logo

Back to homepage

gFSC Myanmar Page


Summary of achievements

Beneficiaries of humanitarian action formed 90.34% of the 3,922,707 beneficiaries at Q4/2022. 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.


2022 humanitarian beneficiaries
SO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total_Dec22 %_of_total %_increase
SO1 259,954 219,933 155,173 91,235 726,295 20.50 14.4
SO2 1,379,315 394,593 791,409 24,796 2,590,113 73.09 1.0
SO3 41,433 110,552 39,814 35,532 227,331 6.42 18.5
Total 1,680,702 725,078 986,396 151,563 3,543,739 100.01 4.5


Progress against HRP 2022 Target by FSC objectives
strategic_objective target reached %_reached
SO1 556,000 726,295 131
SO2 2,944,000 2,590,113 88
SO3 850,000 227,331 27
Total 4,100,000 3,543,739 86


A total of 9.66% beneficiaries were from development activities.


2022 development beneficiaries
SO Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total_Dec22 %_of_total %_increase
SO3 255,256 48,811 47,094 27,807 378,968 100 7.92
Total 255,256 48,811 47,094 27,807 378,968 100 7.92


Regarding the humanitarian response under the HRP during Q4, the beneficiaries reached in each objective were largely increased except SO2 which has increased only 1%.This demonstrates that:

  • The progress in the number of IDPs reached by food assistance (SO1) is significantly increased due to FSC partners expanded their interventions and reached to new IDPs in some of hard-to-reach areas in conflict affected states/regions especially in Magway, Sagaing, Chin, Bago (East), Kayah, Kayin and Southern Shan during Q4, leading FSC to reach 131% of its initial target (compared to 114% at Q3).

  • The food security response to non-IDP vulnerable groups (SO2) has not progressed much during Q3 as it is a well-established activity mainly reaching the same groups of people. Indeed, from Q3 to Q4 it progressed by 1% only.

  • Regarding SO3 and development activities, the number of new beneficiaries reached significantly increased from 22% of the target (191k persons) at Q3 to reach 27% (227,331persons) at in Q4. Support to agriculture & livelihoods has remained limited throughout the year 2022 despite the importance of providing an holistic food security response to ensure an improvement of the food security status of the targeted population. The limited financial support from development donors has been a consistent and major limiting factor to develop new projects and reaching new beneficiaries.



Beneficiaries by activity, as of 31 December 2022
Activity Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 %_change Total %total
Food distribution 1,607,080 545,016 883,313 64,870 2.14 3,100,279 79.03
FFS and farmer training 229,300 1,148 30,552 235 0.09 261,235 6.66
Multi-purpose cash transfer 37,946 82,065 63,269 51,591 28.15 234,871 5.99
Crop, vegetable and seed kits 48,377 107,013 33,653 34,880 18.45 223,923 5.71
Food_cash for work_assets 7,579 29,077 17,723 9,091 16.72 63,470 1.62
IGA and small grants 5,208 712 393 12,326 195.25 18,639 0.48
Livestock kits 141 335 3,140 1,760 48.67 5,376 0.14
Community infrastructure and equipment 0 4,770 0 0 0.00 4,770 0.12
Fishery kits 0 0 651 3,931 603.84 4,582 0.12
Vocational training 327 1,283 231 72 3.91 1,913 0.05
Heb and fortfied rice 0 1,876 0 0 0.00 1,876 0.05
Kitchen garden kits 0 594 405 534 53.45 1,533 0.04
Microfinance activities 0 0 160 80 50.00 240 0.01



During Q4, food distribution provided a limited number of new beneficiaries (64,870) but represented 79% of the total of the FSC beneficiaries. The push on the SO1 (Food assistance to IDPs) demonstrate the will of the FSC to cover food needs in hard-to-reach areas, mainly in Northwest and in Southeast.


Food distributions by beneficiary type and food insecurity status
beneficiary_type Moderate Severe Total
Host/local Community 1,754,434 513,252 2,267,686
Internally Displaced 221,267 302,647 523,914
Rakhine Stateless 258 297,413 297,671
Resettled 2,598 2,704 5,302
Returnees 2,230 2,988 5,218
Total 1,980,787 1,119,004 3,099,791


34.42% 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 300,796 882,090 167,214 1,350,100 34.42
No 425,499 1,708,023 439,085 2,572,607 65.58




1. Geographies

A total of 3,922,707 beneficiaries were reached in 2022. The plot below shows cumulative beneficiaries over time.




