[1]

EN THIS ACTION IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION

ANNEX

of the Commission Implementing Decision on the financing of the Annual Action

Programme in favour of Myanmar/Burma for 2020

Action Document for EU Peace Support in Myanmar/Burma – PEACE V

ANNUAL PROGRAMME

This document constitutes the annual work programme in the sense of Article 110(2) of the

Financial Regulation and action programme/measure in the sense of Articles 2 and 3 of

Regulation N° 236/2014.

1. Title/basic act/

CRIS number

EU Peace Support in Myanmar/Burma– PEACE V

CRIS number: ACA/2020/042-326

financed under the Development Cooperation Instrument

2. Zone benefiting

from the

action/location

Myanmar/Burma

The action shall be carried out at the following location: Yangon, Nay Pyi

Taw and the ethnic minority states of Myanmar/Burma

3. Programming

document

Addendum No 1 to the Multiannual Indicative Programme (2014-2020) for

Myanmar/Burma1

4. Sustainable

Development

Goals (SDGs)

Main SDG 16: Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies;

Secondary SDG 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere; SDG 5: Gender

Equality

5. Sector of

intervention/

thematic area

Peace-building support DEV. Assistance: YES

6. Amounts

concerned

Total estimated cost: EUR 70 106 060

Total amount of EU budget contribution EUR 10 000 000

This action is co-financed in joint co-financing by 11 other donors

contributing to the Joint Peace Fund for the amount of EUR 60 106 060.

7. Aid

modality(ies) and

implementation

Project Modality

Indirect management with UNOPS (existing Joint Peace Fund and Nexus

Response Mechanism).

1 C(2018)4741 of 20 July 2018

[2]

modality(ies)

8 a) DAC code(s) 15220 – Civilian peace-building, conflict prevention and resolution;

15230 – Post conflict – peace-building

b) Main Delivery

Channel

41502 – United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)

9. Markers (from

CRIS DAC form)

General policy objective Not

targeted

Significant

objective

Principal

objective

Participation development/good

governance ☐ ☐ ☒

Aid to environment ☒ ☐ ☐

Gender equality and Women’s

and Girl’s Empowerment ☐ ☒ ☐

Trade Development ☒ ☐ ☐

Reproductive, Maternal, New

born and child health ☒ ☐ ☐

Disaster Risk Reduction ☐ ☒ ☐

Inclusion of persons with

disabilities

☒ ☐ ☐

Nutrition ☐ ☒ ☐

RIO Convention markers Not

targeted

Significant

objective

Principal

objective

Biological diversity ☒ ☐ ☐

Combat desertification ☒ ☐ ☐

Climate change mitigation ☒ ☐ ☐

Climate change adaptation x ☐

10. Internal

markers

Policy objectives Not

targeted

Significant

objective

Principal

objective

Digitalisation ☒ ☐ ☐

Migration ☐ ☒ ☐

11. Global Public

Goods and

Challenges (GPGC)

thematic flagships

NA

[3]

SUMMARY

Efforts to bring about a sustainable and inclusive end to Myanmar/Burma’s decades-long

civil war commenced in 2011. Bilateral ceasefire agreements have been signed with most of

the Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs). Multilateral negotiations have also been undertaken

for a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), which has been signed by the Government,

the Armed Forces (Tatmadaw) and ten EAOs. Significant challenges remain to finding a

lasting political settlement to ethnic and inter-communal conflicts. The non-signatory EAOs

still have a significant striking capacity as they account for the largest contingent of non-

demobilised foot troops. The implementation of the NCA and the advancement of a

comprehensive political dialogue have been slow to materialise.

In August 2017, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) staged coordinated attacks on

security installations in Rakhine State. The incident was met with disproportionate use of

force by the armed forces, which resulted in a new displacement of more than 800,000

Rohingya from northern Rakhine State into Bangladesh, drawing widespread international

attention. About 400,000 Rohingya remain in Rakhine state, with their fundamental rights

seriously curtailed by the Government policy and security apparatus. The International Court

of Justice has ruled that Myanmar/Burma should adopt four provisional measures under the

International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment on the crime of Genocide.

As a result of decades of disproportionate use of force by armed forces and widespread

violation of human rights, two million people have sought refuge within or outside

Myanmar/Burma.

The overall objective of this action is to contribute to lasting peace and national

reconciliation, security, stability and sustainable and principled development in

Myanmar/Burma. The action aims at providing support to peace process stakeholders to

continue nationally-led peace negotiations and progress on the formal implementation of the

NCA, including the ceasefire monitoring mechanism and the national political dialogue. The

EU intends to further increase aid effectiveness in the area of peace through an additional

contribution to the Joint Peace Fund (JPF), delivering coordinated international financial and

technical assistance to the peace processes. The action aims at women’s meaningful

participation in the implementation and monitoring of the ceasefire agreement, further peace

negotiations, peace-building and reconciliation. The systematic integration of gender

perspectives will make the peace process more inclusive and peace agreements and outcomes

more sustainable. Additionally, this action aims at strengthening the EU’s humanitarian-

development-peace nexus response to provide support to displaced populations and host

communities. This will be achieved through additional contribution to the Humanitarian-

Development-Peace Nexus Response Mechanism (NRM), which seeks socio-economic

recovery in conflict-affected areas through principled, rights based, inclusive, non-

discriminatory, conflict-sensitive, and needs based interventions, reducing environmental

impact and promoting sustainability.

This action will be implemented in a COVID-19 context and adapted as necessary for a

successful completion.

[4]

1 CONTEXT ANALYSIS

Context Description 1.1

Myanmar/Burma has 135 officially recognised ethnic groups. Since its independence, the

country has never been at peace or entirely under a central Government control. During the

1960s-1980s, several EAOs were able to carve out effectively independent micro-states with

their own governments, service provision and foreign policies and some remained up to now.

Efforts to bring about a sustainable and inclusive end to Myanmar/Burma’s decades long

civil war commenced in 2011 under the previous nominally-civilian Government. Initially,

bilateral ceasefire agreements were signed with 14 of the 16 EAOs. A NCA, which the EU

co-signed as a formal witness, was signed in October 2015 by the Government, the

Tatmadaw and eight EAOs. In February 2018, two additional small EAOs joined the NCA.

However, some of the militarily most significant armed groups2 remain outside of the peace

process.

Since the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi (ASSK), swept

to victory in historic democratic elections in 2015, the peace process and national

reconciliation efforts have repeatedly been declared as the Government’s top priority.

Nevertheless, the implementation of the NCA as well as progress in advancing a

comprehensive political dialogue are limited and contested.

