GPAF IMPACT PROPOSAL FORM (for Round 2)

The proposal documentation provides detailed information about your proposed project. This information is used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the initiative and will ultimately inform the DFID funding decisions. It is very important you read the GPAF Impact Window Guidelines for Applicants and related documents before you start working on your Proposal to ensure that you understand and take into account the relevant funding criteria. Please also consider the GPAF Impact Round 1 Proposals - Key Strengths and Weaknesses document which was prepared following the appraisal of the full proposals submitted to the first round of GPAF Impact. This document identifies the generic strengths and weaknesses of proposals submitted in relation to the key assessment criteria.

How: You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your Proposal and associated documents by email to gpafimpact@tripleline.com. The Proposal Form should be completed using Arial font size 12. We do not require a hard copy. When: Proposal documentation must be received by Triple Line by: 23:59 (GMT) on 10th

January 2012. Proposal documents that are received after the deadline will not be considered. What: You should submit the following documents:

1. Narrative Proposal: Please use the form below, noting the following page limits:

Sections 1 – 7 : Maximum of 15 (fifteen) A4 pages Section 8 : Maximum of 3 (three) A4 pages per partner

Please do not alter the formatting of the form and guidance notes. Proposals that exceed the page limits or that have amended formatting will not be considered.

2. Logical Framework: All applicants must submit a full Logical Framework/Logframe and Activities Log. Please refer to the GPAF Logframe Guidance and How-To-Note and use the Excel logframe template provided.

3. Project Budget: All applicants must submit a full project budget with the proposal. Please refer to the GPAF Impact Window Guidelines for Applicants, the Financial Management Guidelines and the guidance notes on the GPAF Impact budget template (for Round 2). The Excel document has three worksheets/tabs: Guidance Note; Budget; and Budget Notes. Please read all guidance notes and provide detailed budget notes to justify the budget figures.

4. Organisational Accounts: All applicants must provide a copy of their most recent (less than 12 months after end of accounting period) signed and audited (or examined) accounts.

5. Project organisational chart / organogram: All applicants must provide a project organisational chart or organogram demonstrating the relationships between the key project partners and other key stakeholders (please use your own format for this).

6. Project Schedule or GANTT chart: All applicants must provide a project schedule or GANTT chart to show the scheduling of project activities (please use your own format for this).

Please complete the checklist provided in section 9 before submitting your proposal.1

GLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – IMPACT WINDOW PROPOSAL FORM

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT1.1 Lead organisation name The Leprosy Mission England and Wales (TLMEW)

1.2 Main contact person Name: Siân ArulananthamPosition: Head of Programmes CoordinationEmail: SianA@tlmew.org.ukTel: 01733 404874

1.3 2nd contact person Name: Rachel HalewoodPosition: Programmes and Advocacy OfficerEmail: RachelH@tlmew.org.ukTel: 01733 370505

1.4 Please use this space to inform of any changes to the applicant organisation or Consortium details provided in your Concept Note

N/A

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT2.1 Concept Note Reference No. IMP-02-CN-0849

2.2 Project title Poverty Reduction: Inclusion of Disabled/Excluded

2.3 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented

Myanmar (Burma)

2.4 Locality(ies)/region(s) within country(ies)

Ayearwaddy, Magwe, Mandalay, Sagaing, Taninthayi, Yangon Regions; Rakhine, Shan States

2.5 Duration of grant request (in months)

36

2.6 Project start date (month and year)

August 2012

2.7 Total project budget? In GBP sterling

£552,943

2.8 Total funding requested from DFID in GBP sterling and as a % of total project budget

£414,093

75%

2.9 Year 1 funding requested from DFID

£97,055

2.10 Please specify the % of project funds to be spent in each project country

Myanmar (Burma): 93.1% England & Wales: 6.9%

2.11 Total match funding and status (sources of match funding, amounts, and secured or not secured) - Please enter match-funding details in the table below (add rows if necessary)

2

Source of funding Year 1 (£)

Year 2 (£)

Year 3 (£)

Year 4 (£)

Total (£) Secured? (Y/N)

TLM General Funds 32,066 45,076 46,035 15,673 138,851 Yes

Total (£) 32,066 45,076 46,035 15,673 138,851

SECTION 3: FIT WITH GPAF IMPACT WINDOW3.1 CORE SUBJECT AREA - Please identify between one and three core project focus areas

(insert '1' for primary focus area; '2' for secondary focus area and; '3' for tertiary focus area) Agriculture Health (general)

Appropriate Technology HIV/AIDS / Malaria / TB

Child Labour Housing

Climate Change Income Generation

Conflict / Peace building Justice

Core Labour Standards Land

Disability 2 Livestock

Drugs Media

Education & Literacy Mental Health

Enterprise development Reproductive Health / FGM

Environment Rural Livelihoods 1

Fisheries / Forestry Slavery / trafficking

Food Security Water & sanitation

Gender 3 Violence against women/ girls/ children

Governance

Other: (please specify)

3.2 Which of the following Millennium Development Goals is the project contributing to (if any)? - Please identify between one and three MDGs in order of priority (insert '1' for primary MDG focus area; '2' for secondary MDG focus area and; '3' for tertiary MDG focus area) 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 1

2. Achieve universal primary education

3. Promote gender equality and empower women 2

4. Reduce child mortality

5. Improve Maternal Health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. Ensure environmental sustainability

8. Develop a global partnership for development

None of the above (please explain in section 3.3)

3.3 Explain why you are focusing on these specific MDGs. Are the above MDGs “off track” in the implementing countries? If possible please identify sub-targets within not just the national context but also related to the specific geographical location for the proposed project. Please

3

state the source of the information you are using to determine whether or not they are “off track”. How will this project support the national government’s commitment to achieving identified MDGs? Your response should also inform section 4.4.

