Report on 5Ws

Summary of achievements

Beneficiaries of humanitarian action formed 90.64% of the 3,739,208 beneficiaries at Q3/2022. The remainder were reached through development interventions.

In this report, when beneficiaries are mentioned, the Food Security Cluster is referring to unique beneficiaries or individuals. This is different from a beneficiary frequency which is an instance of a person receiving aid i.e. a person who receives food distributions, a crop, vegetable and seed kit and farmer training would be counted as three beneficiary frequencies, but as only one beneficiary.

To recall, the Food Security Cluster’s strategic objectives for 2022 are:

SO1: 556,000 IDPs have equitable access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food (either in-kind or through food assistance).
SO2: 2.9 million vulnerable persons (excl. IDPs) have equitable access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food (either in-kind or through food assistance).
SO3: Restore, protect and improve livelihoods and resilience for 850,000 persons.

Overall, 90.64% of the food security cluster’s beneficiaries were from humanitarian activities, against 91.12% at Q2/2022.

2022 humanitarian beneficiaries
SO	Q1	Q2	Q3	Total_Sep22	%_of_total	%_increase
SO1	258,120	219,933	155,173	633,226	18.68	32.46
SO2	1,379,315	394,593	791,409	2,565,317	75.69	44.61
SO3	41,383	109,636	39,714	190,733	5.63	26.30
Total	1,678,818	724,162	986,296	3,389,276	100.00	41.04

A total of 9.36% beneficiaries were from development activities.

2022 development beneficiaries
SO	Q1	Q2	Q3	Total_Sep22	%_of_total	%_increase
SO3	255,256	48,213	46,463	349,932	100	15.31
Total	255,256	48,213	46,463	349,932	100	15.31

Regarding the humanitarian response under the HRP, the increase between beneficiaries reached in SO1, SO2 and SO3 were 32%, 45% and 26% respectively.This demonstrates that:

The progress in the number of IDPs reached by food assistance (SO1) is slightly increased due to FSC partners’ access constraints in reaching IDPs in hard-to-reach areas in conflict affected states/regions, except Sagaing Region.
The food security response to non-IDP vulnerable groups (SO2) is a well-established activity which is largely repeating the same pattern that it did in 2021. However the numbers of beneficiaries reached in during Q3 under S02 is twice as much as during Q2 due the reach of host communities in hard-to-reach areas along to IDPs (blanket distribution).
The food security response under SO3 is mainly driven by the agriculture seasonal calendar. During Q3, provision of vegetable seed kits was the main activity.

Beneficiaries by activity, as of 30 September 2022
Activity	Q1	Q2	Q3	%_change	Total	%total
Food distribution	1,605,246	545,016	883,313	41.08	3,033,575	81.13
FFS and farmer training	229,300	1,148	30,552	13.26	261,000	6.98
Crop, vegetable and seed kits	48,377	105,991	33,342	21.60	187,710	5.02
Multi-purpose cash transfer	37,946	82,065	63,269	52.72	183,280	4.90
Food_cash for work_assets	7,579	29,077	17,723	48.35	54,379	1.45
IGA and small grants	5,208	712	393	6.64	6,313	0.17
Community infrastructure and equipment	0	4,761	0	0.00	4,761	0.13
Livestock kits	91	2	3,140	3,376.34	3,233	0.09
Heb and fortfied rice	0	1,876	0	0.00	1,876	0.05
Vocational training	327	1,283	231	14.35	1,841	0.05
Kitchen garden kits	0	444	405	91.22	849	0.02
Fishery kits	0	0	231	100.00	231	0.01
Microfinance activities	0	0	160	100.00	160	0.00

Food distributions overwhelmingly target persons in host and local communities, this group forms 74.07% of all beneficiaries of food distributions or 2,246,756 persons against 75.04% (1,932,135 persons) at Q2/2022. This highlights FSC partners’ efforts to reach IDPs, including in hard-to-reach areas.