Ethnic minority areas consistently demonstrate low levels of development across a range of

indicators. Drug economy, limited livelihood opportunities, labour market saturation, market

fluctuation and the unpredictable nature of the conflict result in extremely fragile livelihoods

and low levels of resilience. Constant proximity of Tatmadaw and EAOs to civilians also

creates serious concerns. These include lack of access to humanitarian services, gender-based

violence, forced recruitment including of children, arbitrary detention, extra judicial killings,

forced labour, lack of documentation, land grabbing, human trafficking and landmines.

Peace efforts are undermined by intensified fighting in several ethnic minority states (i.a.

Kachin and Shan) and involve both NCA-signatory and non-signatory EAOs. The situation

has deteriorated in a number of ways:

In August 2019, a series of coordinated attacks against military facilities only 65 km far to

the economic centre of Mandalay testifies capacities and determination of EAOs to hit

outposts far from traditional theatre of military operations. The number of Internally

Displaced Persons (IDPs) amounts to 120,000 and humanitarian access is particularly

restricted.

Over the last seven years, southeast Myanmar/Burma3 had seen a significant peace-making

effort. Nevertheless, Karen National Union (KNU) and the Restoration Council of Shan State

(RCSS) – both signatories of the NCA – suspended their participation in the formal peace

process from end of 2018 to August 2019. The majority of the Myanmar/Burma 99,886

2 Ethnic Armed Groups that did not sign the agreement: United Wa State Army (UWSA), Shan State Progress

Party/Shan State Army (SSPP/SSA), National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA) – MONGLA, National

Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K), Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), Kachin

Independence Organisation/Army (KIO/KIA), Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), Arakan Army (AA),

and Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) – KOKANG. 3 Under this definition, all traditional Karen areas are included and they span Kayin State, Mon State, Bago and

Tannitharyi Divisions (according to the Myanmar/Burma Government demarcations).

[5]

verified refugees in Thailand originate from this region. As a signal of positive socio-political

and security developments within Myanmar/Burma, spontaneous returns (though in modest

numbers) started since late 2016.

Coordinated attacks by Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militants on 25 August

2017 in northern Rakhine State triggered a disproportionate response by the

Myanmar/Burma military and security forces, driving 800,000 Rohingya over to

neighbouring Bangladesh. These so-called ‘clearance operations’ were characterised by

widespread human rights abuses and violations including indiscriminate and extrajudicial

killings of civilians, looting and property destructions and sexual violence. 128,000 Rohingya

have remained confined in IDP camps in central Rakhine State since 2012 and a similar

number is in need of humanitarian assistance in northern Rakhine State, where access is

currently heavily restricted or denied, with the exception of the ICRC and FAO/WFP. The

International Court of Justice ruled on 23 January 2020 that Myanmar/Burma should adopt

four provisional measures concerning the Rohingya community in Rakhine State under the

International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment on the crime of Genocide. In

addition, as the Rakhine community feels excluded from central decision making as regards

the future of their ethnic minority state, there is a growing support to the insurgency of the

Arakan Army (AA). The AA has demonstrated a significant combatant capacity and armed

clashes have increased significantly over the last months and are expected to continue.

Policy Framework (Global, EU) 1.2

In Council conclusions on Myanmar/Burma of 16 October 2017, 26 February 2018 and

10 December 2018, the EU and its Member States reconfirmed their strong engagement in

support of the democratic transition, peace and national reconciliation process and inclusive

socio-economic development. In this context, the EU stands ready to i) step up its

humanitarian assistance as needed; ii) further operationalise the Humanitarian-Development-

Peace nexus, with focus on equal access to basic social services as well as on reconstruction,

service infrastructure and rehabilitation of livelihoods in Rakhine State and other conflict-

affected areas; iii) support the implementation of the recommendations of the Advisory

Committee on Rakhine State; and iv) continue its support to the peace and national

reconciliation process and to ongoing reforms, including in the education sector. In April

2018, the EU extended and expanded the scope of the arms embargo and embargo on

equipment that can be used for internal repression and imposed targeted sanctions against 14

senior Tatmadaw and Border Guard Police officers for serious crimes under international

law.

Following Council Conclusions on operationalising the humanitarian-development nexus of

19 May 2017 and the Joint Communication on “A strategic approach to resilience in the EU’s

external action” of 7 June 2017, Myanmar/Burma has been chosen as one of the six pilot

countries for the “Nexus”. The EU Delegation was tasked to prepare a more structural and

long-term approach to risks and vulnerabilities, putting an emphasis on anticipation,

prevention and preparedness in the context of protracted crisis. This requires enhanced

collaboration within the Delegation (cooperation and political sections), within Commission

services and between the EU and its Member States development and humanitarian actors, as

well as strong conflict sensitivity in the design of cooperation programmes. In addition to

established modalities and instruments that already allow for both rapid response

(humanitarian assistance) and strategic engagement in challenging contexts, the use of the

Crisis Declaration has been essential to ensure and negotiate, adequate flexible responses.

[6]

Making effective use of flexible procedures in situations of conflict, fragility and protracted

crises is therefore a central element of strengthening the nexus in Myanmar/Burma.

The Communication “Lives in Dignity: from Aid-dependence to Self-reliance. Forced

Displacement and Development” requires the EU to use its humanitarian, development and

political instruments comprehensively. Hence, interventions in conflict-affected states must

systematically inform political dialogue both in Nay Pyi Taw and local level. A close scrutiny

of interventions coupled with the combination of both humanitarian and development funding

will enable the EU to adapt its strategies in the uncertain operational environments and

enhance its capacity to support durable and dignified solutions. It is key to put forward a

policy framework to prevent forced displacement from becoming protracted and to gradually

end dependence on humanitarian assistance in existing displacement situations by fostering

self-reliance and enabling the displaced to live in dignity as contributors to their host societies

until durable solutions are found. This should be done while continuing to explicitly

recognise that the primary responsibility of assistance, equal access to basic services, rule of

law and respect of human rights, rests with the Government.

Public Policy Analysis of the partner country/region 1.3

This Action supports the achievements of the “Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan

2018-2030”, more precisely towards: “Goal 1 – Peace, national reconciliation, security and

good governance”, “Goal 4 – Human resources and social development for a 21st century

society” and “Goal 5 – Natural resources & the environment for posterity of the nation”4. The

Action is designed to support the implementation of the recommendations listed in the “Final

Report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State (RAC)” as well as to facilitate a

principled engagement for the operationalisation of the recently adopted “National Strategy

on Camp Closure”.

Stakeholder analysis 1.4

In April 2016, the NLD-led Government took overall responsibility for the peace process

with limited capacity and experience for conducting credible negotiations with all EAOs. The

2020 elections will constitute an increasingly important backdrop for domestic politics.