In Myanmar (Burma) poverty reduction is off-track, especially in rural areas; women and persons with disabilities (PwD) are disproportionately represented amongst the poor. ‘Burma is one of the poorest countries in Asia and is unlikely to achieve the majority of the MDGs’1. Despite data from the recent UNDP Integrated Household Living Conditions survey indicating some progress in poverty reduction between 2005 and 2010, Myanmar (Burma) continues to rate low on the Human Development Index (132 of 169) and progress towards MDG 1 (eradication of extreme poverty and hunger) is off track, with 29.6% of children under 5 underweight and 25.6% of the population living on less than US$1 per day. The off-track status for MDG 1 is recognized by the Myanmar Government, which convened a special workshop on national poverty reduction, with the aim of reducing poverty ‘by 16% by 2014-15, to be in line with MDG Goals’2 This workshop proposed development of rural livelihoods as the main ‘drive’ to reduce poverty, recognizing that rural poverty remains higher than the in urban areas. Poverty distribution and rates of decline are unevenly spread across the country. Urban poverty rates have fallen faster than in rural areas, where 29.2% of people are still living below the poverty line3. Rural poverty rates in Mandalay, Magwe, Yangon, Tanintharyi and Ayearwady Regions are all over 28%, and over 40% in Rakhine and Shan State, with increases in rural poverty rates in Ayearwady and Yangon regions. Employment is a key element of poverty reduction. The employment: population ratio increased from 54.1% to 57.1% from 2005-2010, but women continue to have lower employment rates than men (48.3%:69%). Women interviewed cited lack of capital and other inputs, limited job opportunities and lower wages than men for their low economic status, and in turn, they blamed their economic problems for poor health and nutrition.4 In terms of progress on MDG3, whilst ‘gender based discrimination does not appear to be particularly visible, there is insufficient data and evidence to make an accurate assessment’5. In terms of livelihoods, women face particular barriers in relation to mobility, access to credit, productive assets, markets and information. Globally, it is recognised that PwD are more likely to live in poverty, and research demonstrates that exclusion of PwD from development activities focussing on livelihoods is a significant contributor to the slow progress towards MDG 1 in Myanmar (Burma). Analysis of data from the Integrated Household Living Conditions Assessment survey and the National Disability Survey indicates that whilst households with disability account for 10% of all households in Myanmar, they account for 16% of all poor households. Households with a PwD are nearly twice as likely to be classified as ‘economically vulnerable’ than households without a PwD6. Women with disabilities are particularly marginalised - a household with a woman with disabilities is seven times more likely to be classified as ‘extremely vulnerable’ to the impact of natural disasters and economic shocks as ordinary female-headed households. Whilst MDG 3 is on-track, research from a household economic survey in the Dry Zone indicates that households with a female PwD were twice as vulnerable to economic shock as households with a male PwD, indicating significant gender inequity.7 Whilst 5% of households have a woman with disabilities, these households comprise 10% of all poor households.8 Furthermore, poverty appears to be associated with increased rates of disabilities amongst children, with higher rates of congenital disability in poor areas.9 Thus, evidence from

1 DfID ‘Burma: key facts’ http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Where-we-work/Asia-East--Pacific/Burma/Key-facts/ cited 25th November 20112 Quoted from speech by Union President U Thein Sein 20th June 2011 cited in http://www.myanmargeneva.org/11nlm/jun/n110621.htm 3 Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey 2009-2010 (UNDP) 4 From SNAP survey Mahlaing/Ayartaw Townships as part of LIFT baseline survey 2010.5 DfID (2011) Burma Operational Plan Gender Annexe. Cited 08/12/11 at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/burma-2011-gend-annex.pdf 6 Griffiths M (2011) 'From vulnerable groups to empowered right-holders: using Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) to facilitate inclusive early recovery in the post-disaster setting' Equitable Health Service for People with Disabilities. WHO/London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. London, 8th November 2011 http://disabilitycentre.lshtm.ac.uk/symposium-2011/ 7 Griffiths M (2011) Gender and Age related impact of Disability on Household Economic Vulnerability: analysis from the REVEAL study in Myanmar. The World Report on Disability: Implications for Asia and the Pacific. WHO symposium, Sydney University December 2011 http://sydney.edu.au/health_sciences/disability-symposium/papers/posters.shtml 8 Griffiths M (2011) Poverty and Disability in Myanmar. Disability and Rehabilitation (pending)

4

Myanmar (Burma) underlines international experience that disability is a major contributor to poverty, and that is exacerbated by gender related issues. Hence the MDGs for poverty reduction will never be achieved unless PwD are fully included in the development process, with particular emphasis on women with disabilities.

3.4 Please list any of the DFID’s standard output and outcome indicators that this fund will contribute to. Please refer to the Standard Indicators document on the GPAF website. Note if stated here, these also need to be explicit in your logframe.

Food and Agriculture: Sector wide indicators - Agriculture and Rural Development Percentage change in proportion of rural population below US$1 per day (Purchasing power parity) per day or below national poverty line

SECTION 4: PROJECT DETAILS4.1 ACRONYMS

Please list all acronyms used in your application in alphabetical order and explain them in full.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations); BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development); CBR (Community Based Rehabilitation); CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women); CRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities); DPO (Disabled People’s Organisation); DRC (Disability Resource Centre); GDP (Gross Domestic Product); HH (Households); IDDC (International Disability and Development Consortium); ILEP (International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Organisations); ILO (International Labour Organisation); INGO (International Non-Governmental Organisation); LIFT (The Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund); LNGO (Local Non-Governmental Organisation); M&E (Monitoring and Evaluation); MDG (Millennium Development Goal); PAL (People Affected by Leprosy); PRIDE (Poverty Reduction: Inclusion of Disabled/Excluded); PwD (Persons with Disabilities); S/R (State/Region); TLMEW (The Leprosy Mission England and Wales);TLMI Myanmar (The Leprosy Mission International Myanmar); UN (United Nations); UNDP (United Nations Development Programme); UNOPS (UN Operations Centre, Myanmar); WHO (World Health Organisation)

4.2 SUMMARY: maximum 5 lines - Please provide a brief project summary including the overall change(s) that the initiative is intending to achieve and who will benefit. Please be clear and concise and avoid the use of jargon (This is for dissemination about the fund and should relate to the purpose statement in the logframe).

This initiative, taking place in 7 States and Regions in Myanmar (Burma), will lead to a reduction in the physical and social barriers faced by PwD, particularly those faced by women with disabilities. This will enable them to access livelihood opportunities, providing them with dignified work and an income of more than US$1 a day. By the end of the project 2,000 persons (65% women) with disabilities will increase earnings to >US$1 per day equivalent through safe, dignified work.

4.3 PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS Describe the process of preparing this project proposal. Who has been involved in the process and over what period of time? How have the intended beneficiaries and other stakeholders been involved in the design? If a consultant or anyone from outside the lead organisation and partners assisted in the preparation of this proposal please describe the type of assistance provided.