1.1 States

Unlike previous quarters, Q4 achievement are less skewed on Yangon and Rakhine as repeating activities (food assistance) in those areas reached few new beneficiaries. 16.14% of new beneficiaries in Q4 came from Yangon or Rakhine, whereas they represented 72.25% in Q3 and 59.46% in Q2. Bago (East) and Magway saw the largest increases in the number of new beneficiaries reached in Q4.



A total of 155 townships (Humanitarian and Development) have been reached across 16 states/regions at Q4/2022.



1.2 Townships

During Q4, 7 townships from Yangon (Hlaingtharya East and West, Shwepyithar, North Okkalapa, Buthidaung, Sittwe and Dala) remained the top townships by cumulative total number of beneficiaries reached as of 31st December 2022, and contained 56% of annual achievement. Thanks to efforts made by FSC partners to expand their programming to hard-to-reach areas, including where the conflict is very active.


Top townships by beneficiaries reached
state township Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total_Dec_2022 %total
Yangon Hlaingtharya (East) 233,514 16,783 239,702 0 489,999 12.49
Yangon Hlaingtharya (West) 272,287 16,379 160,822 0 449,488 11.46
Yangon Shwepyithar 372,981 0 11,055 0 384,036 9.79
Yangon North Okkalapa 168,400 172,559 0 0 340,959 8.69
Rakhine Buthidaung 133,657 35,202 40,479 611 209,949 5.35
Rakhine Sittwe 40,582 51,824 81,749 4,692 178,847 4.56
Yangon Dala 81,125 81,390 0 0 162,515 4.14
Kayah Loikaw 815 73,763 62,177 5,143 141,898 3.62
Yangon Dagon Myothit (Seikkan) 292 0 125,600 0 125,892 3.21
Rakhine Maungdaw 74,301 30,904 13,550 0 118,755 3.03
Mandalay Nyaung-U 71,547 0 558 1,549 73,654 1.88
Kayin Hpapun 12,477 32,427 9,577 15,928 70,409 1.79
Rakhine Pauktaw 9,710 6,453 28,961 12,510 57,634 1.47
Kayah Demoso 10,123 16,487 12,637 13,145 52,392 1.34
Kayah Hpruso 26,507 8,585 5,664 6,387 47,143 1.20
Mandalay Myingyan 46,087 3 28 218 46,336 1.18
Rakhine Mrauk-U 17,059 18,436 8,474 0 43,969 1.12
Rakhine Rathedaung 23,440 5,777 10,267 448 39,932 1.02
a Only showing townships with >1% of total beneficiaries


During Q4 2022, FSC’s footprints has expanded, mainly in Sagaing, Magway, Chin, and Shan (South) during Q4.



13 new townships were reached during Q4/2022: 4 townships in Sagaing, 3 townships in Magway, 2 townships each in Shan (South) and Chin, 1 township each in Kachin and Mon.



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 faceted by the number of beneficiaries reached in each of them. The vast majority of locations only have one activity occurring in them. This has been consistent throughout 2022 while it is assumed that a range of activities is required to comprehensively meet the food security and livelihoods needs of targeted communities. During 2022, FSC’s response has been very broad, with little depth.



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



Out of the 3,368 sites reached at Q4, 584 had more than one partner present. At Q3, 2,925 sites reached with 550 having more than one partner present. The increase of sites with more than one partner contributes to improve the food security status of the targeted population. At Q4, 2,784 locations had only 1 FSC partner and 519 locations had 2 FSC partners.


Number of partners by location, as of 31 December 2022
partners location
1_partner 2,784
2_partners 519
3_partners 53
4_partners 11
5_partners 1
Total 3,368


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





2. Activities

2.1 Progress by activity

The dotted red lines show the end of each quarter 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 not nationwide until the middle of 2021. There were also fewer partners in 2021 than in 2022. This type of comparison will be more useful in 2023 against 2022 achievements.



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 fisheries kits, IGA/Small grants and micro finance activities have substantially increased in Q4.

2022 achievements show that MPCA is becoming a major methodology of intervention. Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure the share of FS assistance in the MPCA programming. The fourth growing predominance of MPCA, justify the implementation of a proper MPCA reporting in 2023, independent from the FSC.