The Tatmadaw is a key actor in the peace process and national politics. It continues to hold

25% of Parliamentary seats, three critical Government ministries and several key powers

under the 2008 Constitution. They also form part of Government delegations in major peace

process bodies. Traditionally, the Tatmadaw has perceived itself as the sole guarantor of

national unity and sovereignty, and has historically been adamantly opposed to any

discussion on federalism, which it perceives as a threat to Myanmar/Burma’s territorial

integrity. During 2017, the role of the Tatmadaw and security forces in committing acts of

violence and human rights abuses in Rakhine has drawn widespread international

condemnation. Domestically, however, the events and reactions have generated a resurgence

of support for the Tatmadaw.

There are 16 major EAOs, 10 of which have signed the NCA. The EAOs’ goals vary greatly,

as do their strength and local support. During the NCA negotiations, important progress was

made in shaping a common negotiating position. However, the previous mobilisation by 16

EAOs to negotiate as a block was compromised following differing strategies and the partial

4 The goals make clear reference to the importance to provide environmentally sustainable services in line with

ethnic needs and the importance of create early warning systems for natural disasters

[7]

signing of the NCA by only eight groups. As a result, two years of NCA implementation and

over 20 months of national political dialogue have occurred in the absence of many EAOs.

Political parties have so far had limited formal involvement in the peace process and were

largely absent from ceasefire negotiations. However, they have been participating in all Peace

Conferences - 21st Century Panglongs (UPCs). Several ethnic political parties have close

links with EAOs, but are also somewhat in competition with them. Political parties are

relatively under-resourced in comparison to other stakeholders, thereby limiting their

substantive participation in the political dialogue process.

Many ethnic civil society organisations are working with EAOs, particularly in support of

social service delivery for local communities. Meanwhile they can challenge the top-down,

authoritarian structures of EAOs and, in this respect, play a critical role in local

democratisation processes. The current format for formal civil society participation in the

political dialogue process is relatively constrained. CSOs are key for other areas related to

resettlement, reconstruction and social development in ethnic minority areas.

Local ethnic communities suffer immensely from the conflicts and are a major driver of the

push for peace. In some areas, EAOs enjoy significant popular legitimacy; yet in others, local

communities generally resent all armed groups. Regarding the situation of the Rohingya

minority, during 2017, widespread public and national media support for anti-Muslim

sentiment has grown as well as support for the actions of the Government and Tatmadaw,

including amongst non-Bamar communities. Moderate voices are limited though some

important statements were made by CSOs on civilian protection concerns in Rakhine State.

Facing acute needs and highly dependent on assistance, aid organisations are struggling to

exit the protracted humanitarian crisis and work around severely restrictive human rights

environment, (e.g. serious limitations to freedom of movement, etc.), whilst trying to tackle

the acute levels of poverty, lack of livelihoods opportunities and food and nutrition security

affecting population all over the Country.

Problem analysis/priority areas for support 1.5

Despite the NCA and bilateral agreements, a high degree of ethnic-religious tension persists.

Implementation of the NCA has resulted in the establishment of structures such as the Union

Peace Dialogue Joint Committee (UPDJC) and the Joint Ceasefire Monitoring Committee

(JMC), whose proper implementation needs to be strengthened and improved at all levels.

Ongoing support to strengthen conflict parties’ administrative capacities remains necessary,

as well as building technical knowledge and soft skills to effectively develop strategies,

negotiate and enable evidence-based policy making.

Participation of women in the national peace architecture has been very limited. This action

targets women’s rights in the peace process, increased participation of women at all levels

(track I and II) including in conflict mediation and peace negotiations.

The suffering of civilians affected by human rights violations and abuses is ongoing not only

for the non-recognised Rohingya ethnic group, but also for the ethnic minorities recognised

by the State. While approaching seven years of displacement and despite ongoing and often

increasing needs, IDPs in northern Myanmar/Burma face decreasing aid and protection

services. This is also the case in other regions where better peace dividends are required. A

strong conflict sensitive approach and a robust conflict analysis based on a participatory

approach will be required for each project and from each implementing partner funded by the

action.

[8]

Myanmar/Burma is cyclically exposed to the effects of different natural hazards (i.a.

earthquakes and floods). Despite the frequency of such events, the country does not have

adequate systems and coping mechanisms in place to address the down sights induced by

external shocks (e.g. current COVID-19 pandemic). This is particularly true in areas where

populations are suffering the consequences of protracted crisis and long standing conflicts.

Hence, it is essential to strengthen the resilience of the most vulnerable and to focus on

preparedness, early response and early recovery where need be, by building capacities and/or

facilitating the action of those traditional actors that mobilise informal solidarity networks

(Civil Society Organisations and first line responders). Furthermore, these forms of civic

mobilisation are instrumental to peacebuilding and social cohesion purposes.

2 RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Risks Risk level

(H/M/L) Mitigating measures

The peace process fails and has serious

repercussions on the Government,

particularly on the decentralisation

process.

L

Momentum in the peace process will

be maintained through mediation and

conflict mitigation measures. A wide

range of stakeholders will need to be

involved.

Further division between EAOs: The

advantages associated with signing the

NCA in terms of donor support, training,

etc., but also the possibility of going

forward with the political dialogue

process, may further increase the divide

between signatory and non-signatory

groups.

M

Fragmentation of EAOs has not

undermined efforts to negotiate for

peace, however it has had implications

for the future of the NCA. It also has

an effect on the negotiating position of

the EAOs, in particular those with less

military strength. Support from the

JPF to NCA signatory and non-

signatory EAOs to maintain their

engagement is an important mitigation

measure. The JPF grants also enable

regular contacts between the NCA

signatories and some non-signatories.

The Government’s approach to peace is

focussed on economic development and

service delivery to areas that are not

under their control.

H

Donor support should explore

protocols to govern interim

arrangements in NCA-signatory areas

in order to mitigate this.

Lack of commitment to gender equality,

women’s rights, protection and

meaningful participation further

marginalises women in

Myanmar/Burma, and leads to

agreements that do not factor in the

needs and realities of half the

population.

H

Leadership in Government, EAOs and

in Myanmar/Burma society is

dominated by men. Mitigating

measures to elevate women to

decision-making positions include: a)

action on women meaningful

participation in peace process and

gender based violence; b) JPF

commitment to 15% of all its funding

being directed towards actions and

activities focussed on gender; c)

systematically setting the integration

[9]

of gender perspective and analysis

targets across all EU Humanitarian-

Development-Peace Nexus funding.