The project idea was initiated by TLMI Myanmar based on data from the National Disability Survey and learning from a pilot livelihood project (2009-2010) that aimed to identify alternative livelihood practices for PwD. The idea originated from discussions between PwD and TLMI Myanmar staff, and was discussed with TLMEW during a recent field visit. The project was designed with input from DPOs, TLMI Myanmar and TLMEW staff. Target beneficiaries provided comments and insights through the initial livelihood project review. The project planning process involved four phases of

9 Griffiths M (2010) Economic Insecurity & Disability/Disability & Economic Insecurity: Insights from the Myanmar National Disability Survey. International Forum for Disability Prevention & the 4th Forum for the Development of Work on Disability in China. Beijing, Dec. 2010

5

consultation and development: 1) Grassroots consultation: staff from TLMI Myanmar engaged in consultation with residents of villages selected for Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) projects in 7 States & Regions in Myanmar (Burma), mapping needs and ascertaining the key areas of concern and ambition for PwD. Sustainable livelihood, shelter and education are consistently the primary concerns of PwD. In particular, PwDs expressed frustration at the barriers to gaining livelihood skills, and accessing credit, markets and the labour market. 2) Consultation with representative groups of PwD: Consultations took place at numerous levels and included an analysis of barriers preventing participation of PwD in livelihoods. This was discussed at a CBR conference organised by a DPO consortium in Nov. 2010 and identified key legal barriers to integration of PwD in the labour market. 3) Previous livelihood projects were analysed by TLMI Myanmar staff during a learning review in June 2011, involving TLMEW, where one-day focussed on livelihood issues. Lessons learned were identified and potential future models of livelihood interventions developed. 4) A multi-stakeholder meeting, including 10 Government ministries, was held in Nay Pyi Taw in June 2011 to discuss disability law and policy including issues relating to labour and industrial law and policy. Input was given as to future needs for legislation and policy frameworks to support greater integration of PwD into the formal and non-formal economy.The findings from each of these consultations gave shape to the proposed project in the following ways: 1) The barrier analysis at grassroots level identified the need to address issues of access to skills, credit and markets. 2) The DPO consultation pointed to the need to work with businesses to create barrier-free enterprise zones. 3) The learning review helped to inform the types of skills and access approaches which are more likely to be successful in rural and urban areas. 4) The multi-stakeholder consultation informed the need for promulgating laws concerning PwD employment, and for the development of the Labour Charter for PwD and employment.

4.4 PROJECT RATIONALE (PROBLEM STATEMENT) Describe the context for the proposed project? What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? What are the causal factors leading to poverty and/or disadvantage? What gaps in service delivery have been identified? How has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Why has the particular project location(s) been selected and at this particular time? Please also refer to your response to section 3.3 (fit with MDGs) when answering this section.

PwD are disproportionately represented amongst the poor, because they have unequal access to skills, markets, information and credit. This is exacerbated in the case of women with disabilities. The project will strengthen community, civil society and private sector responses to poverty by making them more inclusive. The areas selected are those (a) of high levels of poverty and (b) where exclusion of PwD is a major contributor to poverty. Myanmar (Burma) has 1.27 million PwD. The Myanmar National Disability Survey (2008-9) revealed that only 15% of PwD had a viable livelihood, indicating high levels of exclusion of PwD from the formal and non-formal economy. Using formulas derived from ILO studies, the typical GDP losses to a developing country through exclusion of PwD is estimated at around 3-5% of GDP.10 Households with a PwD, approximately 10% of households in Myanmar (Burma), experience higher levels of poverty and economic vulnerability than those without a PwD; approximately 678,000 households have disability-related poverty. Furthermore, households of PwD are more than three times as likely to rely on casual labour for their main income, over twice as likely to be landless, and significantly less likely to own valuable household assets compared to households without PwDs. In short - poverty leads to higher rates of disability, and disability leads to higher rates of chronic poverty. The inequalities are worse in rural areas. Further research indicates that PwD have unequal access to rehabilitation, marketable skills, credit, labour markets, physical markets and information concerning the right of access to these factors11. Underlying these are three ‘root’ factors: lack of knowledge and practice of disability inclusion, lack of a comprehensive legal framework to ensure access to rights, and widespread negative attitudes towards PwD. The cause of lack of access is multifactorial: lack of availability of rehabilitation is due to low levels of investment in public health infrastructure and low priority of disability in the national budget; lack of access to skills, markets and credit are frequently

10 Buckup S (2009) The price of exclusion: The economic consequences of excluding people with disabilities from the world of work. ILO11 Zaw Moe Aung et al (2011) Review of REVEAL project. Internal, TLMI

6

due to issues of stigma, public perception that PwD are not able to work, or would not be able to repay loans, lack of examples of successful PwD, lack of awareness of the need to make workplaces and markets more accessible for PwD, and overall, a lack of coherent law and policy which require public bodies, businesses and government (civil service) to take proactive measures to include PwD. PwD themselves are not aware of any existing rights, nor does there exist any mechanism by which those rights can be realised. This project will primarily address three of these underlying factors: access to rehabilitation; access to skills, credit and markets; and access to rights/justice. A separate project is addressing the issue of attitudinal change. Women with disabilities are disproportionately disadvantaged compared to men with disabilities, with households with women with disabilities nearly four times more likely to be in the ‘vulnerable’ category than households with men with disabilities.12 Women with disabilities experience greater barriers than men with disabilities in accessing skills, credit, markets and information about markets, and hence have lower involvement in both formal and informal economy sectors. Although poverty reduction and gender policies have been enacted, urgent action is needed to redress the problem of non-inclusion of PwD, in order to assist the process of MDG achievement, as well as to ensure that international assistance is in full compliance with the UN CRPD and CEDAW. Only three mainstream NGOs (Save the Children, Action Aid & World Vision), and recently the multi-donor fund LIFT, have implemented policies to specifically address the issue of inclusion of PwD in Myanmar (Burma), others need support to do so. In terms of legislation to protect and promote the rights of PwD to engage in meaningful work, it is recognised that existing legislation (over 50 years old) is inadequate. Revision of existing laws is underway, in line with the CRPD, which Myanmar (Burma) has now ratified. Based on these laws, a new Labour Charter can outline the requirements and practical steps needed by both private and public sector to ensure full inclusion. In summary, this project is needed to address poverty resulting from the exclusion of PwD from the livelihood sector. By creating and protecting sustainable livelihoods (characterised as safe, dignified and viable) the project will reduce poverty amongst PwD households, contributing to the overall poverty reduction in Myanmar (Burma) (MDG 1). The project will have particular emphasis on empowering women with disabilities to access employment, to raise their self esteem and status in their family and community (MDG 3). States and Regions (S/R) were selected based on four criteria:1) The S/R has a poverty rate above the national average2) The S/R has a contribution to national poverty share of >3.5%13

3) The S/R has poverty rate amongst households with disabilities higher than the national average4) The S/R has a contribution to national poverty by households with disabilities >0.58%14

Based on these criteria, the top priority S/R are: Ayearwady, Tanintharyi, Magwe Regions, and Rakhine State. The high priority S/R are: Yangon, Sagaing, Mandalay Regions, and Northern Shan State. Given the strong presence of existing organisations in Rakhine, Tanintharyi and Northern Shan, these areas were selected primarily for the mainstreaming activities, whilst the remaining five S/Rs will have both mainstreaming and directly implemented activities. Directly implemented activities include provision of skills, credit and market access to PwD, along with development of barrier-free markets and enterprise zones. Mainstreaming activities will involve training and providing technical support to local and international organisations to enable them to be proactive in including PwD into their livelihood programmes.

