OCHA

Myanmar

Philippines Myanmar ranks first on OCHA’s list of most at-risk Asia-Pacific countries in 2011. Despite being a resource-rich country with a strong agricultural base, its population of over 50 million people are among the poorest in the world. Years of conflict and unresolved ethnic differences have contributed to the displacement of around 450,000 people and an influx of refugees in neighboring countries. OCHA established its presence in Myanmar in May 2008 at the onset of Cyclone Nargis to support the humanitarian response in the affected areas of the Ayerwaddy Delta. OCHA then shifted its attention in support of national disaster preparedness efforts and provision of humanitarian assistance to vulnerable communities in border areas. In 2012 OCHA will strengthen its coordination efforts opening three new offices in crucial locations in addition to its main hub in Yangon and sub-office in Chin state.

CONTEXT ANALYSIS

The Socio-political Situation

Myanmar ranks first on the list of most at-risk countries in OCHA’s 2011 Global Focus Model for the Asia-Pacific region. Prolonged low-intensity conflict and an unresolved situation for ethnic minorities have led to the displacement of some 450,000 people and flight to neighbouring countries.

While declarations by the President of Myanmar on the need for poverty reduction and reconciliation with all ethnic groups have been welcomed, and progress has been observed since the inauguration of the new Government in March 2011, it will take time before substantial progress is made. Addressing chronic poverty and poor basic services is a major challenge, especially in more remote and sensitive border areas. The national economy remains fragile and is pegged to a system of sanctions. Ongoing inflation and a sudden appreciation of the Myanmar Kyat are potential triggers for instability.

Myanmar is also vulnerable to a wide range of natural hazards. The past three years have seen devastating floods and earthquakes and two major cyclones. In 2008 Cyclone Nargis affected 2.4 million people and in 2010 Cyclone Giri affected 183,000 people.

The Humanitarian Strategy and Response

Since 2010, the Government made substantial progress in engaging and collaborating with partners in disaster response. With OCHA support, the HC/RC is leading efforts to engage in discussions on humanitarian coordination and access across the country, including in border areas. Efforts are also being made to promote basic humanitarian principles among all stakeholders and partners, including non-state actors.

The UN Country Team, in consultation with the Government, has finalized the UN Strategic Framework (UNSF) for 2012-2015.^[1]It identifies four priorities: access to social services; pro-poor growth (both rural and urban); good governance, democracy and human rights; and reduction of vulnerability to disasters. Several geographic-focussed strategic documents have also been developed in the past, including a Joint Humanitarian Initiative for Northern Rakhine State and an Action Plan for the Dry Zone. The Government endorsed both documents. A strategy on engagement with the Government and partners in border areas is under preparation.

Inter-agency coordination remains a challenge due to the different approaches to humanitarian and development action. The cluster system is only activated in medium to large-scale emergencies and information-sharing meetings are convened on a monthly basis (the HCT Forum and HCT Core Group). Efforts are being made to rationalise the coordination architecture to suit humanitarian and development priorities. The revision of coordination mechanisms takes into account the need to support Government-led coordination efforts, building of trust among partners, whilst ensuring that sectoral and inter-sector coordination becomes more efficient and accountable.

Funding shortages have seriously affected Myanmar over time, and after a rapid decline in the two years that followed Cyclone Nargis, some donors are now revising their positions and making more funding available. Some donors apply strict ‘humanitarian’ criteria around their aid, whilst others are investing more and more in development aid and opened up to much needed capacity building, including for the authorities. The elaboration of a comprehensive humanitarian and recovery country strategy, including analysis of needs, and prioritization of activities would be instrumental to enhance coordination efforts and solid fundraising activities.

Projections

The inauguration of the new Government in April 2011 has signaled a new commitment to resolving issues around the ongoing conflicts, the IDP situation, protection issues, poverty reduction and basic service delivery. Reconciliation between the parties to the conflict would clearly decrease tensions, reduce displacement and ease restrictions on the provision of humanitarian aid. Any tangible measures to address social and economic constraints are likely to happen.