Weak capacity of national actors,

including the Government, EAOs,

political parties and CSOs results in

major constraints for the implementation

of the peace process. H

Capacity gaps exist on all sides, but

are more pronounced amongst EAOs

and political parties. Combining

technical support with capacity

building and soft skills trainings is

essential. For all sides, increasing

capacity to engage in evidence-

informed policymaking is a priority.

Careful attention should be paid when

selecting implementing partners.

Continued or renewed armed conflict

and/or intercommunal violence in some

areas could make it impossible to deliver

the kind of peace-support envisioned by

this action.

M

Efforts may be required to promote the

nexus in the affected areas, as well as

to any new IDPs or refugees. It will

also be essential to monitor assistance

given to any repatriated refugees.

Returns to northern Rakhine State will

increase the risk of intercommunal

violence. International support to

Government-led responses in Rakhine

State might inadvertently lead to

further abuses. Advocacy for access

from development and humanitarian

actors should continue.

Further security activities, investigations

and vetting by security forces in

Rakhine State perpetuate further human

rights abuses against minority groups. M

The potential for repatriation of

Rohingya raises concerns for further

action by security forces in the name

of ‘anti-terrorism’. EU’s support must

be highly flexible and responsive to

the context and complemented with

high-level talks with key actors.

Covid-19 pandemic disrupts activities

seeking or requiring active participation

of big number of actors (workshops,

group counselling sessions, roundtables,

training, Cash for Work, etc.) and

further limits access to beneficiaries on

the ground of do-no-harm and duty of

care concerns.

M

Contingency plan will be developed in

order to pre-identify potential alternate

activities in case presential ones

cannot be implemented. Similarly,

innovative from-remote approaches

will be factored in the design of

activities and their management.

Assumptions

It is assumed that more key EAOs will join the NCA after 2020, which in turn will establish the

confidence needed for an inclusive National Political Dialogue and an inclusive Peace Accord.

De-escalation and cessation of armed hostilities will build the confidence needed on all sides to start

negotiations of a national peace accord, dealing with the underlying causes of armed conflict, as well

as to scale up efforts to promote recovery and development in former conflict-affected areas

Peace and stability in certain regions of the country will contribute positively to other development

[10]

objectives, including democratisation, broad-based economic development and human security

3 LESSONS LEARNT AND COMPLEMENTARITY

Lessons learnt 3.1

The piecemeal approach cannot address the underlying problems in their complexity.

Tangible benefits for people in conflict affected zones must be promoted and the critical

role of gender in addressing fragility has to be recognised.

Top-down development planning and resource extraction without local benefits can generate

deep grievances, ratchet up tensions, engender rivalries and (finally) fuel armed resistance.

Context Analysis should be focussed on structural discrimination rather than on inter-

communal conflict: the role of the “vertical” and normative (Union government driven)

dimension appears more key than the “social cohesion” and the responsibility of local

communities.

Timely response may be required for providing assistance to some specific populations, like

those IDPs and/or potential returnees in Kachin, Shan and Rakhine States.

In Rakhine State, running field operations based on standard model for response to natural or

man-made disasters can do harm. The humanitarian dilemma of delivering services to

people in need while sustaining a segregation system requires to be properly addressed and

criteria to decide on interventions tightened up, especially with regard to do-no-harm, conflict

sensitivity and human rights standards.

Complementarity, synergy and donor coordination 3.2

In a context of a protracted crisis where the root causes of conflict and underdevelopment are

structural and inherently political, the “Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus

Response Mechanism” (“Nexus Mechanism”) provides a higher degree of efficiency,

adaptability and compliance to address protracted crisis in conflict affected areas.

The most efficient instrument for aligned support to the peace process is the Joint Peace

Fund (JPF), established in November 2015 as a multi-donor platform to provide coordinated

support.

All Development Cooperation interventions are closely coordinated with ECHO Office and

with the Political Section under the existing Nexus Standard Operational Procedures in the

EU Delegation to Myanmar: joint analysis, situational updates, assessments and pilot projects

are being undertaken in most conflict-affected areas of the country covering the three key

priority areas described in the EU’s Myanmar/Burma Nexus Plan of Action (NPoA) (forced

displacement, food security/ nutrition and resilience/Disaster Risk Reduction). These

programmes not only ensure better linkages across humanitarian and development programs

(for example, with regards to food and nutrition in northern Rakhine, where ECHO supports

direct nutrition services, while DEVCO supports small-scale agricultural recovery

programmes) but also the use of coherent do no harm and protection principles in all

interventions.

Close coordination also exists with the UN agencies and the Resident Coordinator’s office

which has prepared a Strategic Framework for International Engagement in Rakhine –

and one on Kachin is currently being drafted.

[11]

The action will build up on and will work in close synergy with others EU funded actions like

Durable Peace Programme II (managed by Oxfam), the UNFPA Women and Girls First

programme, the Livelihood and Food Security Fund (LIFT), the projects to be launched

under the EUR 20 MIL EU Call for Proposal “Strengthening Indigenous Provision of

Education in Ethnic Areas of Myanmar” as well the many EU projects currently

implemented in Rakhine State by DRC, ACF, RI, GRET, SfCG and LWF.

For the elements related to Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation

the programme will build on the policy dialogue already established through the EU

funded Myanmar Climate Change Alliance programmes (the phase two for the

programme MCCA II for EUR 7.5m started in 2019 and is currently ongoing) under

the GCCA.

For the purpose of ensuring complementarity, synergy and coordination, the Commission

may sign or enter into joint donor coordination declarations or statements and may participate

in donor coordination structures, as part of its prerogative of budget implementation and to

safeguard the financial interests of the Union.

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION

Overall objective, specific objective(s), expected outputs and indicative activities 4.1

The overall objective of the action is to contribute to lasting peace, security, stability and

sustainable development in Myanmar/Burma.

The specific objectives are:

1. Successive milestones of the peace process are reached;

2. Support to inclusive, gender sensitive and environmentally sustainable durable

solutions for vulnerable populations in conflict-affected areas, areas affected by inter-

communal violence and areas affected by natural disasters

Expected outputs:

Output 1: Increased capacities for an inclusive national political dialogue process in

order to reach a broad consensus on the key principles and elements of a

comprehensive peace accord establishing a democratic federal union while

the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), or other inclusive negotiations

for peace agreements, are effectively monitored by the Joint Ceasefire

Monitoring Mechanism (JMC).

Output 2: Prompt, effective and efficient delivery of assistance for durable solutions

for IDPs, repatriation, recovery and gender-sensitive development in

conflict-affected areas, areas affected by inter-communal tensions and

violence and areas affected by natural disasters.