Food distributions by beneficiary type and food insecurity status
beneficiary_type	Moderate	Severe	Total
Host/local Community	1,733,523	513,233	2,246,756
Internally Displaced	216,102	262,073	478,175
Rakhine Stateless	258	297,413	297,671
Resettled	2,598	2,704	5,302
Returnees	2,230	2,953	5,183
Total	1,954,711	1,078,376	3,033,087

34.76% of beneficiaries were reached by activities where nutrition had been mainstreamed.

Beneficiaries by status of nutrition mainstreaming
was_nutrition_mainstreamed_in_activity	SO1	SO2	SO3	total_beneficiaries	%_beneficiaries
Yes	277,658	881,897	140,108	1,299,663	34.76
No	355,568	1,683,420	400,557	2,439,545	65.24

1. Geographies

A total of 3,739,208 beneficiaries were reached at Q3/2022. The plot below shows cumulative beneficiaries over time.

1.1 States

Though new beneficiaries reached remained biased towards Yangon and Rakhine in Q3, figures were less skewed than they were in Q1. Overall 72.25% of beneficiaries in Q3 came from Yangon or Rakhine, whereas it was 75.63% in Q1 and 59.57% in Q2. Ayeyarwady saw the largest quarter-to-quarter increase in number of persons reached.

A total of 141 townships have been reached across 16 states/regions at Q3/2022.

1.2 Townships

The top 7 townships – Hlaingtharya East and West, Shwepyithar, North Okkalapa, Buthidaung, Sittwe and Dala – by total number of beneficiaries reached as of 30th September 2022, are all from Yangon or Rakhine and contained 59% of all beneficiaries. There is, overall, still quite a significant skew in where the food security cluster is reaching its beneficiaries. However, these 7 townships represented 68% of the beneficiaries at Q2/2022. This highlights once again FSC partners’ efforts to reach beneficiaries in hard-to- reach areas, mainly in Kayah and Kayin States.

Top townships by beneficiaries reached
state	township	Q1	Q2	Q3	Total_Sep_2022	%total
Yangon	Hlaingtharya (East)	233,514	16,783	239,702	489,999	13.10
Yangon	Hlaingtharya (West)	272,287	16,379	160,822	449,488	12.02
Yangon	Shwepyithar	372,981	0	11,055	384,036	10.27
Yangon	North Okkalapa	168,400	172,559	0	340,959	9.12
Rakhine	Buthidaung	133,657	35,202	40,479	209,338	5.60
Rakhine	Sittwe	40,582	51,824	81,749	174,155	4.66
Yangon	Dala	81,125	81,390	0	162,515	4.35
Kayah	Loikaw	815	73,763	62,168	136,746	3.66
Yangon	Dagon Myothit (Seikkan)	292	0	125,600	125,892	3.37
Rakhine	Maungdaw	74,301	30,895	13,550	118,746	3.18
Mandalay	Nyaung-U	71,547	0	558	72,105	1.93
Kayin	Hpapun	12,477	32,427	9,577	54,481	1.46
Mandalay	Myingyan	46,087	3	28	46,118	1.23
Rakhine	Pauktaw	9,710	6,453	28,861	45,024	1.20
Rakhine	Mrauk-U	17,059	18,436	8,474	43,969	1.18
Kayah	Hpruso	26,507	8,585	5,664	40,756	1.09
Rakhine	Rathedaung	23,440	5,777	10,267	39,484	1.06
Kayah	Demoso	10,123	16,487	12,634	39,244	1.05
^a Only showing townships with >1% of total beneficiaries

When comparing the current footprint to that of the mid-year 2022, the most significant new activity was observed in Shan (South), and Ayeyarwady.

18 new townships were added during third quarter of 2022 as following. - Shan (South), 7 townships - Ayeyarwady, 6 townships - Mandalay, 2 townships - Shan(North), Magway, Sagaing, 1 township each

1.3 Locations

A location refers to either a village, ward, IDP site or industrial zone.

The vast amount of project locations have only one food security activity.