4.5 TARGET GROUP (DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES) Who will be the direct beneficiaries of your project and how many will be expected to benefit directly from the project intervention? Please describe the direct beneficiary group(s) – differentiate sub-groups where possible - and then provide a total number.

DIRECT: a) Description Persons with all kinds of disabilities, including those disabled by leprosy, in selected villages in Ayearwady/ Magwe/Mandalay/Sagaing/Yangon

12 Griffiths M (2011) Gender, Disability and Vulnerability. VU University, Amsterdam 9th December 201113 UNDP (2011) Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey (Poverty Dynamics Report). Yangon, UNDP14 Department of Social Welfare (2010) National Disability Survey

7

b) Number -rural women: 1100 (550 directly, 550 mainstream organisations)-urban women: 250 (125 directly, 125 mainstream organisations)-rural men: 500 (250 directly, 250 mainstream organisations)-urban men: 150 (75 directly, 75 mainstream organisations)

Who will be the indirect (wider) beneficiaries of your project intervention and how many will benefit? Please describe the type(s) of indirect beneficiaries and then provide a total number.

INDIRECT: a) Description Other PwD will also benefit from the mainstreaming of disability into different organisations portfolios, and from the promulgation of the PwD labour charter

b) Number 10,000

4.6 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACT Please describe the anticipated real and practical impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. How does the proposal demonstrate a clear line of sight to poverty? What changes are anticipated for the main target groups identified in 4.5 within the lifetime of the project?

This project will address three key ‘barriers’ to engagement in livelihoods by PwD which in turn are contributory causes of the excess poverty amongst PwD and their households: lack of access to rehabilitation; lack of access to skills/credit/markets/information; and lack of access to rights/justice. The proposed hypothesis is that by identifying and removing or reducing barriers, PwD will have increased opportunity to engage in livelihoods. Hence, the following impact is anticipated: Overall there will be a 4% reduction in rural households in poverty, arising from a 26% reduction in ‘vulnerable’ households with disability (with a converse increase from 48.11% to 65% of households with disabilities earning more than US$1 per day, and a doubling of PwD employment rates). This will be achieved by targeting interventions in geographical areas where disability is a significant contributor to poverty. By recognizing that women with disabilities are more likely to be poor and excluded from the marketplace, we can reasonably assume that by focussing mainly on rural and women PwD households, the project will target the most excluded and vulnerable, and hence make a larger impact on overall poverty rates. Specific outcomes are: 1) 500 PwD having improved physical capacity for livelihoods through greater access to rehabilitation; 2) 2,000 PwD engaging in active livelihoods (including employment and home-based livelihoods) have increased skills to engage in viable, safe and dignified livelihoods, increased access to credit, and to training on financial management to make best use of credit; 3) 30 organisations implementing projects which are inclusive of PwD; 4) 20 new accessible markets; 5) 10 barrier-free enterprise zones; 6) 10 barrier-free work places; 7) Labour charter outlining the employment related rights of PwD; 8) 3 commercial associations trained in including PwD in the workplace.

4.7 PROJECT APPROACH / METHODOLOGY Please provide details on the project approach or methodology proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 4.4. You should justify why you consider this approach to be the most effective way in which to achieve the project purpose. Please justify the timeframe and scope of your project and ensure that the narrative relates to the logframe and budget. Be realistic and not over ambitious.

This project will enable PwD (particularly women) to engage in safe, dignified and successful livelihoods. It will use a twin-track, gender-sensitive approach, working with DPOs and DRCs to provide specialist disability support, alongside mainstreaming the inclusion of PwD. This will involve sensitising and building the capacity of NGOs, businesses and families to include PwD and address gender issues. It will focus on enhancing access to intellectual, physical, financial and social capitals by addressing policy at national, local and institutional levels, providing appropriate skills and resources, and facilitating equitable access to financial services and the market place.

8

Mainstreaming of disability is well recognised as an effective poverty reduction strategy and is enshrined in DFID’s approach to poverty reduction: ‘The overarching mission of DFID is to assist developing countries to achieve accelerated and irreversible reductions in poverty. Mainstreaming disability issues in development is an integral component of that mission’15 The Myanmar National Plan of Action for Persons with Disabilities (2009-11) adopts a ‘twin-track approach’-meaning that interventions are conducted both as specifically targeting PwD and as those which enable inclusion in mainstream programmes. The paper Disability, Poverty and Development proposes a ‘twin-track approach to mainstream disability in development cooperation, similar to the approach used to mainstream gender’16. TLMI Myanmar has adopted the twin-track approach since 2008, focussing both on individuals and communities as well as wider policy change amongst government and non-government agencies. This project will build on and integrate with the existing work of TLMI Myanmar, being implemented through a network of 25 Disability Resource Centres (DRCs), as well as through training and advocacy by TLMI Myanmar’s Media, Advocacy and Training Unit. The DRCs are strategically located in 8 of the 14 S/Rs, and are the hub for provision of rehabilitation support, livelihoods training & support, referrals, CBR, advocacy and awareness raising. A number of DRCs also provide technical support to mainstream organisations to facilitate inclusion. Typically, a DRC will have 4-10 staff, including physiotherapists, livelihood co-ordinators, child development specialists and volunteers. DRCs implement a range of projects, allowing for good synergy between different activities to enable greater benefit to PwD. 1) 30 mainstream development agencies will receive training so that they have the knowledge and expertise to integrate PwD, including people disabled by leprosy, into their livelihood programmes. These will be INGOs/LNGOs which are conducting livelihood related projects in Myanmar (Burma). Since 2009, TLMI Myanmar has conducted training and provided technical support to mainstream humanitarian agencies to facilitate inclusion of PwD, including UNDP and LIFT. INGOs/ LNGOs enable economy of scale in terms of inclusion. By faciliating capacity building for inclusion the project can change mindsets and policies within organisations so that in the future inclusion of PwD becomes the ‘norm’ for those organisations. Organisations will be selected which have an interest and motivation for inclusion, and are able to implement large scale inclusive livelihoods programmes. The training programmes will be based on existing material developed by Dr. Mike Griffiths (TLM Disability Consultant and Consultant to the National Disability Working Group).2) 2,000 PwD/PAL (1,000 through TLM DRCs & 1,000 through newly trained mainstream NGOs) will have sustainable livelihoods through participation in labour and commerce markets. This will include: providing training in market-related skills; facilitating access to markets; increasing physical capacity for livelihoods by addressing specific mobility related barriers to livelihood participation (i.e. physical therapy and assistive devices); providing training on management skills and market knowledge; improving the legal context for livelihoods for PwD; and sensitising families, businesses and communities with regard to the employability of women with disabilities. In order to reach the target of 1,000 PwD included through mainstreaming, mainstream programmes targeting a combined total of 43,000 persons will need to be successfully made inclusive.3) Development of 20 markets, and barrier-free conversion of 10 work places and 10 physical markets, will enable access by PwD, enabling them to participate in the labour market. This will take place in eight S/Rs, with DRCs working with local business communities and entrepreneurs to firstly raise awareness of disability labour issues, and then to work with motivated private sector companies and entrepreneurs to develop inclusive markets, workplaces and enterprise zones. Typically, this will involve assisting a company or entrepreneur to develop a barrier-free working environment, at the same time developing a link between that company and skills training for PwD resulting in genuine employment. One current example is ongoing work with a major hotel chain in Myanmar (Burma)which is developing a plan to train and employ sight-impaired telephone operators to manage inquiry lines. New initiatives to develop integrated markets (i.e. PwD enabled to design, develop, manufacture, market and sell value-added products in a ‘connected’ way) are also being developed. Linking market demands for products (e.g. wedding card invitations) to groups of disabled artisans proved successful. In other places, physical markets have been adapted to enable

