WatSan Theme Group Meeting

Minutes of IM Network Meeting: 04 May, 2016
Chair Person: Shon Campbell, MIMU Manager.

Participants’ Organizations: SCI, UNHCR, IOM, Dimagi, OCHA, SIL, MIMU

	Issues discussed	Next steps
	Demographic Health Survey Answers from USAID to the questions put forward in the last meeting: USAID understanding is that UNICEF/MoP MICS implementation will be delayed but this needs to be confirmed. The MDHS will provide data at national and state/regional levels. No data will be available below state/regional level. Displaced persons were included to the extent that they were within the geographical locations of our clusters. In this case they were offered an opportunity to participate in the survey if they consented to it. With Myanmar’s first DHS, the country decided to go with the standard DHS methodology which is detailed on the global DHS Program web site and will be documented in the final report. Aiming to release the preliminary Key Indicators Report (KIR) for the MDHS in August 2016 and the final MDHS report in a national seminar in December 2016/January 2017 at which time the coded MDHS data sets will also be made publicly available on the main DHS Program web site. State/regional workshops will also be conducted on data dissemination and use.
	Language issues – Nathan Statezni, SIL The Ethnologue global database is a central warehouse of language information managed by SIL and made publicly available. It collates information on the different spoken and written languages as well as language vitality.  Language maps for Myanmar have been developed through collaboration between local NGO Language and Social Development Organization (LSDO), SIL/Ethnologue, and MIMU. This is the first time such research has been available and it shows diversity that is not commonly considered, such as communities of Chin speakers in Rakhine state, the incredible diversity in Shan state, and the spread of languages between countries. Languages also cross borders and the Ethnologue/MIMU maps show the extent to which languages spoken in Myanmar are also used in neighbouring countries. This also provides an indication of exchange of information among different peoples and areas groups may move to based on language and geography/transport routes in humanitarian situations. Languages relate to one another as language families whose characteristics link them to a common ancestor. Languages and dialects are defined differently - a language cannot be understood across groups while a dialect has minor changes to the language but people can still understand one another. Language is very dynamic and may be a factor in conflict situations, particularly where one language is the focus for development and others are left behind. Languages may also die out in a generation as, for example, Minkya in Seddoktaya Township in Magway which is now spoken by only 2 elderly persons with no new speakers within the community.  Myanmar has the greatest diversity of languages in the mainland southeast Asia region with 6 different language families, over 100 languages and many more dialects. Chin state has the most languages in the official ethnic group list with 53 different language groups – there are more differences in the southern areas than in the northern parts of Chin. However, all the languages in that state are in the same language family. Shan state, although it has perhaps a smaller number of languages, has much more language diversity, including four of the six language families found in Myanmar. Changes and loss of language can happen in a generation if the language is not used in people’s daily life – in an example in Myanmar – one language in Magway now has just two elderly persons who can speak it such that it will be lost completely with this generation.  People typically speak a repertoire of languages, and multiple languages can be maintained in a community with local languages not being lost to other frequently used languages if they continue to be used and spoken regularly, for specific customs and communications for example. Having community norms for where and when multiple languages are used and not used is referred to as diglossia and is essential for ongoing vitality of local languages. More information about diglossia and a broader model to help communities reflect on their desires for the languages they speak can be found at the Guide to Planning the Future of Our Language. Myanmar also has a rich diversity of scripts used for written language, with roman/latin scripts, Burmese-related scripts and also a few areas of the country that have no written language. It is positive that different alphabets are accepted in Myanmar as this is not the case in some countries.  Even where an alphabet has been developed, it may not be well accepted by the community and speakers of that language may not yet know how to read that alphabet. Bigger groups in Myanmar are more likely to be literate in their own language. However having a written language does not ensure viability of that language. Mobile technology is supporting use of written local languages by giving people more incentive to use written language for communication (texting, Facebook, etc.). Apps have been developed for many local languages and the latest Unicode includes almost all local characters from the different languages across Myanmar. However, conflicts with the Zawgyi font make for input challenges for Burmese-related script languages (such as Shan, Karen, Ta-ang/Palaung, Pa-O). The Zawgyi font has used other minority language characters to render Burmese, so phones set up to use the Zawgyi font have difficulty reading and writing Burmese script minority characters. It is possible to develop apps that allow all phones to read the various languages correctly, but copying the text or adding new text is difficult because of the font conflicts.