Main Activities:

Indicative activities for Result 1: (i) Increased capacities of new or existing institutions

required to guide, manage and support the national political dialogue (in particular the

UPDJC); (ii) Support for activities of these institutions, including training of staff, meetings,

research and consultations with constituencies; (iii) increased capacities for gender analysis,

gender sensitive approach, gender responsive budgeting and mainstreaming of gender

[12]

perspective; (iv) increased capacity (including soft skills) of participants in the dialogue to

support development of evidence-informed policy positions; (v) provision of expert advice on

the organisation of national dialogue processes and solutions to substantive issues; (vi)

provision of international observers; (vii) support to research supporting identification of

evidence-informed solutions to substantive issues; (viii) broader confidence-building between

the Government, the Tatmadaw, EAOs, political parties and civil society groups through

facilitation; (ix) collation and communication of relevant information to the public; (x)

support for inclusion and empowerment of women in the dialogue process; (xi) support to

increase the substantive inclusion of civil society, including women’s organisations, in the

national political dialogue process; (xii) increase capacities for the substantive participation

of youth in the peace process and national dialogue process; (xiii) support for establishing

new institutions or strengthening existing institutions required to monitor and sustain the

ceasefires (JMC); (xiv) support for the activities of these institutions, including training of

staff, monitoring, liaising, conflict analysis and dispute resolution; (xv) Increased capacities,

through the provision of expert advice, for the organisation and conduct of ceasefire

monitoring; (xvi) provision of international monitors/observers (as requested by relevant

authorities); (xvii) carry out gender and conflict analysis to support conflict-sensitive actions

(e.g. research on causes of conflict, but also stakeholders, dynamics, scenarios at national

level but also the different conflicts in the different conflict areas); (xviii) collation and

communication of relevant information to the public; (xix) provision of mine action

activities; (xx) additional ad hoc activities to facilitate confidence building; (xxi) technical

and financial support to ongoing peace negotiations with non-signatory EAOs; (xxii) training

and broader capacity development (including soft skills) of participants in ceasefire

monitoring committees, and ongoing ceasefire negotiations and the Women, Peace and

Security framework at the national and subnational level.

Indicative activities for Result 2: embrace actions leading to durable solutions for the

populations affected by protracted crisis in Myanmar/Burma. They could include but would

not be limited to: (i) Exploring ways to facilitate citizenship recognitions and/or birth

registration processes as well as conflict-sensitive initiatives to strengthen land tenure, land

registration, complaints and prevent land grabbing (with special attention to the access of

women to land and property by addressing discriminatory administrative practices, formal

/customary use in relation to collectively used land; and IDP land rights); (ii) Support for

IDPs and refugees access to education and health, including through collaboration with

relevant Ministries for non-discriminatory and inclusive access to services; (iii) Create

explosive ordnance disposal capacity among key actors operating in conflict-affected areas;

(iv) Researches supporting identification of evidence-informed solutions to substantive issues

(particularly addressing the gaps on available updated sex-disaggregated data) with collation

and communication of relevant information to the public; (v) Support resilience-building

activities such as shock-responsive social protection mechanisms in conflict-affected and/or

disaster-prone areas; establishing protection monitoring mechanism, early warning systems

and provision of humanitarian aid (including for COVID19 and/or any other exogenous

shock); (vi) Initiative promoting human rights core principles, freedom of movement and full

citizenship; (vii) Nutrition, food security and livelihood actions projects with a focus on

empowerment and resilience of women and the most vulnerable populations, including

natural extreme events; (viii) Supporting voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of

refugees from Thailand and Bangladesh and of IDPs to relevant areas, through the provision

of basic services (nutrition, education, cash transfers, access to health, wash, shelter and

environmentally sustainable livelihoods) and protection from land mines; (ix) Technical

[13]

assistance for institutions required to guide, manage and support - at Union and Local level –

Myanmar/Burma policies in conflict affected areas, screened against protection lenses and

human rights due diligence criteria agreed by the EU, as well as conflict sensitivity guidance;

(x) Strengthening coordination mechanism for a holistic response to Myanmar/Burma’s

protracted crisis.

Intervention Logic 4.2

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 durable peace agreement. The ultimate goal of this action is to support national

efforts to achieve a final and sustainable settlement to ethnic armed conflict and alleviating

inter-communal tensions and violence. The activities and results in section 4.1 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 illustrated under results 1 and 2, the action should be able to provide the

main expected outcomes. The aim is to support the peace process and the intercommunal

violence as a transition towards the use of the country’s own systems for aid delivery in the

future.

The current context necessitates that the EU approach in 2018 remains flexible and

responsive to the shifting political context and specific needs of vulnerable populations.

Opportunities to provide support to communities will also be dependent on the access granted

to the international community by the Government. Indirect management modality will allow

coherent and effective aid to the emerging needs of the peace process, plus rapid and flexible

delivery to the eventual repatriation/return of Rohingya and/or other refugees and Internally

Displaced Populations.

While activities under the JPF will support the NCA dialogue and monitor its implementation

(peace architecture and ceasefire monitoring) the ones under the Nexus Response Mechanism

aim to improve service delivery in conflict affected areas which can be defined as protracted

crisis by enhancing the nexus between humanitarian, development and peace interventions.

As part of the support for socio-economic recovery in conflict-affected areas, a strong

emphasis will be given to alleviating inter-communal tensions and addressing serious human

rights concerns: the systematic integration of Rights Based Approach in activities aiming to

meet populations immediate needs will be pivotal to all aspects of programme

implementation, in order to assure principled, inclusive, non-discriminatory and needs based

interventions. All actions will be screened against strict human rights due diligence and

conflict sensitivity criteria for assuring principled engagement limiting the potential to

perpetuate segregation or harmful practices.

Similarly, the action will ensure that the access to services and creation of livelihood

opportunities will be environmentally sustainable and take in consideration the increasing

impact of climate change and extreme events.

Mainstreaming 4.3

Ethnic tensions are a root cause of many Myanmar/Burma conflicts; they derive from

unbalanced relations of power between centre (Nay Pyi Taw) and peripheries (States and

Regions) and decades of Human Rights disparity, which justifies the importance of

promoting good Governance and Human Rights when working in Myanmar/Burma conflict

[14]

affected areas. The action will consider the status of the target groups as well as the concerns

of the different ethnicities in the areas of intervention.

The action adopts a conflict sensitive approach that involves gaining a sound understanding

of the two-way interaction between activities and context as well as acting to minimise

negative impacts and maximise positive impacts of intervention on conflict. Due Diligence

criteria inform the decision making process of the NRM; furthermore, a specific facility, the

Due Diligence and Conflict Analysis facility (DDCA), has been established within the NRM

with this purpose. The conflict analysis guidelines developed with support from Unit B2 in

2019 will be used as reference to guide the DDCA Facility of the NRM, notably for actions in

the area of Education and Rural Development.