Recent disaster data indicates that medium- to large-scale natural disasters are likely to occur every few years. Lessons from previous events indicate an increased openness by the Government to collaborate with local and international organizations in preparedness and response.

_{[1]In the absence of a full-fledged UNDAF, the UN Strategic Framework (2012-2015) provides a framework for coordinated UN assistance in line with UN Reform processes and the commitments of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action.}

STRATEGY

Background

The OCHA Myanmar Country Office was established in May 2008 in response to cyclone Nargis. OCHA focused on supporting inter-cluster coordination, resource mobilization, support to the RC/HC in his advocacy efforts with the Government and donors including through the Tripartite Core Group^[2]mechanism. OCHA’s six hub offices performed the function of liaison with local authorities and coordination among partners.

Following the end of the Cyclone Nargis response, the hub offices in the delta region were closed and OCHA shifted its focus to address other humanitarian concerns in the country. At the request of Government and partners, a sub-office was established in Chin State in 2009, along the border with India, to deal with a rodent infestation that threatened local food security. The opening of this office boosted confidence with the Government and demonstrated how OCHA could add value to humanitarian operations in the field.

Since then, a temporary OCHA presence was established in Eastern Rakhine State following Cyclone Giri and in Shan State in response to the earthquake, as well as in Kachin State where renewed instability since June 2011 has triggered displacement and human suffering. These deployments resulted in several Government and partners' requests for OCHA to engage in supporting the authorities to support coordination and response, preparation of contingency plans, and development of preparedness measures, as well as capacity building for response to a variety of disasters. Among other activities, OCHA has been asked to support the development of the national disaster management law, to review and update the Government’s disaster management curriculum and to take a leading role in the coordination of emergency response and contingency planning in areas affected by disasters.

Currently, OCHA in Myanmar consists of a main office in Yangon and a sub-office in Chin state. Plans are being made to increase its presence in sensitive areas to respond to requests from Government and partners for increased coordination support. OCHA Myanmar is finalizing a formal agreement with the Government to ensure a framework for operations in the country. Finalization of the agreement will be a key determining factor for OCHA’s presence in Myanmar.

Current focus

OCHA provides strategic advice and support to the HC including for:

Coordination of response to chronic and emerging humanitarian needs through humanitarian partners (including government, donors, humanitarian and recovery organizations). This includes facilitation and support of coordination settings; preparation of briefings, analysis and strategic documents; deployment of staff to support field-based coordination and preparedness and response initiatives; and liaison with the Government to foster coordination initiatives;

Advocacy - addressing access constraints, through monitoring of trends and advocacy, including with the Government;

Reporting and information management, the latter in close collaboration with the Myanmar Information Management Unit;

Fundraising for essential needs for humanitarian operations and administration of Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) grants, as well as of the Humanitarian Multi Stakeholder Fund (HMSF). The HMSF targets humanitarian interventions in difficult to access areas, where there are no or limited other options for funding exist. Whenever possible, OCHA is heavily engaged in forming common strategies or appeals as seen necessary by partners;

Disaster management is an important part of the day-to-day activities of the OCHA CO, and includes:
- support to the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement on disaster preparedness and response, including policy formulation, capacity building, day-to-day liaison in case of events, as well as support to overall coordination and information management;
- coordination of preparedness and response initiatives to support local and international humanitarian actors ensuring timely and appropriate response to events, even small in scale;
- leading discussions, coordinating initiatives included in the UN Strategic Framework priority 3, reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change, in collaboration with UN-Habitat;
- close collaboration with the Regional Office for Asia-Pacific (ROAP) and other Country Offices in the region, especially regarding the promotion of regional approaches and methodologies and liaison with regional entities.