This first plot below is a histogram of intervention locations, by the number of beneficiaries reached in each of them. The vast majority of locations only have on activity occurring in them. This is something to be monitored over the course of the years, as it is assumed that a range of activities are required to comprehensively meet the food security and livelihoods needs of targeted communities. As it currently stands, the response is very broad, with little depth.

The same is true for the number of partners, with the majority of locations having one partner.

Of the 2,925 sites reached, 550 had more than one partner present. At Q2, 2,197 sites reached with 359 having more than one partner present. The number of townships with more than one partners has increased by 53%, which allows a better coordination and synergy among partners.

Number of partners by location, as of 30 September 2022
partners	location
1_partner	2,375
2_partners	497
3_partners	44
4_partners	9

The food security cluster’s partners can mostly be found in Yangon, Rakhine and Kachin.

2. Activities

2.1 Progress by activity

The 3 dotted red lines shows the end of Q1, Q2 and Q3 respectively. The thick line in grey shows the progress in 2021 for the same activity. It should be noted that the 2021 progress lines are just a reference and not meant to be a direct comparison – the scope of the HRP was much different at the start of 2021 and the response was nationwide until the middle of 2021, there were also fewer partners in 2021 than in 2022. This type of comparison will be more useful next year.

Newly implemented in Q3 of 2022 were the micro finance activities, largely in central dry zone of Magway Region and provision of fishery kits in Rakhine State. Food distributions continued to be the largest activity, followed by FFS and Farmer training and the provision of crop, vegetable and seed kits. Provision of livestock kits has also substantially increased in Q3.

2.2 Agricultural and livelihoods activities

540,665 persons were reached through a combination of agriculture and livelihoods activities.

Beneficiaries reached by agricultural and livelihood activities
activity	beneficiaries	%beneficiaries
FFS and farmer training	261,000	48.27
crop, vegetable and seed kits	187,710	34.72
food_cash for work_assets	54,379	10.06
multi-purpose cash transfer	20,188	3.73
IGA and small grants	6,313	1.17
community infrastructure and equipment	4,761	0.88
livestock kits	3,233	0.60
vocational training	1,841	0.34
kitchen garden kits	849	0.16
fishery kits	231	0.04
microfinance activities	160	0.03
Total	540,665	100.00
as of 30 Sep 2022

The plot below shows the beneficiary frequencies reached. The number of beneficiaries reached by Micro finance activity and fishery kits which were newly activity in Q3.

2.3 Delivery modalities

Only community infrastructure and equipments, HEB and fortified rice, kitchen garden kits and fishery kits were delivered entirely through in-kind modalities.

Percentage of beneficiaries reached by activity and delivery modality
Activity	CBT/CVA	In-kind	Service delivery	Hybrid	Beneficiaries
Food distribution	10.9%	86.8%	0.1%	2.2%	3,033,575
FFS and farmer training	15.4%	10.9%	73.7%		261,000
Crop, vegetable and seed kits	0.3%	87.3%	0.4%	12.0%	187,710
Multi-purpose cash transfer	93.7%	0.0%	0.0%	6.3%	183,280
Food_cash for work_assets	89.2%	10.7%	0.1%		54,379
IGA and small grants	93.3%	4.2%	1.3%	1.3%	6,313
Community infrastructure and equipment		100.0%			4,761
Livestock kits	0.0%	99.9%	0.1%	0.0%	3,233
Heb and fortfied rice		100.0%			1,876
Vocational training	20.5%	0.0%	79.5%		1,841
Kitchen garden kits		100.0%			849
Fishery kits		100.0%	0.0%		231
Microfinance activities			100.0%		160
Beneficiary totals are as of 30 September 2022

There are also clear differences between the different beneficiary types and the delivery modalities employed with them. Beneficiaries from host/local communities largely received in-kind distributions whilst those from camps and IDP sites mostly received cash-based interventions. There were no new beneficiaries reached in industrial zone at Q3/2022.

Areas with the highest number of IDPs, such as Sagaing, Rakhine and Kachin, reach most of their beneficiaries through cash-based programming. FFS and farmer training was the largest agriculture and livelihoods activity mentioned in session 2.2, reached largely in Mandalay, Magway, Ayeyarwady and Chin through service delivery.

