. Encroachment into ethnic areas already a major concern for EAOs, including as a point of conflict with some international assistance programmes. Fighting escalated in 2015, predominantly in areas controlled by what are now non-signatory organisations. JPF will strengthen the overall coordination and conflict sensitivity of assistance, through: i. Dialogue within JPF governance bodies to mitigate the impact of such incursions. ii. iii. Ongoing assessment and analysis conducted by Secretariat, in support of strategy and governance. Also to ensure that Fund programmes are implemented transparently, with the agreement of the parties and within the interim arrangements. Liaison with other programmes, including where the JPF can facilitate the entry of such programme into ethnic areas under interim arrangements. 16
Framework for Political Dialogue not achieved, and the Political Dialogue process is delayed and uncertain. Parties unable to agree on a Framework for a National Political Dialogue, as the result of signing only a partial Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, the 2015 election results or multiple other variables. Inability to negotiate the Political Dialogue Framework in a timely manner creates uncertainty in the peace process and undermines the support, among important political actors and in society. Uncertainty further affected by the need to coordinate implementation of the partial NCA with ongoing negotiations between the Government and non-signatory EAOs. National Society excluded from the peace process, undermining the credibility of a final agreement. Persons, Communities, and Organisations affected by ethnic armed conflict excluded from implementation of the NCA, and the Political Dialogue Process. Undermines the credibility and social support for a National Peace Agreement. Women particularly vulnerable to exclusion. Risk of exclusion increases as the result of the weak capacity of organisations in national society, particularly at the sub-national and community levels. National Peace Accord not signed by Parliament. The National Peace Agreement achieved through the Political Dialogue is rejected by Parliament, which is required to ratify agreement. High Medium Unknown Pre-negations between political actors and with EAOs already begun during 2015, with some degree of consensus. Uncertainty will results from a partially inclusive NCA and the electoral process and results. JPF strategy based in ongoing assessment and consultation being conducted by the Secretariat, and dialogue within JPF governance bodies. JPF support reduces uncertainty by strengthen the institutions, processes, policy development and communications for coordination of: i. The Political Dialogue Framework negotiations ii. Relations between the Political Dialogue and other efforts to enlarge inclusivity of the peace process. Capacity of civil society organisations not well mapped. Understood to be mixed, across the regions and at a national level. Limited number of CSO engaged nationally in the peace process, albeit with the number of organisations likely to expand as the process enters its political dialogue phases. JPF governance bodies and programmes have a mandate to include and support CSO participation, at national and subnational levels. Programmes developed with specific criteria on equality, including a gender equality policy. Secretariat has capacity to sustain relationships with CSO, and expand to the academic and private sectors as relevant. Scenario has occurred in other peace processes (recently in the Philippines) Beyond the scope of JPF as an entity to manage or mitigate. National Parties engaged in the JPF would have a role as advocates for an agreement. 17