OCHA also works closely with Resident Coordinator Office (RCO) staff to ensure discussions on humanitarian/recovery/development programming as well as other relevant initiatives, as part of the support to the RC/HC functions.

Forward strategy

In 2012-13, OCHA will continue to provide coordination and support to the humanitarian community through the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), which is chaired by the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC) and focuses on strategic decision-making and information sharing.

Due to the lack of common humanitarian strategy, OCHA will raise with the HCT the prospect of drafting a nationwide strategy to serve as an overarching humanitarian framework for consistently addressing humanitarian challenges, countrywide.

OCHA will continue to strengthen its coordination and preparedness efforts to ensure a more effective response to humanitarian needs arising from natural and man-made disasters. Coordination architecture in Yangon and at field level will be enhanced and information flows will be tailored to both humanitarian and development coordination needs. This approach will be rolled out in parallel with the Government’s ongoing decentralization policy, in the wake of the April 2011 formation of the new central and State/Region government.

Recent OCHA deployments to Rakhine, Shan and Kachin States have proven successful in bringing stakeholders and the Government together. Capitalising on renewed interest and the Government’s new openness to collaborate with humanitarian and development partners, an increased field presence will help to strengthen dialogue with the Government on priorities as well as on access.

Field-based coordination will be strengthened with OCHA opening additional field presence in priority locations. These offices will support local coordination efforts and liaise with local authorities on humanitarian issues as they arise. The Chin field office will be maintained in 2012 and the OCHA presence in this region will be reassessed during the course of the year. Roving Field Coordination Officers, information and administrative officers will be deployed in case of emergencies and will regularly visit the hubs to support local coordination efforts and effective information flow between the centre and the field.

OCHA, in collaboration with the HCT members, will continue to work with key Government counterparts at the central and regional level to identify areas of collaboration in the enhanced coordination of humanitarian response and preparedness including sensitization to the cluster/sector approach.
Efforts will be made to ensure that humanitarian concerns are highlighted in key strategic instruments such as the UN Strategic Framework (2012-2015). This will help to reduce vulnerabilities and contribute to a seamless transition to longer-term recovery and development and will support internal and external reporting. Advocacy efforts to expand service provision and access of humanitarian partners in border areas will continue and be expanded as needed.

Humanitarian coordination can also be strengthened through advocacy for civil-military coordination initiatives. In 2012 OCHA will need to conduct an analysis of opportunities for engagement in civil-military coordination-related issues. It will initiate a discussion with ROAP and CMCS on possible initiatives at local and regional levels and on required capacities within the CO.

OCHA is discussing with donors a revision of the HMSF mechanisms to include potential funding of countrywide humanitarian response to man-mad and natural disaster-affected areas. This will respond to emerging and intermittent displacement needs in border areas as well as to small-to-medium-scale natural disasters across the country. OCHA will promote coordination among donors and responding agencies and will advocate for early recovery and preparedness funding commitments.

OCHA established a small information management unit (IMU) in the last quarter of 2011. The IMU will closely collaborate with the UNDP-administered Myanmar Information Management Unit (MIMU), particularly for components beyond the MIMU capacity/mandate. These include: strengthening relationships with the Government IM entities; addressing IM needs in sensitive areas; support the development of key humanitarian indicators and monitoring and evaluation systems; and delivery of OCHA-specific products. Further discussion to define the future relation between MIMU and OCHA IMU is pending the result of a MIMU evaluation, the OCHA IMU establishment and guidance from the newly appointed HC/RC. A clear strategy for OCHA IMU, including scope of interaction with MIMU is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2012.