As in many peace processes gender equality is one of the most prominent cross-cutting

issues. A strong effort will be made both to encourage and support increased participation of

women in peace negotiations and in decision-making bodies, and to ensure that gender issues,

including violence against women, are properly addressed and in line with UN Security

Council Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions on Women, Peace and Security.

Control over abundant natural resources and weak governance are among the root causes of

the conflict. Few of the anticipated activities are likely to have significant environmental

consequences, but this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Protection of natural

resources, access to water and sanitation and the identification of sustainable livelihood

activities will be mainstreamed into all activities. These are opportunities for strengthening

the nexus between the humanitarian and development activities.

It is possible that Myanmar/Burma could face hazards of increased frequency and intensity

with the potentially growing effects of climate change. The country ranks 2nd out of 187

countries in the Global Climate Risk Index (2020, data for 1999 to 2018) and 17th out of 191

in the Index of Risk Management (INFORM, 2020). Readiness to cope with the impacts of

climate change and extreme events is particularly low in IDP camps and communities with a

high percentage of Rohingya population as also underlined by a recent study5. Therefore,

attention will be given to early warning systems and the level of exposure and vulnerability

of communities face to natural hazards such as cyclones, storm surges, floods and tsunamis.

This will also align to the Myanmar Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) that

identifies early warning systems as a climate change adaptation priority.

Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 4.4

This intervention is relevant for the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. It contributes primarily to the progressive achievement of SDG 16 “Promote

just, peaceful and inclusive societies” SDG 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” and

SDG 5 “Gender Equality”. This does not imply a commitment by the country benefiting from

this programme.

5 Johnson, Thomas & von Meding, Jason & Gajendran, Thayaparan & Forino, Giuseppe. (2019). Disaster

Vulnerability of Displaced People in Rakhine State, Myanmar/Burma. 10.1007/978-3-319-92498-4_6.

[15]

5 IMPLEMENTATION

Financing agreement 5.1

In order to implement this action, it is not foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with

the partner country.

Indicative implementation period 5.2

The indicative operational implementation period of this action, during which the activities

described in section 4 will be carried out and the corresponding contracts and agreements

implemented, is 60 months from the date of adoption by the Commission of this Financing

Decision.

Extensions of the implementation period may be agreed by the Commission’s responsible

authorising officer by amending this Decision and the relevant contracts and agreements.

Implementation modalities 5.3

The Commission will ensure that the EU appropriate rules and procedures for providing

financing to third parties are respected, including review procedures, where appropriate, and

compliance of the action with EU restrictive measures6.

Indirect management with an international organisation 5.3.1

A part of this action may be implemented in indirect management with the United Nations

Office for Project Services (UNOPS). This implementation entails implementing the

activities related to Result 1 “An inclusive national political dialogue process reaches a broad

consensus on the key principles and elements of a comprehensive peace accord establishing a

democratic federal union while the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA), or other

inclusive negotiations for peace agreements, are effectively monitored by the Joint Ceasefire

Monitoring Mechanism (JMC)”.

The envisaged entity has been selected using the following criteria:

- Demonstrated experience in providing fully integrated and coherent support to the key

stakeholders directly involved in the Myanmar/Burma Peace Process (Government –

Union and State levels-, EAOs, NCA-derived structures such as UPC; JMC; NRPC,

local communities, CSOs, CBOs) in formal peace process; support for ceasefire

monitoring mechanisms; support for dialogue, including awareness raising and

inclusion

- Established presence and extensive experience in the management of multi-donor

trust funds mechanisms in the Peace sector

UNOPS is currently responsible for the implementation of the existing JPF that the EU and

other donors (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway,

Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States) are already funding. Indirect Management

with UNOPS is the best option to ensure a fully integrated and coherent implementation of

the action. This implementation is justified because UNOPS has an established presence and

extensive experience in the management of multi-donor trust funds co-financed by the EU

6 www.sanctionsmap.eu Please note that the sanctions map is an IT tool for identifying the sanctions regimes.

The source of the sanctions stems from legal acts published in the Official Journal (OJ). In case of discrepancy

between the published legal acts and the updates on the website it is the OJ version that prevails.

[16]

and other donors in Myanmar/Burma. UNOPS is in charge of the implementation of the JPF

since 2015.

The international organisation identified above, is currently undergoing an ex-ante

assessment of its systems and procedures. Based on its compliance with the conditions in

force at the time previously other indirect management actions were awarded to the

organisation and based on a long-lasting problem-free cooperation, the international

organisation can also now implement this action under indirect management, pending the

finalisation of the ex-ante assessment, and, where necessary, subject to appropriate

supervisory measures in accordance with Article 154(5) of the Financial Regulation.

In case the envisaged entity would need to be replaced, the Commission’s services may select

another replacement entity using the same criteria. If the entity is replaced the decision to

replace it needs to be justified.

Indirect management with an international organisation 5.3.2

A part of this action may be implemented in indirect management with the United Nations

Office for Project Services (UNOPS). This implementation entails implementing the

activities related to Result 2 “Prompt, effective and efficient delivery of assistance for durable

solutions for IDPs, repatriation, recovery and gender-sensitive development in conflict-

affected areas or areas affected by inter-communal tensions and violence”.

The envisaged entity has been selected using the following criteria:

- Demonstrated experience in providing support to IDPs and in collaborating with CSO

in Conflict Areas providing access to basic services.

- Demonstrated experience in managing joined Humanitarian-Development funding

mechanisms.

- Established presence in Myanmar/Burma and experience in the management of funds

in related sector.

- Pillar assessed organisation.

- Demonstrated experience in conflict sensitive approaches to development and in due

diligence compliance

UNOPS is currently responsible for the implementation of the existing Nexus Response

Mechanism (NRM) that the EU is already funding. Indirect Management with UNOPS is the

best option to ensure a fully integrated and coherent implementation of the action. This

implementation is justified because UNOPS has an established presence and extensive

experience in the management of multi-donor trust funds co-financed by the EU and other

donors in Myanmar/Burma. UNOPS is in charge of the implementation of the NRM since

December 2019.

In case the envisaged entity would need to be replaced, the Commission’s services may select

another replacement entity using the same criteria. If the entity is replaced the decision to

replace it needs to be justified.

Changes from indirect to direct management mode due to exceptional circumstances 5.3.3

In case of exceptional circumstances outside of the Commission’s control, the

implementation modality of the components of the action under budget lines 5.3.1 and/or

[17]

5.3.2 could be changed from indirect management with an international organisation to direct

management through the award of grants as described in sections 5.3.4 below.