15 DfID (2006) Disability KAR: assessing connections to DfID’s Poverty Agenda16 DfID (2000): Disability, poverty and development, An Issues Paper, London, DFID

9

merchants with disabilities to access points of sale. Learned experience from these examples will be applied to the development of the barrier-free workplaces, enterprise zones and new markets.4) Laws concerning disability inclusion in the labour market will be reviewed, and a Labour Charter for PwD established in line with the already approved National Plan of Action for PwD. This will take place through the Disability Working Group in conjunction with the Department of Social Welfare, Department of Labour and the Attorney General’s office. Three commercial associations will be trained on inclusion. New disability laws have already been drafted, and will now be reviewed in light of Myanmar (Burma) ratifying the UN CRPD. Labour-specific laws have been included and based on these a Labour Charter can realistically be developed within the project timescale. Commercial associations will be selected based on advice from the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Social Welfare, with the aim to train associations where inclusion of PwD is most likely.

4.8 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALING-UP How will you ensure that the benefits of the project are sustained? Please provide details of any ways in which you see this initiative leading to other funding or being scaled up through work done by others in the future. Describe how and when this may occur and the factors that would make this more or less likely.

Sustainability and scaling up will be achieved in 5 ways, using the principle of leveraging knowledge: 1) Local sustainability: by focussing on increasing access to skills, markets and credit, the economic benefits accrued by beneficiaries will continue to be sustained beyond the project lifespan. Integrating this project with other complementary activities such as CBR , self-help groups and community advocacy means that the impact can be magnified beyond the specific project beneficiaries, e.g. where this project may develop a barrier-free market, the direct beneficiaries will include not only those who are recipients of livelihood activities from PRIDE, but also those from other projects. Likewise, activities from other projects may enable the development of networks and infrastructure (e.g. community development committees or barrier-free transport) which will enhance the benefits of the activities undertaken by this project. This approach enables each project to focus on its own activities, but by doing so in a co-ordinated way, benefits are enhanced and multiplied, and follow-up activities can be undertaken after the lifetime of the project. 2) INGO/LNGO: by building capacity of and enabling INGOs and LNGOs to undertake inclusion, the concept will become ‘mainstreamed’ within their own planning and project implementation. This will enable knowledge to be applied to wider project areas, and also to activities beyond livelihoods.3) Markets & enterprise zones: has three main sustainability/leverage features. Firstly, the markets and enterprise zones themselves will outlast the project life cycle, and thus sustain inclusion beyond the project life span. Secondly, by providing good examples and positive experiences for the businesses, further barrier-free initiatives could be developed by the business communities themselves. Finally, by providing examples of barrier-free initiatives, the Disability Working Group will be able to build on planned legislation to encourage greater inclusion of PwDs in the economy.4) Laws and access to justice: whilst the development of Disability Law will be beneficial, the collection and exposition of labour related laws in the Charter will increase awareness amongst Government, PwD and the business community. By placing onto the National Disability Working Group specific ‘ombudsman’ responsibility for labour charter related issues, a clear pathway to accessing justice for labour related disability issues can be established, thus laying the foundation for a more sustainable process.5) Dissemination of knowledge beyond Myanmar (Burma): TLMEW/TLMI Myanmar staff knowledge and experience gained through this project will be disseminated to other TLM country programmes, IDDC, BOND Working Groups, INGOs & DFID through meetings, journal articles and conferences.

4.9 CAPACITY BUILDING, EMPOWERMENT & ADVOCACY If your proposal includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy components, please explain how they these elements contribute to the achievement of the project's outcome and outputs? Please explain clearly why your project includes these elements, what specific targets you have identified.

10

1) Capacity building involves training on Disability Inclusion for 30 INGOs/LNGOs who are engaged in livelihood-based projects in Myanmar (Burma). This 3-5 day training course will cover concepts of disability and inclusion, practical techniques and an exposure field trip. The training and equipping of mainstream organisations is a central feature of the project approach. It will enable the project, by economy of scale, to leverage the project outcomes and outputs to a much wider beneficiary population than could be reached by a single-track approach. This capacity building will enable greater sustainability of the project activities beyond the lifespan of the project. The output is 30 INGOs and LNGOs having received capacity building and technical support for inclusion, and its impact will be measured by their inclusion of at least 1,000 PwD into their livelihood programmes. 2) The empowerment element of the project will increase livelihood skills, knowledge of rights, access to justice and access to credit and markets for PwD. Section 4.4 has identified that a key barrier to PwD engaging in livelihoods is access to skills, knowledge and markets. The empowerment component will work with PwD to increase their own skills, knowledge and confidence to overcome these barriers, many of which are attitudinal and institutional. This component will have a specific focus on gender sensitisation, recognising that women with disabilities are significantly more disempowered than men with disabilities. The outputs are specific training to 1,000 PwD and distribution of 10,000 copies of the Disability Labour Charter. 3) The advocacy component will focus primarily on the business community, working with them to develop barrier-free workplaces and enterprise zones, as well as conducting training for commercial associations. Advocacy will follow the approach develop in 2009-11 in the ‘7-up’ advocacy project in Myanmar (Burma), developing positive examples of change to enable new thinking - the ‘funding imagination’ approach.17 The ‘twin track’ of developing a Labour Charter and Disability Laws, and simultaneously working with the business community to develop positive, practical and affordable approaches to inclusion of PwD in the workplace, enables viable workplace opportunities for PwD. This in turn can positively enhance the notion that PwD can be successfully incorporated into the workplace, and that PwD can, in the right setting, contribute to the formal economy. At the end of the project 20 new markets, 10 barrier-free workplaces and 10 barrier-free enterprise zones will be developed and specific advocacy conducted with three commercial associations.