_{[2]The TCG is a coordination mechanism created in response to cyclone Nargis, which included the Government of Myanmar, the United Nations and ASEAN and facilitated humanitarian operations. The TCG was officially shut down by the Government in July 2010.}

PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

Result 1: AN EFFECTIVE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATION SYSTEM ESTABLISHED IN-COUNTRY
Indicator 1. Decisions taken by Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) led to improved delivery of humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people.
BASELINE 2011	The HCT system includes a broad HCT Forum (monthly meeting with UN, I/NGOs and Red Cross) and a HCT Core Group, which is a decision-making body focusing on humanitarian action strategies and policies guiding the HCT Forum. To enhance the forums’ effectiveness, efforts are being made to strengthen links with sectors and field-based coordination. They consider challenges and opportunities arising in the current fluid environment where the humanitarian/recovery/development programming continuum needs to be ensured.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Consultations with HCT members, led by the RC/HC with OCHA support, result in a more effective, accountable coordination mechanism interacting with Government-led coordination at central and peripheral levels. The system enhances abilities to build common understanding of the situation and priorities for assistance among partners, and links between humanitarian and development planning and response. 2013: In concurrence with OCHA’s exit strategy definition, partners agree on ways to ensure the HCT’s effectiveness. Other mechanisms addressing development coordination are strengthened.
Indicator 2. Level of satisfaction expressed by key stakeholders (government, donors, humanitarian actors) with coordination leadership.
BASELINE 2011	Strong RC/HC leadership expected by all stakeholders. OCHA’s leadership in emergency response coordination is accepted, but challenging with regards to ensuring its coherence and effectiveness. Discussion are ongoing with partners for a thorough revision of coordination mechanisms aimed at strengthening sectoral capacity, sense of partnership, trust-building efforts and advocacy for access and funding, especially in conflict-affected areas. Recognition of Government’s efforts and progress in engaging with the aid community on preparedness and response is key to building trust and space to discuss issues of concern, promote principled approach and enhance collaboration.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: In line with the more open political landscape, including the Government’s decentralization policy, the RC/HC, with OCHA support, fosters trust-building efforts with the Government and among partners. This will lead to more effective coordination systems; advocacy on issues of concern, including access; and increased predictability of funding for emergency preparedness/response and longer-term support. The revision of the coordination architecture will enhance information flows supporting strategic priority setting and its implementation to respond to the needs of humanitarian and development coordination. Streamlined coordination mechanisms in the field will translate common inter-sectoral understanding into coherent operations. 2013: Continue partnership-building and advocacy on issues of concern related to access and preparedness/response to emergencies, and ensure sustainability of the established processes.
Indicator 3. Effective inter-cluster coordination in place, documenting decisions and tracking adherence.
BASELINE 2011	Limited access, scarcity of reliable and disaggregated data, and limited data sharing constrains capacity to build an overview of the humanitarian situation and priorities. Cluster/sectors: inter-cluster/sector coordination activated only in case of medium- and large-scale emergencies. During emergencies, OCHA supports the RC/HC in coordinating inter-cluster/sector meetings and activities, including through leading IM sectoral focal points, coordination, and staff deployment to affected areas to lead/support field coordination, inter-cluster/sector assessments and action plans. When clusters are dormant, there is no formal inter-sector coordination in place beyond the HCT. OCHA calls/leads ad-hoc meetings to facilitate preparedness and promote common tools and practices (e.g. CLIPPER, contingency plan, rapid assessment). Information flow and identification of challenges and opportunities in inter-cluster/sector settings needs strengthening.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Review of coordination mechanisms leads to a system where inter-sectoral issues are identified and addressed, with an action-oriented approach and accountability system in place. 2013: In concurrence with OCHA’s exit strategy definition, partners agree on ways to ensure effective inter-sector coordination, with minimal OCHA support.