3. Cash-based programming

3.1 USD per household

Like in Q2, USD 60 to 70 continues to be the main transfer value given to FSC beneficiaries. However, the second main value given to beneficiaries is USD 50 to 60 which highlights the trend of the FSC partners to increase the average value provided to their beneficiaries. FSC assumes that the constant inflation is pushing FSC partners to adjust their programming upward, at least for new projects.

3.2 USD per person

The boxplots below shows the range of cash transfer values (all values are per person, to facilitate comparability) by activity. The average for reach activity is marked by the thick line in the middle of each box. The leftmost and rightmost side of each box indicate the 25th and 75th percentile of transfer values, respectively. The length of each box is a gauge for how much variation there is in the transfer values of each activity.

Each of the bubbles represents an individual intervention, with their position along the x-axis showing the USD per person value of the intervention and the size of each bubble indicating the number of beneficiaries reached.

Food distributions tended to have a tight range of values, which proves that food assistance is quite standardised amongst partners and the weight of WFP action on the overall results of the FSC on this activities.

Microfinance activities and fishery kits also have very tight values due to the limited numbers of partners implementing such programme and due to the limited number of beneficiaries of these activities (these activities appeared in Q3/2022).

Cash transfer values in Q3 were not much difference with Q2, tended to be higher as compared to Q1 largely due to increases in the per-household package of multi-purpose cash transfers. This may be explained by the implementation of new 2022 projects that have integrated the inflation in their budgeting.

3.3 Food distributions

Kachin, Rakhine and Shan notably have several extreme outliers much higher than the average for that state. Kayin, however, has a very large number of beneficiaries who received less the USD 1/person. Distributions in Chin and Ayeyarwady had very consistent values as they were all implemented by the same implementing partner. The graph highlights that the vast majority of the intervention do not provide an amount of money equivalent to the share of FSC in the MEB (red dotted line on the graph).

The table below compares the different bins for cash transfer values of food distributions with the minimum expenditure basket for food established by the Cash Working Group. They have established a floor of MMK 190,555 (or USD 114.55) for the food security component per household per month.

Overall, 4.76% (1.86% at Q2) of food distribution beneficiaries have received at least 100% of the food security MEB and 15.35% (8.86% at Q2) have received at least 50% of the food security MEB (USD 11.45 per person). FSC assumes that this trends is pushed by the constant inflation that affects FSC programming/budgeting.

USD values of food distributions by percentage of MEB received
usd_person_bin	avg_pc_of_meb	avg_usd_month	beneficiaries	pc_of_hhd
<$2	6.14	1.41	23,892	4.77
>=$2_<$4	14.72	3.37	66,943	13.36
>=$4_<$6	22.48	5.15	21,490	4.29
>=$6_<$8	32.16	7.37	54,402	10.86
>=$8_<$10	40.39	9.25	189,671	37.85
>=$10_<$12	47.45	10.87	72,660	14.50
>=$12_<$14	55.39	12.69	8,575	1.71
>=$14_<$16	63.23	14.49	3,774	0.75
>=$16_<$18	74.62	17.10	20,374	4.07
>=$18_<$20	84.38	19.33	15,406	3.07
>=$20	184.32	42.23	23,867	4.76
Only persons reached through CBT/CVA/hybrid modalities are included

3.4 Implementing partners

The plots below show the the average cash transfer values by activity for the top 7 partners implementing that activity. THe x-axis showws the number of beneficiaries reached and the depth of the colour indicates the value of the cash transfer.

4. Partners

A total of 85 partners have reported into the Food Security Cluster as of Q3/2022 – there are 54 implementing partners and 31 reporting partners.

4.1 Implementing partner

There are 50 partners that were involved in direct implementation that have reported achievements in Q3/2022, in comparison with 48 in Q1/2022 and 57 in Q2/2022. These 50 implementing partners corresponded to a total of 31 reporting organisations. The largest reporting organisation, org_2690, had 26 implementing partners.