2.2 Agricultural and livelihoods activities

606,299 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 261,235 43.09
crop, vegetable and seed kits 223,923 36.93
food_cash for work_assets 63,470 10.47
multi-purpose cash transfer 20,618 3.40
IGA and small grants 18,639 3.07
livestock kits 5,376 0.89
community infrastructure and equipment 4,770 0.79
fishery kits 4,582 0.76
vocational training 1,913 0.32
kitchen garden kits 1,533 0.25
microfinance activities 240 0.04
Total 606,299 100.01
as of 31 December 2022


The plot below shows the beneficiary frequencies reached in each quarter.




2.3 Delivery modalities

Only community infrastructure and equipment, HEB and fortified rice, kitchen garden 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 11.0% 86.8% 0.1% 2.2% 3,100,279
FFS and farmer training 15.3% 10.9% 73.8% 261,235
Multi-purpose cash transfer 95.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 234,871
Crop, vegetable and seed kits 0.5% 89.1% 0.4% 10.1% 223,923
Food_cash for work_assets 90.7% 9.2% 0.1% 63,470
IGA and small grants 31.6% 1.4% 64.2% 2.8% 18,639
Livestock kits 9.9% 88.0% 1.2% 0.9% 5,376
Community infrastructure and equipment 100.0% 4,770
Fishery kits 97.8% 2.2% 4,582
Vocational training 19.7% 0.0% 80.3% 1,913
Heb and fortfied rice 100.0% 1,876
Kitchen garden kits 100.0% 1,533
Microfinance activities 100.0% 240
Beneficiary totals are as of 31 December 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 Q4/2022.



In areas with the highest number of IDPs, such as Sagaing, Kachin and Bago (East), beneficiaries were mostly reached 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

At Q4/2022, the main amount of money given to FSC beneficiaries is USD 70 to 80. Amounts of money of USD 40 and lesser have been much less used during that period and there is a push of the number of beneficiaries receiving USD 80 and more. This later support is mainly due of the push of the agriculture and livelihoods activities in the last quarter of the year 2022 which usually require more financial support. With the constant inflation, FS partners had to increase the budget of their activities.




3.2 USD per person

The box plots below show 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 activity.

Microfinance activities and fishery kits also have very tight values due to the limited numbers of partners implementing such programme and the limited number of beneficiaries reached by these activities. These activities appeared in Q3/2022 and remained stable until the end of Q4.



Cash transfer values in Q4 were not much different compared to Q3, but the transfer values of IGA and small grants are substantially increased which range between 30 to 150 USD.




3.3 Food distributions


Kachin, Rakhine and Shan (north) 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 Ayeyarwady had very consistent values as they were all implemented by the same implementing partner. But the values in Chin state vary between organisations and townships. The graph highlights that most of the interventions 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, 5.82% (4.76%% at Q3) of food distribution beneficiaries have received at least 100% of the food security MEB and 17.33% (15.35% at Q3) have received at least 50% of the food security MEB (USD 11.45 per person). FSC assumes that this trend 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 4.64 1.06 23,907 4.59
>=$2_<$4 14.19 3.25 62,362 11.97
>=$4_<$6 22.78 5.22 22,213 4.26
>=$6_<$8 31.98 7.33 64,325 12.35
>=$8_<$10 40.55 9.29 188,573 36.20
>=$10_<$12 48.38 11.08 73,669 14.14
>=$12_<$14 56.91 13.04 10,375 1.99
>=$14_<$16 63.21 14.48 3,239 0.62
>=$16_<$18 71.47 16.37 9,090 1.74
>=$18_<$20 84.44 19.34 32,117 6.17
>=$20 148.71 34.07 31,084 5.97
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 shows the number of beneficiaries reached and the depth of the colour indicates the value of the cash transfer.





4. Partners

A total of 87 partners (humanitarian and development) have reported into the Food Security Cluster as of Q4/2022.There are 56 implementing partners and 31 reporting partners.


In 2022, FSC had 79 humanitarian partners (reporting & implementing) contributing to the FSC’s achievement, including 48 national partners (CSO, NNGO and private sector).



4.1 Implementing partner

There are 41 partners that were involved in direct implementation that have reported achievements in Q4/2022, in comparison with 50 in Q3/2022, 57 in Q2/2022 and 48 in Q1/2022. These 41 implementing partners corresponded to a total of 16 reporting organisations. The largest reporting organisation, org_2690, had 28 implementing partners.


Reporting organisations with the most implementing partners
report_org_code implementing_partners
org_2690 28
org_9639 8
org_3536 7
org_8415 7
org_2625 4
org_3422 4
org_5369 4
org_6793 4
org_2214 3
org_7298 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.