Result 2: A SHARED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF HUMANITARIAN NEEDS GUIDES A COMMON RESPONSE
Indicator 4. Joint assessment and analysis of needs guide response planning.
BASELINE 2011	Contingency plan contains globally agreed Initial Rapid Assessment, which has not been used systematically to date. In small-scale emergencies with few actors, it is possible to conduct a joint rapid assessment, but not yet in medium- and large-scale emergencies. Challenges include language, access, data compilation and analysis. Trust-building measures required to foster information sharing and transparency. Recovery needs assessments are coordinated and, to some extent, conducted jointly.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Collaboration with the Government and partners will result in better understanding of assessment needs, agreement on methodologies and formats to be used in emergencies in line with international standards and tools. Training on data collection, analysis and dissemination carried out and tested for small- and medium-scale emergencies. OCHA will ensure engagement with the Government on preparedness, including assessment and response planning, for large-scale emergencies, including on interaction with ASEAN/ERAT and UNDAC. Collaboration with partners will support recovery needs assessments efforts, as required. 2013: Further strengthening of assessment and response-planning capacities and promotion of partnership between the Government and international systems. Collaboration with partners to support recovery needs assessments efforts, as required.
Indicator 5. Common response plan endorsed by the HCT fully reflecting priority needs in line with IASC-approved appeal policy and guidelines.
BASELINE 2011	Common response plan/consolidated appeal not in place. Response guided by procedures identified in the inter-agency and Myanmar NGO contingency plans. HCT discussion will guide development of reponse plans in case of medium- and large-scale emergencies.
TARGET 2012-13	OCHA will advocate the development of an overarching common response plan/strategy to address small- and medium-scale ongoing emergencies in line with IASC appeal policy and guidelines, and which is compatible with Government policies and priorities tabled at HCT. Development/revision of response plans in case of new emergencies.
Indicator 6. Percentage of an appeal’s requirements prioritised in the highest category.
BASELINE 2011	Not applicable in absence of appeal.
TARGET 2012-13	N/A
Indicator 7. Percentage of projects in each Gender Marker code (0, 1, 2a, 2b).
BASELINE 2011	Lack of reliable and disaggregated data hampers implementation of Gender Marker coding beyond Humanitarian Multi-Stakeholder Fund (HMSF) projects. The HMSF monitoring framework, developed in 2010 following an independent review, includes specific gender-related outcomes on the number of functioning women self-reliance groups and the percentage of women participating in community development decision-making.
TARGET 2012-13	Expansion of HMSF scope requiring Gender Marker code application.
Indicator 8. Level of satisfaction expressed by stakeholders with the IM products supporting the analysis and monitoring of the programme cycle.
BASELINE 2011	Myanmar Information Management Unit (MIMU) is the primary IM support provider for humanitarian and development programming. Continuous collaboration between OCHA and MIMU is key to enhancing links between IM processes and coordination settings for analysis and monitoring of the programme cycle.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: IM products strengthened and IM systems support priorities at central and local levels. They are identified and established in collaboration with partners and local authorities, fostering transparency, enhanced data gathering, analysis and monitoring of needs and response. Target to be revised in early 2012 following MIMU evaluation and discussion with partners. 2013: Expansion of IM systems to other areas of the country, as per priorities identified in the HCT. Discussion well underway for progressive handover of IM function/systems that do not require OCHA’s support.