Reporting organisations with the most implementing partners
report_org_code	implementing_partners
org_2690	26
org_3536	7
org_8415	7
org_9639	7
org_2625	4
org_3422	4
org_6793	4
org_2214	3
org_5369	3
All others reporting organisations had 1 or 2 implementing partners

The interactive plot below shows the number of beneficiaries and townships reached by implementing partner.

14 partners (19% of the total) have a presence in more than 5 townships (13 partners at Q2). 11 partners (15% of the total) are present in more than 10 townships (8 partners at Q2). This highlights the trend of FSC partners to expand their geographical coverage. FSC will keep on supporting this trend by providing solid FS analysis and guidance to FSC partners. This also highlights that donors’ strategy to allocate funds for hard-to-reach areas only push FSC partners to adjust their footprint in Myanmar.

4.2 Monthly progress by partner

Organisations 9693, 6197 and 2690 have implemented the majority of their activities in the third quarter of 2022.

The thick grey line shows an organisation’s progress from last year, which, as mentioned, cannot exactly be used for a straight comparison as the scope of the HRP in 2021 was different until the approval of the IERP. Additionally, many partners only joined the cluster late in 2021 or even in 2022. Still, it serves as a reference.

The table below lists the top 15 partners by number of beneficiaries reached in 2022.

Top implementing partners by beneficiaries reached in 2022, as of 30 September 2022
org_code	ben_q1	rank_q1	ben_q2	rank_q2	ben_q3	rank_q3	total_ben
org_8540	372,947	1	3,353	27	139,858	1	516,158
org_5722	163,331	2	77,743	2	69,062	5	310,136
org_9693	65,948	10	39,519	9	112,205	3	217,672
org_6197			69,853	4	135,999	2	205,852
org_9566	89,340	5	55,720	6	52,236	10	197,296
org_2690	22,036	18	85,436	1	85,912	4	193,384
org_1206	156,433	3			35,355	13	191,788
org_5440	80,173	8	39,857	8	58,440	7	178,470
org_5677	81,705	7	22,957	11	49,732	11	154,394
org_3315	131,861	4	441	44	16,978	18	149,280
org_5283	42,067	14	77,712	3	29,427	15	149,206
org_4933	85,627	6	59,969	5			145,596
org_6792	64,958	11			55,944	8	120,902
org_8004	46,324	13	14,883	15	52,807	9	114,014
org_6130	31,755	17	50,764	7	25,836	16	108,355

4.3 Donors

The table below summarises the reach and scope (in terms of geographic extent and number of organisations supported) of donors who support at least two reporting organisations.

Organisations supported and geographic reach by donor
donor	report_orgs	implementing_orgs	states	townships
LIFT	7	11	6	15
FCDO	6	8	6	22
MHF	6	8	6	9
Organizational own funds	6	8	14	61
ECHO	4	5	4	11
GIZ	3	3	3	8
BHA	2	5	4	11
CDCS	2	2	2	3
CIAA	2	2	2	5
UN Women	2	3	2	7
UNDP	2	2	1	2
WFP	2	2	2	10
Only showing donors supporting more than one reporting partner.

As in Q3, Sagaing and Shan (East) have the fewest number of donors present.

Number of donors by state
state	donors	implementing_partners
Kayah	18	10
Kachin	17	15
Kayin	17	14
Rakhine	13	22
Mon	9	8
Shan (South)	9	11
Chin	8	10
Shan (North)	8	10
Mandalay	6	5
Bago (East)	5	3
Ayeyarwady	4	6
Magway	4	4
Tanintharyi	4	3
Yangon	4	15
Sagaing	3	6
Shan (East)	3	3

However, as shown by the table below, even though the majority of partners reported their donors, the omission of data from three key partners has resulted in the vast majority of reported beneficiaries not being associated with any donor.