18 partners (23% of the total) have a presence in more than 5 townships (14 partners at Q3). 11 partners (14% of the total) are present in more than 10 townships (11 partners at Q3). 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 pushes FSC partners to adjust their footprint in Myanmar as the context/conflict evolves.


4.2 Monthly progress by partner

Organisations 9566, 6130 and 5090 have implemented the majority of their activities in the fourth 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 implementing partners by number of beneficiaries reached in 2022.


Top implementing partners by beneficiaries reached in 2022, as of 31 December 2022
org_code ben_q1 rank_q1 ben_q2 rank_q2 ben_q3 rank_q3 ben_q4 rank_q4 total_ben
org_8540 372,947 1 2,930 27 139,181 1 17,647.0 10 532,705.0
org_5722 163,331 2 77,743 2 69,062 5 310,136.0
org_2690 16,042 19 82,115 1 69,123 4 57,566.0 3 224,846.0
org_9693 65,948 10 39,519 9 112,205 3 217,672.0
org_9566 89,340 5 51,888 6 7,554 15 62,762.0 1 211,544.0
org_6197 69,853 4 135,999 2 205,852.0
org_5677 74,241 8 22,859 11 42,018 8 58,523.0 2 197,641.0
org_1206 156,433 3 35,355 9 191,788.0
org_5440 80,173 7 39,857 8 58,440 6 178,470.0
org_5283 42,067 14 77,712 3 29,001 11 15,069.0 12 163,849.0
org_3315 131,861 4 441 43 14,311 14 12,434.2 13 159,047.2
org_4933 85,627 6 59,969 5 145,596.0
org_8004 44,758 13 14,673 15 33,666 10 38,940.0 6 132,037.0
org_6130 29,641 16 41,089 7 18,165 13 43,141.0 5 132,036.0
org_6792 64,958 11 55,944 7 120,902.0



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
MHF 7 9 6 11
FCDO 6 8 6 22
Organizational own funds 6 8 14 61
ECHO 4 6 5 14
GIZ 3 3 3 8
BHA 2 5 4 11
BMZ 2 2 2 3
CDCS 2 2 2 3
CIAA 2 2 2 5
UN Women 2 3 2 7
UNDP 2 3 2 6
USAID 2 4 5 15
WFP 2 2 2 10
WVI 2 2 6 6
Only showing donors supporting more than one reporting partner.


As Q4, Shan (East) have the fewest number of donors present.


Number of donors by state
state donors implementing_partners
Kayah 19 11
Kachin 17 16
Kayin 17 14
Rakhine 14 22
Mon 10 8
Shan (South) 10 12
Chin 9 10
Shan (North) 8 10
Magway 7 7
Bago (East) 6 3
Mandalay 6 5
Ayeyarwady 5 6
Sagaing 5 8
Tanintharyi 5 3
Yangon 5 15
Shan (East) 4 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 2,750,878 70.13
Organizational own funds 336,755 8.58
UNDP 121,556 3.10
FCDO 110,312 2.81
AICS 82,873 2.11
CERF 82,725 2.11
DFAT 53,151 1.35
NZMFAT 47,397 1.21
LIFT 44,455 1.13
BPRM 37,255 0.95
WVI 21,186 0.54
UN Women 20,744 0.53
Norad 17,847 0.45
BHA 16,304 0.42
MHF 16,451 0.42
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 476,009 9
Kayah 124,787 1
Kachin 73,967 5
Shan (North) 33,384 5
Chin 30,172 3
Magway 19,539 1
Sagaing 18,200 3
Shan (South) 12,987 2
Kayin 10,644 2
Shan (East) 275 1



5. Beneficiaries

72.64% of all beneficiaries in 2022 were from host or local communities.



5.1 Beneficiary types

From Q1 to Q3, host communities represented the main component of the FSC beneficiaries. During Q4, with 91,968 persons, IDPs was the main categories of FSC benefciaries.