Result 3: A WELL-RESOURCED COMMON RESPONSE PLAN REGULARLY MONITORED
Indicator 9. Percentage of CERF and CHF allocations that are made towards highest priority projects. Percentage of ERF project allocations that are made in accordance with agreed criteria.
BASELINE 2011	Between 2006 and 2011, CERF approved 83 out of 87 projects submitted (95 per cent), resulting in the allocation of $54.5 million to Myanmar. Over $38 million was used for rapid response, including for Cyclones Nargis and Giri, but also to address priority needs in several areas of the country. Over $13 million was used to respond to underfunded emergencies. Since 2007, OCHA has managed the HMSF to support local organizations’ humanitarian projects in remote areas of the south-east, with a total budget to date of $3.8 million. Discussions are ongoing to expand the HMSF to cover broader geographical areas and response to natural disasters.
TARGET 2012-13	The CERF allocation processes further strengthened as a result of revision of coordination systems and discussions around a countrywide strategy/appeal priorities. CERF evaluation carried out. One-hundred per cent compliance on criteria/project approval/funds allocation. HMSF coverage expanded, with larger number of donors contributing and criteria revised. OCHA capacity for fund management expanded, and links/coordination with other pooled-fund mechanisms identified.
Indicator 10. All clusters publish information on collective outputs vs. targets as expressed in their cluster response plans.
BASELINE 2011	Common response plan not in place. Cluster/sector plans guided by procedures identified in the inter-agency and Myanmar NGOs’ contingency plans. Decision on development of specific reponse plans, outputs and targets for medium- to large-scale emergencies guided by HCT discussions. Several multi-donor/pooled funds established/being established to address sectoral needs (e.g. LIFT for livelihoods, 3D Fund/Global Fund for health, Multi-Donor Education Fund) with limited monitoring and evaluation systems.
TARGET 2012-13	Development of an overarching common response plan/countrywide strategy including cluster/sector response plans to address small- and medium-scale emergencies. M&E systems in place able to produce and publish analysis of outputs vs. targets. Strengthening of sectoral emergency response plan as part of the inter-agency contingency plan using the CLIPPER approach. Enhanced coordination among pooled funds.
Indicator 11. Percentage of country-based pooled-fund projects monitored according to agreed monitoring plan.
BASELINE 2011	Access is a key constraint for direct monitoring of interventions. However, the OCHA-managed HMSF includes a monitoring framework jointly developed in 2010, following an independent review, through a consultative process with key partners, including donors. A list of output and outcome indicators, together with quantitative and qualitative monitoring tools and division of responsibilities, was developed and agreed, taking into consideration access challenges.
TARGET 2012-13	Confidence-building measures, including enhanced transparency and information sharing through the revision of coordination architecture and increased field presence, resulting in improved access and monitoring. Common response plan/countrywide strategy includes M&E systems and monitoring plan. 2013: Confidence-building measures resulting in improved access and monitoring.
Indicator 12. Level of stakeholders’ satisfaction of OCHA resource mobilization and management of pooled fund processes.
BASELINE 2011	OCHA’s role in resource mobilization during emergencies accepted mostly for CERF applications, which is seen by donors as a strong signal to decide on funding allocations. Need to build common understanding of funding priorities, needs and gaps, through the development of an overarching common countrywide plan/strategy in order to manage competition over limited resources. Setting up of tracking system encompassing humanitarian and development funding is under discussion. Donors’ interest in widening the scope of HMSF, indicating a largely positive assessment of OCHA pooled-fund management. Streamline of project approvals and administrative procedures for quick disbursement of funding required. Coordination with other pooled-fund mechanisms needed.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Promotion of development of common response plan/countrywide strategy, including cluster/sector response plans and streamlined aid-tracking system, that enhances OCHA’s role in resource mobilization and advocacy with donors on conditionality of aid. Increased satisfaction in HMSF systems and procedures. Coordination between pooled funds in place. 2013: OCHA’s performance enhanced through involvement in response plan/strategy elaboration, including on joint Government/UN/NGO planning, and through increased HMSF efficiency.

