Myanmar: 2021 HNO and HRP data by Humanitarian Consequence by Township

Scope: The geographic scope of the analysis primarily focuses on the following locations (administrative level 1). The baseline population figures and corresponding people in need are disaggregated by township (administrative level 3), gender, age and disability. • Bago Region • Chin State • Kachin State • Kayin State • Rakhine State • Shan State Population typology: Within the geographic locations covered, the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) agreed that the following population groups would be considered for analysis in the 2021 Humanitarian Needs Overview. • Internally displaced people (IDPs) • IDP returnees/resettled IDPs/locally integrated IDPs • Non-displaced stateless people in Rakhine • Other vulnerable crisis affected people Calculation of baseline population figures Internally displaced people • The number of IDPs in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states has been provided by the CCCM Cluster. The IDP figures in the baseline population are taken from the CCCM Cluster update as of 30 June 2020 for Rakhine, Kachin and Shan. • The displacement figure for Laukkaing township, Shan State was provided by WFP as of August 2019. • The ‘new’ (i.e. post-December 2018) displacement figures for Rakhine State (78,060 as of 5 August) and Chin State (8,323 as of 5 August) are from the displacement list shared by the Government and local partners. These new displacement figures were added to their corresponding townships under the IDP category. • The displacement figures for Bago Region and Kayin State were provided by UNHCR as of August 2020. • The cut-off dates referenced above have been applied to data used in the Joint Intersectoral Analysis Framework (JIAF), however, more up-todate figures have been included in narrative sections of the HNO where available. IDPs: returnee/resettled/locally integrated Data on the number of returnees by township (except Laukkaing) was provided by UNHCR as of August 2020. Non-displaced stateless people in Rakhine Figures for non-displaced stateless people remaining in Rakhine State were provided by UNHCR. These are based on the best information available at the time of planning, noting limitations including lack of authorization to conduct assessments, inability to verify information independently, and other restrictions. Other vulnerable crisis-affected people In the absence of multi-sectoral needs assessments, the ICCG agreed to use a planning figure of 30 per cent (of the population in conflict-affected village tracts) to calculate baseline population figures for “other vulnerable crisis-affected people". This is a rounded planning figure based on the proportion of children, elderly persons over age 65 and persons with disabilities identified in the 2014 Census. 2020 population growth rates were applied to respective states or regions. The selection of village tracts varies with the local context in the selected geographic locations as follows. The 30 per cent approach was not used for townships with reliable data submitted by partners (such as in northern Rakhine). Kachin and northern Shan states: This includes 30 per cent of local population in village tracts (excluding the main urban areas) that host IDP camps/sites. Central Rakhine: This includes 30 per cent of the local population (non-Muslim) in village tracts (excluding the main urban areas) that host IDP camps (displacement since 2013) and recent displacement (since December 2018). It also includes 30 per cent of the local population (non-Muslim) in the village tracts with Muslim villages (excluding the main urban areas) in central Rakhine. Northern Rakhine (Maungdaw, Rathedaung and Buthidaung): Figures were provided by the Maungdaw Inter-Agency Group led by UNHCR. Chin State: This includes 30 per cent of the local population in village tracts (excluding the main urban areas) that host new displacement (since December 2018). Calculation of People in Need and Severity Given the challenging primary data collection environment in Myanmar, the results of the 2019 Delphi exercise were reviewed and updated, where applicable, for the development of the 2021 HNO. National sectors/clusters, in discussion with sub-national sectors, agreed on a set of indicators to estimate sectoral severity of needs at the township level. Indicators drew on two possible information sources: 1. data from assessments; and 2. expert discussion and consensus. For all indicators, data is always the preferred source. However, for some indicators, reliable data may not be available or only available for some locations. In these cases, expert discussion – in other words, the best consensus estimates of technical experts – was used in place of primary assessment data. Based on the global JIAF aggregation guidelines, all data points were organized in a spreadsheet, with each row representing a single unit of analysis – generally a combination of geographical area and affected group. The following steps were then applied to determine PIN and severity by township: • The percentage of people per severity class (on a relative scale of 1 to 5) was calculated for each indicator, geographical area and affected group. • The percentage values of people in each severity class from largest scale to lowest scale were cumulated until reaching at least 25 per cent to determine the severity scale for the given geographical area and affected group for each indicator. • The average of the top half of the indicators was used to determine the severity of each geographical area. • The highest total number of people in severity classes above the scale of 3 for each geographical area and the affected group was conceded as the people in need value for the given combination. • The overall value of people in need was calculated as the sum of each geographical area and affected group.