5.2 Evidence of food insecurity status

For most of the FSC activities, the food insecurity status of beneficiaries was not reported in Q4. This has been constant challenge throughout 2022. 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 31 December 2022
activity food_insecurity_status beneficiaries %_of_group
food distributions, moderate NA 1,795,381 90.64
food distributions, severe NA 834,411 74.57
multi-purpose cash transfer, moderate NA 16,885 23.61
multi-purpose cash transfer, severe NA 5,040 3.09


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


Evidence of food insecurity status, as of 31 December 2022
evidence beneficiaries %_beneficiaries
No evidence 3,433,806 87.54
Armed conflict 253,975 6.47
Community Based Beneficiary Selection 113,077 2.88
Post-distribution monitoring 31,295 0.80
Beneficiary list and distribution list 20,579 0.52
Acceptable FCS 19,995 0.51
Rapid Need Assessment and Market Assessment 14,493 0.37
Regular reporting 6,137 0.16
Rapid Needs Assessment and Market Analysis 4,349 0.11
Beneficiary lists and distribution lists 4,251 0.11
assessment, meeting minutes, payment 3,496 0.09
beneficiary targeting assessment 3,248 0.08
Market Analysis 3,084 0.08
Rapid need assessment was done at September 2022 2,916 0.07
97% of hh had acceptabe FCS 1,471 0.04
Village Profile 1,415 0.04
Food Security and Livelihood Baseline Survey 913 0.02
Rapid need assessment was done at January 2023 869 0.02
Based on Vulnerable Score (Vulnerable Criteria) 819 0.02
Rapid need assessment was done at October 2022 580 0.01
Distribution List and Pictures 488 0.01
Attendance lists 437 0.01
Food distribution certificate 308 0.01
Rapid need assessment was done at December 2022 235 0.01
New IDPs 217 0.01
94% of HH had acceptable FCS (Sept 2022) 116 0.00
Provision grants of women led micro business activities 80 0.00
94% of HH have acceptable FCS 58 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 53.38 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 10.15% of beneficiary disaggregation values were copied and pasted, against 10.49% at Q3. 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.

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 13 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). 163 townships with targets still have not been reached so far.



In comparison with Q3, achievement in Q4 does highlight the same main trend. The top 5 townships remain the same (Hlaingtharya, Shwepyithar, North Okkalapa, Buthidaung, Sittwe). However, the graphs at Q4 highlight a push in hard-to-reach areas eg Hpapun, Demoso, Eimme, Pauktaw, Pakkoku, Kyaukkyi.



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


Top 15 most overreached townships
state township Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 beneficiaries target gap
Yangon Hlaingtharya 505,801 33,162 400,524 0 939,487 227,976 -711,511
Yangon Shwepyithar 372,981 0 11,055 0 384,036 111,938 -272,098
Yangon North Okkalapa 168,400 172,559 0 0 340,959 108,603 -232,356
Rakhine Buthidaung 133,657 35,202 40,479 611 209,949 25,001 -184,948
Kayah Loikaw 815 73,763 62,177 5,143 141,898 25,000 -116,898
Yangon Dala 81,125 81,390 0 0 162,515 56,325 -106,190
Rakhine Maungdaw 74,301 30,904 13,550 0 118,755 16,889 -101,866
Rakhine Sittwe 40,582 51,824 81,749 4,692 178,847 79,999 -98,848
Yangon Dagon Myothit (Seikkan) 292 0 125,600 0 125,892 54,563 -71,329
Mandalay Nyaung-U 71,547 0 558 1,549 73,654 3,016 -70,638
Rakhine Pauktaw 9,710 6,453 28,961 12,510 57,634 0 -57,634
Kayah Hpruso 26,507 8,585 5,664 6,387 47,143 4,000 -43,143
Mandalay Myingyan 46,087 3 28 218 46,336 3,470 -42,866
Rakhine Rathedaung 23,440 5,777 10,267 448 39,932 10,001 -29,931
Kayah Demoso 10,123 16,487 12,637 13,145 52,392 25,000 -27,392


As mentioned in section 5.1, during Q4/2022, IDPs represented the main categories of beneficiaries. The top 5 townships with IDPs are Hpapun, Pakokku, Kyaukkyi, Myaing and Demoso.


Townships by percentage of target reached (only under HRP)
Category range Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
under <90% of target 32 40 59 62
on_target >=90% and < 110% of target 0 4 4 6
overreach Above 110% assisted 19 27 36 45
not_reached 0% of target 238 218 190 176
total reached _HRP 51 71 99 113
total target_HRP 289 289 289 289
% reached_HRP 18% 25% 34% 39%
Each quarter includes cumulative data since January 2022


Out of 289 townships targeted under HRP, 113 (39%) townships have been reached by Q4 (99 (34%) at Q3). The number of townships targeted which were not reached has reduced from 190 in Q3/2022 to 176 in Q4/2022.



6.2 Map of beneficiaries reached by each quarter in 2022



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.