5.3.4 Grants (direct management)

(a) Purpose of the grant(s)

The grants will contribute to achieve results 1 and 2 of the Action described in section 4.

(b) Type of applicants targeted

In order to be eligible for a grant, applicants must:

be a legal person, and

be non-profit-making, and

be a national or international non-governmental organisation (NGO), a civil society

organisation (CSO) active in Myanmar, Thailand and/or Bangladesh, an International

Organisation or an (inter-) governmental organisation, and

be established in a Member State of the European Union or one of the eligible

countries under the Development Cooperation Instrument as stipulated in Article 9 of

Regulation (EU) No 236/2014, and

be directly responsible for the preparation and management of the action with the co-

applicant(s) and affiliated entity(ies), not acting as an intermediary.

Scope of geographical eligibility for procurement and grants 5.4

The geographical eligibility in terms of place of establishment for participating in

procurement and grant award procedures and in terms of origin of supplies purchased as

established in the basic act and set out in the relevant contractual documents shall apply,

subject to the following provisions.

The Commission’s authorising officer responsible may extend the geographical eligibility on

the basis of urgency or of unavailability of products and services in the markets of the

countries concerned, or in other duly substantiated cases where the eligibility rules would

make the realisation of this action impossible or exceedingly difficult.

Indicative budget 5.5

Implementation modality EU contribution

(amount in EUR)

Indicative third party

contribution (in EUR)

5.3.1 - Indirect management with

UNOPS (Joint Peace Fund)

2 000 000 60 106 060

5.3.2 - Indirect management with

UNOPS (Nexus Response Mechanism)

8 000 000 0

Totals 10 000 000 60 106 060

[18]

Organisational set-up and responsibilities 5.6

The Joint Peace Fund, is governed by a Fund Board composed by all its donors. These have

all signed a Joint Contribution Agreement that establishes procedures for decision making,

including voting rights.

For the Nexus Mechanism, a Steering Committee – that meets on a monthly basis - formed

by representatives from EU and UNOPS has been established to provide leadership and focus

on strategy, selection of projects for funding (in line with what established in 4.1 above),

stakeholders coordination and monitoring progress. An Advisory Board: is composed by

representatives of Cooperation and Political sections of the EU Delegation to Myanmar and

the ECHO Office. In line with EU Nexus Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the funding

“entity” (DEVCO) will share with other sections (ECHO and EEAS) any programmes to be

funded by the Mechanism for peer review and comments. The final decision on how to

integrate comments will remain the sole responsibility of DEVCO, who has the ultimate

financial responsibility over the management of the funds. Similar consultations will take

place in regard to project monitoring and evaluation as well as in regard to annual / strategic

operational documents. A Technical Secretariat will ensure the development, implementation

and monitoring of Nexus Mechanism programmes, and provide analysis, advice and support

to the Steering Committee.

As part of its prerogative of budget implementation and to safeguard the financial interests of

the Union, the Commission may participate in the above governance structures set up for

governing the implementation of the action.

Performance and Results monitoring and reporting 5.7

The day-to-day technical and financial monitoring of the implementation of this action will

be a continuous process, and part of the implementing partner’s responsibilities. To this aim,

the implementing partner shall establish a permanent internal, technical and financial

monitoring system for the action and elaborate regular progress reports (not less than annual)

and final reports. Every report shall provide an accurate account of implementation of the

action, difficulties encountered, changes introduced, as well as the degree of achievement of

its results (outputs and direct outcomes) as measured by corresponding indicators, using as

reference the Logframe matrix.

Reports shall be laid out in such a way as to allow monitoring of the means envisaged and

employed and of the budget details for the action. The final report, narrative and financial,

will cover the entire period of the action implementation.

The Commission may undertake additional project monitoring visits both through its own

staff and through independent consultants recruited directly by the Commission for

independent monitoring reviews (or recruited by the responsible agent contracted by the

Commission for implementing such reviews).

Evaluation 5.8

Having regard to the importance of the action, mid-term and final evaluations will be carried

out for this action or its components via an implementing partner.

Mid-term evaluations will be carried out for problem solving and learning purposes, in

particular with respect to the chosen implementing modality and its efficiency and

effectiveness in both supporting the peace process in the right way and promoting an

inclusive development model for all conflict affected populations.

[19]

Final evaluations will be carried out for accountability and learning purposes at various levels

(including for policy revision), taking into account in particular the volatile peace process in

Myanmar/Burma. Final evaluation will assess progress towards expected results by

comparing start/end points as defined in the inception phases.

The evaluation reports shall be shared with the partner country and other key stakeholders.

The implementing partner and the Commission shall analyse the conclusions and

recommendations of the evaluations and, where appropriate, in agreement with the partner

country, jointly decide on the follow-up actions to be taken and any adjustments necessary,

including, if indicated, the reorientation of the project.

The financing of the evaluation shall be covered by another measure constituting a financing

decision.

Audit 5.9

Without prejudice to the obligations applicable to contracts concluded for the implementation

of this action, the Commission may, on the basis of a risk assessment, contract independent

audits or expenditure verification assignments for one or several contracts or agreements.

The financing of the audit shall be covered by another measure constituting a financing

decision.

Communication and visibility 5.10

Communication and visibility of the EU is a legal obligation for all external actions funded

by the EU.

This action shall contain communication and visibility measures which shall be based on a

specific Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action, to be elaborated at the start of

implementation.

For the purpose of enhancing the visibility of the EU and its contribution to this action, the

Commission may sign or enter into joint declarations or statements, as part of its prerogative

of budget implementation and to safeguard the financial interests of the Union.

In terms of legal obligations on communication and visibility, the measures shall be

implemented by the Commission, the partner country, contractors, grant beneficiaries and/or

entrusted entities. Appropriate contractual obligations shall be included in, respectively, the

financing agreement, procurement and grant contracts, and contribution agreements.

The Communication and Visibility Requirements for European Union External Action (or

any succeeding document) shall be used to establish the Communication and Visibility Plan

of the Action and the appropriate contractual obligations.

[20]

APPENDIX - INDICATIVE LOGFRAME MATRIX7

The indicative logframe matrix will evolve during the lifetime of the Intervention. The activities, the expected outputs and related

indicators are indicative and may be updated during the implementation of the Intervention as agreed by the parties (the European

Commission and the implementing partner/s).

Results chain Indicators Sources of data Assumptions

Impact

(Overall

Objective)

To contribute to lasting

peace, security, stability

and sustainable

development in

Myanmar/Burma

1. Status of Amendments to the Constitution and of

the related legal reforms based on final conclusions

adopted by the UPDJC

2. Level of Representation of women among

mediators, negotiators and technical experts in

formal peace negotiations (SGD 16.8) [GAP

indicator 17.4]:

3. Annual number of victims of armed clashes.**

** (disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity, disability

and displacement status).