4.10 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION How was the specific target group selected and how are you defining social differentiation and addressing any barriers to inclusion which exist in the location(s) where you are working? Please be specific in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDs and other relevant categories depending on the context (e.g. caste, ethnicity etc.). How does the project take these factors into account?

Following analysis of the Myanmar Disability Survey and poverty databases this project has been designed to specifically address the inclusion of excluded groups and gender issues in the labour market. The survey highlighted the exclusion of PwD from livelihoods and the higher vulnerability of women with disabilities (see section 4.4). Barriers to inclusion for PwD in livelihood activities are physical, attitudinal and institutional. Hence, the project will specifically address these barriers through interventions targeted to the key stakeholders responsible for those barriers, through creating viable examples and models of positive change. By including gender sensitisation, and by specifically addressing gender related barriers associated with disability, the project will address the additional exclusion experienced by women with disabilities. It will target those of working age and ensure disabled people living with HIV/AIDS or affected by leprosy are welcomed as beneficiaries. In addition, those with certain types of disability who are generally excluded due to illiteracy (e.g. hearing, sight or intellectual impairment) will also be included, with activities designed to increase accessibility of information in alternative, non-written forms, and by advocacy to INGOs, LNGOs and commercial organisations to facilitate their inclusion.4.11 VALUE FOR MONEY (VFM)

Please demonstrate how you have determined that the proposed project would offer optimum value for money and that the proposed approach is the most cost efficient way of addressing the identified problem(s). Please ensure that your completed proposal and logframe

17 Griffiths M (2011) et all ‘Rethinking Advocacy’ Workshop Yangon January.11

demonstrate the link between activities, outputs and outcome, and that the budget notes provide clear justifications for the inputs and budget estimates.

Over 2,000 households will move out of poverty, at an overall cost of just £276 per household18. The ILO report19 calculated a significant impact of the exclusion of PwD from the economy (3-5% loss in GDP), mainly as a result of inaccessible workplaces excluding those with mild-moderate disabilities who would be able to work in a barrier-free setting. Thus, this project will not only lead to poverty reduction but will enable PwD to actively contribute to the economy. Value for money is enabled through: 1) Identifying target PwD households which are over-represented in the population of households in poverty; 2) Utilising sustainable and cost-effective strategies for intervention, derived from previous experience of implementing sustainable livelihoods projects for PwD in Myanmar (Burma); 3) By leveraging the benefits of the project through enabling inclusion of PwD into mainstream livelihood projects; 4) By implementing this project in co-ordination with existing projects at local level, enabling leveraging of benefits between projects including savings on field costs (e.g. using existing DRC infrastructure); 5) By implementing barrier-free initiatives which, whilst incurring initial capital investment, require little ongoing maintenance20; 6) By enshrining labour rights into a Charter, which then transfers responsibility for inclusion to the private sector.4.12 COUNTRY STRATEGY(IES) AND POLICIES

How does this project support the achievement of DFID’s country or regional strategy objectives and specific DFID sector priorities? How would this project support specific national government policies and plans related to poverty reduction?

By specifically addressing issues of inequality in opportunity for wealth creation experienced by PwD, this project will promote prosperity and further the overall objectives of DFID. It will also support the achievement of several key outputs of the DFID Burma Operational plan:1) Wealth Creation/ Poverty, Hunger & Vulnerability: this project will increase the number of women

reached with access to financial services as a result of DFID support.2) Wealth Creation: this project will increase the number of women and men who have produced

more food, through DFID support.3) Governance & Security: this project will increase the number of people supported to have choice

and control over their own development, through DFID support.Globally, disability mainstreaming is well recognised as an effective part of poverty reduction strategy, and is enshrined in DFID’s approach to poverty reduction: ‘The overarching mission of DFID is to assist developing countries to achieve accelerated and irreversible reductions in poverty. Mainstreaming disability issues in development is an integral component of that mission21’. Research undertaken by DFID in 200622 clearly underscores the fact that poverty reduction goals will not be achieved without full inclusion of PwD. In addition, the inclusion of PwD in all activities funded by international aid is required by Article 32 of the UN CRPD, of which the UK and Myanmar (Burma) are both ratified signatories. The poverty reduction strategy of the Myanmar Government has a clear focus on increasing the viability and sustainability of rural livelihoods, and the National Plan of Action for Persons with Disabilities (2009-2011) has specific targets for the expansion of livelihood opportunities for PwD, and specifically for women with disabilities. These project activities will fulfil 40% of the targets on the Plan for livelihood placements, and in doing so make a substantive contribution to overall poverty reduction. However, the achievements will be broader in that they will also demonstrate the necessity, viability and ‘doability’ of inclusion of PwD in the economy. The project will also underpin the Bali agreement, signed in 2011 which commits to ‘the Enhancement of the Role and Participation of Persons with Disabilities in the ASEAN Community.’4.13 LESSONS LEARNED

18 Derived from calculating total project cost divided by number of beneficiaries19 ILO (2009) The price of exclusion: the economic consequences of excluding people with disabilities from the world of

work. 20 Cost-benefit analysis of simple barrier free initiatives in Myanmar demonstrates likely cost recovery through enhanced economic activity within 5 years21 DfID (2000): Disability, poverty and development, An Issues Paper, London, DFID22 DfID (2006) Disability KAR: assessing connections to DfID’s Poverty Agenda

12

What lessons have you drawn on (from your own and others’ past experience) in designing this project? If this project is based on similar project experience, please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal.