Result 4: IMPROVED ACCESS BY ALL VULNERABLE POPULATIONS TO SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE
Indicator 13. Increased access to previously inaccessible regions and populations.
BASELINE 2011	Access concerns include bureaucratic hurdles (visas, MoU, registration, etc) and physical accessibility to field locations in the initial phases of emergencies and in border areas. Since early 2011, some positive changes have been observed, including in the response to earthquake-affected border areas, and in Government-led discussion with partners on operational challenges resulting in expediting some procedures. However, renewed instability has resulted in further restriction of access in some border areas.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Engagement and trust building with central and regional authorities, especially in border areas, progressively resulting in increased access and reduced bureaucratic hurdles. Analysis of opportunities for engagement in civil-military coordination-related issues to advocate strengthened coordination and access to vulnerable populations, given the significant role of the military forces in relief activities and overall control of access. 2013: Progressive reduction of access constraints and increased space to discuss with Government, armed forces and non-state actors on issues linked to humanitarian assistance to vulnerable groups, and other issues of concern.
Indicator 14. Number of arrangements to facilitate access developed and implemented through engagement with the relevant actors.
BASELINE 2011	Ongoing engagement by the RC/HC with high-level Government officials and non-state actors ongoing, with limited results. OCHA systematically monitors humanitarian access in the country (e.g. visa, MoU) and produces monthly updates on trends. Government openings have been recorded, and avenues for discussion and engagement continue to open at central and local levels. Engagement needs to be stepped up to explore opportunities to tackle access concerns, taking into consideration existing sensitivities.
TARGET 2012-13	Increased involvement and trust-building with central and regional authorities and non-state actors, including elaborating and sharing evidence-based access information, resulting in trust-building, and opening of space to address and overcome access constraints. Discussions on preparedness and civil-military coordination paving the way for immediate access of staff and goods into the country and to affected areas in case of medium- to large-scale emergencies that require international assistance.
Indicator 15. Percentage of key stakeholders (Humanitarian Coordinator, Cluster Coordinators, Agency Heads, donors, etc.) report being more informed on access.
BASELINE 2011	Access-tracking mechanism is in place since 2009 for monitoring the status of MoUs and visas at the HCT’s request. Forty-two out of 71 (60 per cent) HCT partners reporting on MoU and visas on a monthly basis, and information shared during HCT. Systematic field-access monitoring system required.
TARGET 2012-13	Seventy per cent of HCT partners regularly reporting on MoU and visa issues, field-access monitoring system in place. Information shared with HCT and used for fact-based engagement with the Government to address access issues in a systematic manner.

Result 5: STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION INFLUENCES A BROADER AGENDA
Indicator 16. Humanitarian principles and priorities are reflected in the strategies/plans of non-humanitarian actors.
BASELINE 2011	Humanitarian component integrated in the UN Strategic Framework (2012-2015). More efforts needed to broaden understanding of principled humanitarian action, partnership and civil-military coordination needs. Advocacy and communication strategy drafted, but not yet finalized.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Training and advocacy on humanitarian principles, civil-military coordination in disaster management, which target partners and the Government (including through ROAP, HQ and ASEAN-led initiatives), raise awareness on the need for non-humanitarian actors plans/strategies to reflect humanitarian principles and priorities. 2013: Collaborative approach on disaster management and humanitarian assistance integrates civil-military coordination component.
Indicator 17. Percentage of humanitarian partners viewing OCHA as effective in influencing the broader agenda.
BASELINE 2011	Government views OCHA as a strong partner on disaster management, particularly for emergency preparedness and response. Partners believe that OCHA has a positive influence over non-humanitarian actors, particularly in coordination and advocacy, but limited weight on donors’ strategic decisions (often linked to capitals’ policies), as well as on politically/economically/security-motivated behaviours of the Government and non-state actors.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Consultations aimed at enhancing coordination, building common understanding of the situation (and possibly a countrywide strategy/plan), and confidence-building measures with the Government result in increased ability for OCHA to contribute to define the broader agenda. Strengthen cooperation with partners based in neighbouring countries to enhance a coordinated approach and maximize resources at regional level, in cooperation with ROAP and regional entities (UN, donors, NGOs and others). 2013: OCHA is seen as a credible and effective partner, able to meaningfully contribute to define the broader agenda. Discussion on transition strategy in place, taking into consideration opportunities for engagement and sustainability of preparedness and response mechanisms.