4. Level of material (level of income/assets) and

non-material (access to public services) poverty in

the conflict-affected areas, disaggregated by gender,

age groups, location and ethnic group -indicators).

1. Reports by the UPDJC.

Constitutional and legal

reforms on various topics

related to the political

dialogue.

2.UPDJC reports

3. Reports by the JMC

4. Specialised reports by The

Asia Foundation (TAF), the

ADB, WB and other well

respected think tanks and

institutions.

Not applicable

Outcome(s)

(Specific

Objective(s))

1. Successive milestones of

the peace process are

reached

2. Support to inclusive,

gender sensitive and

environmentally

sustainable durable

solutions for vulnerable

populations in conflict-

affected areas, areas

affected by inter-

1.1 Number of bilateral ceasefire agreements signed

by 2025.

1.2 Number of EAOs sign the NCA by end of 2025.

1.3 (GAP Indicator 9.6.) N# of individuals

(male/female/ethnicity) directly benefiting from EU

supported programmes that specifically aim to

support civilian post-conflict peace building and/ or

conflict prevention (**** EU RF 2.28)

2.1 Percentage of displaced persons whose solution

is in line with their expressed preference

1.1. Joint ceasefire monitoring

mechanisms by EAOs.

1.2 Reports on NCA

implementation by recipient

institutions.

1.3 Project surveys conducted

by JPF and other EU-funded

implementing agencies.

2.1 Survey of displaced

persons/returnees to be

De-escalation and cessation of

armed hostilities will build the

confidence needed on all sides to

start negotiations of a national

peace accord, dealing with the

underlying causes of armed

conflict, as well as to scale up

efforts to promote recovery and

development in former conflict-

affected areas

Peace and stability in certain

7 Mark indicators aligned with the relevant programming document mark with ‘*’ and indicators aligned to the EU Results Framework with ‘**’.

[21]

Results chain Indicators Sources of data Assumptions

communal violence and

areas affected by natural

disasters

disaggregated by gender and ethnicity (integration in

host community/country or return) ** (EU RF 2.17

and 2.28)

2.2 Number of displaced persons reporting having

personally felt discriminated against or harassed in

the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of

discrimination prohibited under international human

rights law disaggregated by gender and

ethnicity(**EU RF 2.17 and 2.28)

2.3 Percentage of persons/target population in a

given context reporting an improved feeling of

safety and dignity by the end of the intervention

compared to at the beginning, disaggregated by

gender and ethnicity

implemented by the Action at

the beginning and end of

implementation.

2.2 Survey of displaced

persons to be implemented by

the Action at the beginning

and end of implementation.

2.3 Survey of displaced

persons to be implemented by

the Action at the beginning

and end of implementation.

regions of the country will

contribute positively to other

development objectives,

including democratisation, broad-

based economic development and

human security.

Outputs/Results

1. An inclusive national

political dialogue reached a

broad consensus on the key

principles and elements of

a comprehensive peace

accord establishing a

democratic federal union

while the Nationwide

Ceasefire Agreement, or

other inclusive negotiations

for peace agreements, is

effectively monitored by

the Joint Ceasefire

Monitoring Coordination

Mechanism (JMC).

2. Prompt, effective and

efficient delivery of

assistance for repatriation,

recovery and gender

sensitive development

conflict-affected areas or

1.1 5 Number of Union Peace Conferences organised

by end of 2025 with a new political settlement

agreed by all parties that is conducive for

Constitutional amendments.

1.2. Status of analysis, information and capacities of

the political dialogue participants.

1.3 Percentage of participants in the national

dialogue process from ethnic groups.

1.4. Status of charters, procedures, methodologies

for JMC at regional and local level.

1.5 Status of a proposal for dispute resolution

mechanism that documents and reports armed

clashes to the relevant authorities and stakeholders,

in designated areas

1.6 Status of a proposal for liaison offices and liaison

mechanisms between the Government, Tatmadaw

and EAOs.

1.7 Status of draft constitutional amendments, laws

1.1 New legal frameworks

adopted under the areas

covered by the UPDJC.

1.2 National and sub-national

surveys conducted by the JPF

/ others. Facts of handing over

/ discussion on

analysis/information, lists of

capacity building participants,

minutes explaining the events/

training and coaching.

1.3 UPDJC Reports / NRPC

reports. Records of discussion

and minutes.

1.4 NCA implementation

reports and briefings by the

JMC. Records of discussion

of the method and

organisation of drafts.

Sustained high-level commitment

to resolve differences through

political means.

Sufficient symbolic and

substantive concessions are made

to allow compromise solutions.

Sufficient political will in

Parliament – and, in case of

solutions requiring constitutional

amendments, in the broader

population – to reach a national

peace accord.

Sustained high-level commitment

of Government, Tatmadaw and

EAOs to end armed hostilities.

Minimal use of violence by local

armed groups for economic

purposes.

Government does not limit access

[22]

Results chain Indicators Sources of data Assumptions

areas affected by

intercommunal tensions

and violence.

and policy changes developed with the support of

this action.

2.1 Number of persons benefiting from local projects

aiming to eliminate barriers to access to services for

displaced persons (disaggregated by sex,

displacement status and ethnicicty) (**EU RF 2.17)

2.2 Number of beneficiaries who received legal or

practical aid through this action to resolve competing

claims to housing, land and assets and who obtained

civil registration documents with support of the

action (disaggregated by type of claim, sex, location,

age, ethnic group and displacement status) (** 2.17

and 2.27)

2.3 Number of persons benefitting from improved

basic services and human/technical/financial

resources provided with support from the action

(disaggregated by sex and displacement status and

ethnicity)

2.4 Status of availability of quantitative and

qualitative data provided by this action on the impact

of the displacement situation disaggregated by

gender and ethnic group, e.g. with regard to

perspectives for solutions, protection, basic services,

housing, employment, and environment(** 2.18)

1.5 Government decisions

1.6 Governments/EAOs

reports, documents and press

releases.

1.7 Constitutional and legal

reforms.

2.1 Progress reports for the

Action - participants for each

event disaggregated by sex,

displacement status

2.2 Database of beneficiaries

(disaggregated by sex,

location, type of document,

age and displacement status)

and statistics to be provided in

progress reports for the Action

2.3 Progress reports for the

Action

2.4 Capacity assessment study

to be commissioned by the

Action

to former conflict-affected areas

and facilitates implementing

partners in conducting all funded

operations.