This project draws on lessons from three main projects: Post-Nargis Recovery; UNDP and LIFT Consortia mainstreaming projects; and the REVEAL livelihoods project (2010-11). Key lessons learned relating to livelihoods are as follows: 1) The importance of capacity building and awareness training for staff of mainstream agencies to include PwD; 2) The importance of adapting Information, Education and Communication materials to enable full utilisation by PwD with limited literacy; 3) The value of a context-specific approach to livelihoods for PwD (meaning that instead of a standard ‘set’ of skills and livelihoods, the best results come from an analysis of the local context, including the motivation and skills of the PwD themselves, the local market, and the ability and willingness of the community to support the intervention); 4) The benefits of improvements to physical functioning on the ability to engage in livelihoods23; 5) The cost-benefit of infrastructure developments to facilitate barrier-free environments in terms of improved opportunities for livelihood activities24. 6) Types of livelihood interventions more likely to succeed in certain environments, and factors which can improve success rates.25 7) There is a need for mainstreamed inclusion to be planned from the beginning, and to have adequate time and resources allocated to it; 8) Indicators for the inclusion process need to be included in the M&E framework, particularly indicators which demonstrate the involvement of PwD in the planning, implementing and monitoring of programmes; 9) Community awareness and ownership are a vital part of successful inclusion work; 10) For long-term sustainability, inclusion policies and activities need to be mainstreamed into organisations’ normal work portfolio, and not considered an addition.26

4.14 ENVIRONMENT Please specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the project is likely to have on the environment. What steps have you taken to assess any potential environmental impact? Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative effects.

Overall, the project is anticipated to have a positive environmental impact, primarily due to the emphasis on sustainable, organic farming methods for home gardening. TLMI Myanmar staff have received training on organic farming techniques, and actively promote environmentally sustainable livelihoods. Construction of barrier-free market places and enterprise zones will require environmental impact assessment prior to construction, and will utilise methods and materials which minimise environmental damage.

SECTION 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION5.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Please outline the project implementation and management

arrangements for this fund. This should include: A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners.

You must also provide an organogram of the project staffing and partner management relationships.

A clear description of the added value of the each organisation within the project.

An explanation of the human resources required (number of full-time equivalents, type, skills, background, and gender).

As the UK partner, TLMEW will bring significant added value. It will be the point of contact for DFID and will ensure appropriate and timely reporting. TLMEW will take primary responsibility for overseeing project governance, administration and financial controls, and will provide support for the

23 Griffiths M and Scherrer V (2009) Including Persons with Disabilities in Early Recovery: Ten lessons from the Post-Nargis Experience. Yangon: UNDP24 Griffiths M and Smith H (2010) Evaluation of Community Transformation Project, Mawlamyine. Chiang Mai: TLMI25 REVEAL project learning review: TLMI 26 Griffiths M and UNDP (2010) Breaking Down the Barriers: Including Persons with Disabilities in Early Recovery. TLMI/UNDP Joint Learning Review Yangon, October

13

technical elements of the project cycle. This will include supporting the design of the M&E framework, coordinating reporting, and extracting and disseminating project learning. TLMEW will also ensure that relevant knowledge, resources and training are channelled to TLMI Myanmar and that lessons from the project, particularly mainstreaming disability, are shared with the wider NGO sector. TLMEW’s Global Disability Advisor (0.1 FTE/female) (Qualified Physiotherapist with MA in Disability Studies) will provide technical support on livelihoods for PwD, training on disability issues and will conduct case reviews for learning. Alongside this, she will develop implementation guidelines specifically for livelihoods and microcredit. She has a wealth of experience, currently chairing IDDC and sitting on its Livelihoods Working Group. TLMEW’s Programme Officer (0.2 FTE/female) (MSc in African Studies) will support the project cycle and provide training on DFID compliance and reporting requirements. She will also provide technical support on the M&E process, working with the Project Manager to track M&E indicators and evaluate impact. In addition, she will be responsible for disseminating learning at international level within the TLM network and with other NGOs, including BOND’s Disability and Development Group. She will also share lessons from other projects and international best practice with this project. TLMI Myanmar will implement the project within Myanmar, being responsible for day-to-day planning, implementing, monitoring and reporting of project activities. TLMI Myanmar’s added value is recognised by it being the leading agency for disability in Myanmar, the non-government counterpart to the Department of Social Welfare for all disability issues. It has implemented projects for over 100 years in Myanmar (Burma). Through a network of 25 DRCs, a hospital and numerous community projects, it facilitates rehabilitation for over 2,000 PwD each year. The project will be implemented through two different departments of TLMI Myanmar and supported by the Operation Unit at the Country Office in Yangon. Field activities will be implemented by the network of DRCs located in the project area. This will involve 15 FTE Physiotherapists (graduates in Physiotherapy, 80% female, with a wide range of post-graduate training in CBR and Disability Inclusive Development), 15 FTE livelihood co-ordinators (graduates with post-graduate training in inclusive livelihoods and Disability Inclusive Development) and 15 FTE volunteers (appointed from local communities). Capacity building for mainstreaming of commercial organisations will be undertaken by TLMI Myanmar’s Media, Advocacy, Research and Training Unit and will involve the Project Manager (1 FTE – new with at least 2 years experience in community development) and the Disability Consultant (0.1 FTE/Male - Medical and public health graduate who is consultant to the Myanmar National Working Group and UNOPS, conducts research on disability and has developed and conducted training courses on Disability Inclusive Development). A full time Administrator (FTE 1.0 with over 5 years experience in project administration) will support the project. M&E will be undertaken by the Operations Unit of the Country Office, which will include a M&E/Learning Dissemination Co-ordinator (1 FTE/Female graduate with over 2 years experience in M& E with TLM Myanmar) who will be supported by the Head of Programmes (Operations) (0.1FTE/Female with a masters in public health policy and over 5 years experience in management with UNDP). The internal auditor, finance staff and the Country Director will also support the project (see budget notes for TLMI Myanmar Country Office Costs).

5.2 NEW SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND/OR STAFFING Please outline any new systems, structures and/or staffing that would be required to implement this project. Note that these need to be considered when discussing sustainability and project timeframes.

This project will utilise existing staff structures to implement the project, thus reducing the need for new systems and increasing efficiency and leverage. The project will be implemented through existing DRCs and through the Media, Advocacy, Research and Training Unit of TLMI Myanmar. Approximately 16 new staff will be required for the project, but these will all be integrated into existing structures.

5.3 IMPLEMENTING PARTNERSInclude a list of all organisations to be involved in project implementation including offices of the applicant and any partners starting with the main partner organisation(s). Please only include those partners that will be funded from the project budget.

Main partner organisation: TLMEW Other partner: TLMI Myanmar14

5.4 OTHER ACTORS Include all other key stakeholders who will have a role in the project. Consider issues of integration with other programmes – especially those of the relevant government agencies – and how activities will be coordinated with others. How will you ensure that there will be no duplication of effort?