Result 6: GOVERNMENTS AND HCT BETTER PREPARED TO COORDINATE AND RESPOND TO FUTURE EMERGENCIES
Indicator 18. Integration of international tools and services in national contingency plans and other government plans.
BASELINE 2011	Restructuring the Government’s disaster management system, drafting the disaster management law and its contingency plans, and engaging with ASEAN and regional settings are opportunities to promote international tools/standards. Integrated response preparedness (CLIPPER) will be rolled out in the last quarter of 2011, taking into account the country’s disaster management cycle, and involving national and regional partners such as ASEAN. This framework will cover any type of emergency, from small-scale to major catastrophe. This may require external assistance and broader coordination mechanisms, and will identify opportunities for integration of international tools and services in planning processes. The Government has expressed interest in receiving support from OCHA and partners to review its national contingency plan (Standing Order) and some regional plans.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Solid support to Government’s disaster management system strengthening application of international tools and services and creation of local teams aware of and using UNDAC/INSARAG and ASEAN methodologies. 2013: Greater integration of international tools and services in Government disaster management systems at central and local levels. Increased number of teams aware and using UNDAC/INSARAG and ASEAN methodologies.
Indicator 19. Inter-agency contingency plan in place to address new or resurgent emergencies.
BASELINE 2011	Two parallel contingency plans developed by Myanmar NGOs and HCT, respectively, are in place. Both broadly follow the IASC contingency planning guideline and are updated regularly, with support from clusters/sectors. However, their application during emergencies remains scant. Challenges remain in ensuring complementarities of both plans. The Government supports the Myanmar NGOs’ contingency plan, but has not been involved to the same extent in the process of inter-agency contingency planning.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: Response preparedness activities (such as review of rapid-assessment tools/procedures and contingency plan, emergency stocktaking exercise, simulation exercise and various capacity-building activities) implemented in a systematic manner. Contingency plans are harmonized and strengthened to address new or resurgent emergencies. 2013: Continuous support to the Government for emergency preparedness and response. Contingency planning cycle and process in place and sustained. Strong sense of ownership and support from all partners.

Result 7: RECURRENT HUMANITARIAN CONCERN ADDRESSED THROUGH LONGER-TERM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Indicator 20. Humanitarian issues reflecting analysis of vulnerability are integrated into development strategies (UNDAF, PRSP, etc.).
BASELINE 2011	Humanitarian component has been integrated in the UN Strategic Framework (2012-2015), a development-oriented document similar to an UNDAF. OCHA facilitates the implementation of the framework’s priority number three: reduce vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change. Decision to assume this role was triggered in view of mandate restriction affecting UNDP’s role in the country.
TARGET 2012-13	2012: UNCT starts implementing the framework in collaboration and in support of the Government. Integration of RC/HC support functions to maximize impact of existing staffing/resources. 2013: Stock taking after one year of implementation of the framework. UNDP taking over the lead in implementation of SF priority three, as per its mandate. OCHA transition strategy elaborated in consultation with partners.

PLANNED STAFFING AND TOTAL COSTS

Total Staff	Professional		National		General Service		GTA		UNV	Total
Total Staff	XBPB	XBAB	XBPB	XBAB	XBPB	XBAB	XBPB	XBAB	UNV	Total
Total Staff 2012	6	1	9	0	0	0	9	5	0	30
Total Staff 2013	9	1	11	0	0	0	11	5	0	37

XBPB: Extrabudgetary Programme Budget | XBAB: Extrabudgetary Administrative Budget | GTA = General Temporary Assistance | UNV: United Nations Volunteers

Total Costs (US$)	Programme Costs	Administrative Costs	Total

Total Costs 2012	2,636,228	250,530	2,886,758
Total Funds Requested 2012			2,636,228
Total Costs 2013	3,352,804	255,000	3,607,804
Total Funds Requested 2013			3,352,804

An elderly widow and her family in a makeshift hut made of tarpaulin sheets in front of their destroyed house in Tarlay Sub-Township. A 6.8 magnitude earthquake struck southern Shan State in March 2011. Credit: Lynn Maung/IRIN