Top donors by beneficiaries reached
donor	beneficiaries	%_beneficiaries
No donor specified	2,718,384	72.70
Organizational own funds	295,553	7.90
UNDP	117,788	3.15
FCDO	104,159	2.79
CERF	73,933	1.98
AICS	70,984	1.90
LIFT	44,455	1.19
DFAT	40,973	1.10
BPRM	31,640	0.85
NZMFAT	26,582	0.71
WVI	20,843	0.56
UN Women	20,694	0.55
BHA	16,304	0.44
MHF	14,617	0.39
HELVETAS	13,851	0.37
Donors starting with ‘org_xxxx’ are partners using their own organisational funds

Below is a table of beneficiaries who are missing donors, grouped by state.

Reported beneficiaries with missing donor data
state	beneficiaries	partners
Yangon	1,950,914	9
Rakhine	473,024	9
Kayah	124,787	1
Kachin	69,511	4
Shan (North)	32,551	5
Chin	30,045	3
Sagaing	14,685	3
Shan (South)	11,948	2
Kayin	10,644	2
Shan (East)	275	1

5. Beneficiaries

73.99% of all beneficiaries in the first three quarters of 2022 were from host or local communities.

5.1 Beneficiary types

In Q3 2022, 70.59% of beneficiaries were from host or local communities, in comparison to 77.48 % for round 1 and 69.78 % for round 2. 21.95% of beneficiaries in Q3 were IDPs, compared to 13.41% for Q1 and 29.35% for Q2.

5.2 Evidence of food insecurity status

Of the food security activities reported, very few provided details about the food insecurity status of beneficiaries. This makes it difficult to determine whether interventions are truly reaching those most in need.

In general, the food insecurity status of the beneficiaries of multi-purpose cash transfers were much better documented than the statuses of those who received food distributions.

Missing food insecurity data of beneficiaries, as of 30 September 2022
activity	food_insecurity_status	beneficiaries	%_of_group
food distributions, moderate	NA	1,777,618	90.94
food distributions, severe	NA	831,451	77.10
multi-purpose cash transfer, moderate	NA	16,885	26.94
multi-purpose cash transfer, severe	NA	16	0.01

Evidence of beneficiaries’ food insecurity status provided to the cluster include:

Evidence of food insecurity status, as of 30 September 2022
evidence	beneficiaries	%_beneficiaries
No evidence	3,354,517	89.71
Armed conflict	204,953	5.48
community-based beneficiary selection	85,562	2.29
Post-distribution monitoring	31,295	0.84
Beneficiary list and distribution list	20,579	0.55
Acceptable FCS	19,995	0.53
Regular reporting	6,137	0.16
Rapid Needs Assessment and Market Analysis	4,349	0.12
assessment, meeting minutes, payment	3,496	0.09
beneficiary targeting assessment	3,248	0.09
97% of hh had acceptabe FCS	1,471	0.04
Village Profile	1,415	0.04
Based on Vulnerable Score (Vulnerable Criteria)	682	0.02
Food Security and Livelihood Baseline Survey	633	0.02
Distribution List and Pictures	488	0.01
Food distribution certificate	308	0.01
Provision grants of women led micro business activities	80	0.00
communit based beneficiary selection	0	0.00
Training report	0	0.00

The general lack of evidence of beneficiaries’ food insecurity status makes it difficult to prove to affected communities and donors that the Food Security Cluster is reaching the most in need. This highlights the need to promote a shared understanding of the response through the development of a common prioritisation tool for food security partners.

5.3 Beneficiary disaggregation

In this section, a test is applied to determine if the disaggregated numbers of beneficiaries reach have been copied and pasted – a somewhat common practice that sullies the quality of the data. To do this, the proportions of each disaggregation group by partner have been compared to how close they were to the mean for the entire group. To explain: if partner A reported that 40% of beneficiaries in an activity were adult females, this percentage was then compared to the average percentage of adult females for all other activities reported by that partner. This measure whether or not the same proportions were copied and pasted throughout the 5W form.

It is extremely unlikely that these percentages would be similar across activities as implementing partners worked in an average of 48.53 locations.

In the plot below, the closer a value is to 0% on the x-axis, the more likely it is that it was copied and pasted. It is estimated that 10.49% of beneficiary disaggregation values were copied and pasted, against 13% at Q2/2022. All entries on the left side of the red line are considered similar enough to other rows to be treated as having been copied and pasted.