	The Challenges of Monitoring Conflict Sensitivity - Irena Grizelj, Save the Children International Conflict sensitivity is an approach to ensure the design, implementation and outcomes of our programs do not increase conflict, and contribute to peace where possible. We need to understand the issues that divide societies, and the underlying reasons, in order to target programs that promote peace. It involves integration into all project phases – planning/proposal development, design, implementation, and M&E. It enables us to keep on top of context and changing dynamics, make strategic and informed decisions, adapt programme activities during implementation to avoid programme challenges and find solutions, and helps strengthen relationships with beneficiaries, communities, and other stakeholders. The overall aim is to foster peace – at a minimum, conflict sensitive approaches aim to ensure that the intervention does no harm. A conflict sensitive approach requires 3 main steps (1) understand the context (conflict analysis), (2) understand the interaction between the programme intervention and the context (remember, you/your program are part of the context), and (3) based on this understanding, act to minimize negative impacts and maximize positive impacts. Conflict sensitive monitoring and evaluation includes monitoring the conflict sensitivity of the interventions, positive and negative impacts, as well as ensuring M&E is done in a conflict sensitive manner. The challenge is in trying to measure what has not happened (risks were avoided). The best way to measure changes that didn’t take place because you got it right is to commit time to asking the stakeholders. Important aspects of CS M&E: 1. Conflict analysis (baseline) is an important first step. Collecting baseline information at a local level (what is relevant for one area of the country may not be for another). This requires also understanding factors which may limit community members from sharing their views (power dynamics in a focus group). It is essential to triangulate information to be sure it is the correct understanding and not based on bias. 2.    Conflict/context indicators – monitor changes in context (conflict and tension) against the baseline (conflict analysis). Examples of indicators – (a) # of incidents of violence between specific groups in an x month period, (b) % change in perceptions of security and safety in the community. 3.    Interaction indicators – review whether the M&E framework is conflict sensitive, i.e. whether data is disaggregated to reflect the divisions and conflict lines, whether it will measure the interaction of conflict on the project, the effect of the project on the conflict, and other unintended consequences and effects. Traditional indictors can often be made more conflict sensitive – e.g. (a) number of IEC materials developed and distributed in each language, (b) number of members from each community attending community-based awareness sessions Challenges/considerations in integrating conflict sensitive approaches – requires ensuring: Institutional buy-in from both the donor and the organization (requires an understanding of the importance of integrating this approach as well as time and budget),  Adequate level of analysis (local vs national, combining theoretical and local context knowledge) Arrangements for information sharing (internal and external) – between staff, with communities, across and among organisations Adequate staff capacity and resources – ensuring correct staff profiling to gather information,  understanding of Context vs. Conflict sensitivity knowledge, and also the right staff for specific monitoring and implementation tasks to facilitate trust building (eg able to speak the same language etc). Conflict sensitive tools and data collection – Indicators do not tell us everything; qualitative data collection necessary (focus group discussion, key informant interviews etc). Allow consistent monitoring (time and budget required). Essential to triangulate sources to avoid misunderstanding and rumour. Time is taken in consultations with community to understand their view of how the project affects their context. Taking account of local views/perspectives should be at the heart of conflict sensitivity. Trust – ensuring time for consultations, protecting individuals privacy etc. Key factors to keep in mind: - recognise language, age, gender, ethnicity may be important factors - ensure data gathered is not compromised by power relations. This means having some understanding of the power dynamics before starting a baseline analysis, and also gathering information from men, women, children of different ages to break down the power relations so people are free to speak. - multiple sources of information to understand the situation – everyone sees it from their own perspective - conflict sensitive programming may still generate conflict of some sort - any change in the status quo is already a conflict driver The Saferworld report on community led approaches to conflict sensitivity in Myanmar is a useful resource and a reminder that definitions even of what is positive or negative impact needs to come from the ground up.
	Cluster/sector/agency updates ICT4D Working Group: next meeting will be in June 29 from 10-12 in Phandeeyar. Discussing Mobile Money – seeking more speakers - see Saijai Liangpunsakul of DIMAGI - [e-mail] who is taking over chairing the group from Jade Lamb. Protection, CCCM, Shelter sectors / UNHCR: Protection – refinements are being introduced after a review workshop conducted in Yangon on the protection incident monitoring system (PIMS) involving participants from UNICEF, UNFPA and UNHCR from Kachin, Northern Shan and Rakhine.  Data analysis of the Protection sector 4W was conducted to look at gaps in protection service coverage in Kachin and N. Shan. CCCM / NFI/ Shelter – Technical visit from Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS) to support the camp profiling in Sittwe region. OCHA: introduced the new IM Officer, Olivier Uzel. IOM: continues to build the team. MIMU: IM workshop (3 days) – so far 80 applicants for the 20 places including government participants. NSDI conference – the 3 days SuZeeYar Spatial Data Platform Conference was held in Nay Pyi Taw from 16-18 May and included policy-makers and technical experts from Myanmar and other countries to share best practices for spatial data infrastructure in Myanmar. 150 participants attended including from government, agencies, private sector and academia. A report on the proceedings is being drafted. EOC IM review – undertaken May 9-11 and including consultations with agencies and departments which provided support to the IM capacity of the EOC during the flood crisis. A report is being finalised for use by the EOC/RRD. Establishing mobile data collection tools for the Damages and Loss Assessment / DALA School mapping – the final school dataset (95% mapped through the exercise conducted by MIMU with MoE and UNESCO) was presented to the Minister. Still waiting for agreement to share the data.
6.	Next Meeting The next meeting will be in the second week of August (August 10) at 3 pm in the MIMU. There will be no scheduled meeting in July. Please share any suggestions re speakers for the meeting.

Sr. No.	Participants	Designation	Agency/ Organization	E-mail Address
1	Nathan Statezni	South Myanmar Director	SIL	[e-mail];
2	Irena Grizelj	Humanitarian Programme officer – Conflict Sensitivity	SCI	[e-mail];
3	Parveen Mann	IM Officer	UNHCR	[e-mail];
4	Olivier Uzel	IM Officer	OCHA	[e-mail];
5	Saijai Liangpunsakul		DIMAGI	[e-mail];
6	Phyo Wai Kyaw	IM Officer	IOM	[e-mail];
7	Rico Ishii	Independent consultant – conflict sensitivity analysis		[e-mail];
8	Meredith Houck	Intern	MIMU	[e-mail];
9	Ei Ei Thein	Data Manager	MIMU	[e-mail];
10	Shon Campbell	Manager - MIMU	MIMU	[e-mail];

IM Network meeting minutes, page