The plot on the below-left shows the breakdown of beneficiaries by disaggregation group with the copy-pasted values removed. The plot on the below-right shows a breakdown of the “fake” copy-pasted values.

6. Comparison with targets

6.1 Reached vs target by township

The specifics of each township can be reviewed with the interactive plot below. Each point is a township, with the size indicating the number of beneficiaries. The x-axis indicates the target population by township and the y-axis shows the number of beneficiaries reached, as of Q3 2022.

The red line down the middle represents reaching 100% of the target. Townships above this line have reached more beneficiaries than their target and townships below the line have not met their target yet. The further away a township is from the red line, the further above or below its target it is. Mouse over each of the townships to see more details.

The 14 townships along the extreme left side of the plot have beneficiaries but do not have targets (their targets have just been coded as 1 so that they show up on the plot). 164 townships with targets still have not been reached so far.

When compared to the results for mid year 2022, it is clear that the areas which already have exceeded their targets (above the red line) have actually received even more assistance in the third quarter of 2022.

The table below shows the top townships in terms of overreach.

Top 15 most overreached townships
state	township	Q1	Q2	Q3	beneficiaries	target	gap
Yangon	Hlaingtharya	505,801	33,162	400,524	939,487	227,976	-711,511
Yangon	Shwepyithar	372,981	0	11,055	384,036	111,938	-272,098
Yangon	North Okkalapa	168,400	172,559	0	340,959	108,603	-232,356
Rakhine	Buthidaung	133,657	35,202	40,479	209,338	25,001	-184,337
Kayah	Loikaw	815	73,763	62,168	136,746	25,000	-111,746
Yangon	Dala	81,125	81,390	0	162,515	56,325	-106,190
Rakhine	Maungdaw	74,301	30,895	13,550	118,746	16,889	-101,857
Rakhine	Sittwe	40,582	51,824	81,749	174,155	79,999	-94,156
Yangon	Dagon Myothit (Seikkan)	292	0	125,600	125,892	54,563	-71,329
Mandalay	Nyaung-U	71,547	0	558	72,105	3,016	-69,089
Rakhine	Pauktaw	9,710	6,453	28,861	45,024	0	-45,024
Mandalay	Myingyan	46,087	3	28	46,118	3,470	-42,648
Kayah	Hpruso	26,507	8,585	5,664	40,756	4,000	-36,756
Rakhine	Rathedaung	23,440	5,777	10,267	39,484	10,001	-29,483
Kachin	Momauk	13,409	13,059	5,738	32,206	9,311	-22,895

In most of the townships where the food security cluster is present, the number of beneficiaries reached is under the cluster target. Not encouragingly, the fastest growing group of townships are those where the target has been exceeded. Townships such as Hlaingtharya, which were already far over their target in Q1 and Q2, continued to add new beneficiaries in Q3, and now stands at 412% of target. Similar areas include Shwepyithar (343% of target), Dala (289%), North Okkalapa (314%) and Buthidaung (837%).

Townships by percentage of target reached (only under HRP)
Category	Range	Q1_2022	Q2_2022	Q3_2022
under	<90% of target	32	40	59
on_target	>=90% and < 110% of target	0	4	4
overreach	Above 110% assisted	19	27	36
not_reached	0% of target	238	218	190
total reached _HRP		51	71	99
total target_HRP		289	289	289
% reached_HRP		18%	25%	34%
Each quarter includes cumulative data since January 2022

Out of 289 townships targeted under HRP, 99 (34%) townships have been reached by Q3, against 71 (25%) at Q2. The number of townships with food security targets not reached has reduced from 218 in Q2/2022 to 190 in Q3/2022.

6.2 Map of beneficiaries reached by quarter

6.3 Map of 2022 HRP PIN and Target

6.4 Interactive reference table

In the interactive table below, is a list of townships sorted by the gap between the targeted population and beneficiaries reached in 2022. Any of the columns can be sort. The search bars above each column can also assist in filtering.