1) Government: the production of the Labour Charter for PwD will require involvement from Ministry of Social Welfare, Ministry of Labour and the Attorney General’s Office. Given that this is not new law, the process should be reasonably smooth. The project Disability Consultant is also a consultant to the law drafting technical group.2) INGOs/LNGOs: 30 will be involved as organisations which, following training, undertake inclusive livelihood activities. At present, no other organization in Myanmar (Burma) is undertaking any training or support for inclusion of PwD in development activities, so there will be no duplication.3) Commercial Organisations: these will receive training on including PwD in the workplace.

SECTION 6: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNING This section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget. Please note that you will be required to undertake a project evaluation towards the end of the funding period to assess the impact of the fund. Please allow sufficient budget for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and note the requirements for external and independent evaluation.

6.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? What tools and approaches are you intending to use? How will your logframe be used in M&E? What training is required for M&E?

The logframe will be the primary means of measuring project performance and will form the basis of a more detailed M&E Framework, which will include targets and intermediate outcomes. Each indicator will be measured from the baseline survey against projected milestones. At Outcome level: Surveys will identify the percentage of PwD accessing employment in the target areas, economic vulnerability scoring will be used to measure PwD economic circumstances, and household surveys will identify the percentage of households with a PwD with an income of above US$1 per day. Output 1: Inclusion surveys will be made on the extent to which INGOs/LNGOs integrate PwD into their livelihood programmes after training, and the number of PwD accessing skills development training and micro credit management. DRC consultancy and distribution records will record the number of PwD accessing physiotherapy and assistive devices. Output 2: An inclusive business survey will identify the number of employers sensitised on inclusion of PwD, along with the number of new markets, barrier-free enterprise zones and barrier-free workplaces established, and the number of PwD with access to new markets. This will be triangulated with evidence from observation and interviews of PwD. Output 3: Sample surveys will measure the number of PwD with increased knowledge on their employment rights. The Labour Charter will be assessed based on its approval by relevant ministries, production and the number of copies distributed. Project progress will be demonstrated through quarterly data collection against the logframe and milestone indicators. Lesson learning and project impact will be assessed through TLMI Myanmar’s Annual Learning Review, mid-term evaluation and an end-of-project evaluation. TLMI Myanmar’s Operations Director will oversee the M&E process, conducted by the M&E officer, supported by TLMEW’s Programmes Officer. Training on the development of the M&E framework and data collection systems, DFID compliance, financial systems and reporting will be provided by TLMEW.

6.2 Please use this section explain the budget allocated to M&E. Please state clearly in relation to evaluation costs and confirm your intention to commission an external evaluation.

The M&E budget covers ongoing monitoring in each S/R, which will be the responsibility of the M&E officer, supported by the Project Manager, the Operations Director and TLMEW’s Programmes Officer. An internal mid-term evaluation led by TLMI Myanmar’s Disability Consultant will highlight recommendations for refining the project approach (£2,000) and an end of project external evaluation will be commissioned (£4,000). TLMEW will provide annual monitoring and capacity development visits, centred on providing technical and M&E support. Project learning will be

15

incorporated into TLMI Myanmar’s Annual Learning Reviews to share learning with staff.

6.3 Please explain how the learning from this fund will be incorporated into your organisation and disseminated, and to whom this information will be targeted (e.g. project stakeholders and others outside of the project). If you have specific ideas for key learning questions to be answered through the implementation of this project, please state them here.

TLMI Mynamar annual learning reviews, with wider participation from all stakeholders, will be used to disseminate information. TLMEW will ensure that relevant knowledge, resources and learning from the project are channelled to the TLMI online network and other TLMEW partners. Learning will also be shared with the wider NGO sector through its position on the steering group of BOND’s Disability and Development Group, IDDC, the Micah Network and DFID’s Working Group on Social Inclusion. TLMI Myanmar will also share learning on disability with other INGOs, LNGOs and DPOs through training materials/workshops, with Government agencies in the National Disability Working Group, and will publish research findings in regional journals on disability and poverty reduction. At the end of the project, learning will be documented and shared at a regional CBR conference.

SECTION 7: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION7.1 Please outline the main risks to the success of the project indicating if the potential impact and

probability of the risks are high, medium or low. How will these risks be monitored and mitigated? If the risks are outside your direct control, is there anything you can do to manage their effects? If relevant, this may include an assessment of the risk of engagement to local partners; or risks related to natural or man-made shocks (e.g. drought, conflict) and longer term stresses (e.g. land degradation). The risk assessment for your programme needs to clearly differentiate the internal risks and those that are part of the external environment and over which you may have less (or little) control.

Explanation of Risk Potential impact High/Medium/Low

Probability High/Medium/Low Mitigation measures

Activities do not result in poverty reduction due to the negative impact of Myanmar’s economy

High High Need to encourage diversity to avoid impact of market depression on prices of certain goods and services

Other NGOs reluctant to include PwD in livelihood programmes

Medium Medium Awareness and training needed. New laws to be promulgated which mandate that projects need to be inclusive.

PwD lack the confidence to engage in livelihood activities

Medium Medium Promotion of models of success, intensive mentoring and support during training process.

Illiteracy of PwD limits ability to implement successful livelihoods

Medium Medium Include basic literacy and numeracy in the business training package.

Employers unwilling to implement barrier free access

Medium High Awareness raising through charter, incentivisation through laws to give tax relief for participating employers, focus on formal and non-formal employment sectors

Lack of co-ordination between Government Departments to support implementation of Labour

Low Medium Proposed law changes mandate a specific cross-departmental co-ordination group for disability issues.

16

Charter

SECTION 8A: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS AND/OR CONSORTIUM MEMBERS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner /consortium member8.1 Name of Organisation The Leprosy Mission England and Wales

8.2 Address Goldhay Way, Orton Goldhay, Peterborough, PE2 5GZ

8.3 Web Site www.leprosymission.org.uk

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

Reg. charity number 1050327 A company limited by guarantee, reg. in England and Wales no. 3140347

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): £6,073,488 Income (£ equivalent): £6,073,488 Exchange rate: N/A

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2010To: 31/12/2010

8.6 Number of existing staff 40

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff Total: 0.3 FTE(Global Disability Advisor (0.1 FTE)Programmes and Advocacy Officer (0.2 FTE)

New staff 0

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) x Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People x Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partner

17

A): TLMEW’s Global Disability Advisor (0.1 FTE/female) will provide technical support on livelihoods for PwDs, training on disability issues including occupational therapy, and will conduct case reviews for learning. Alongside this, she will develop implementation guidelines specifically for livelihoods and microcredit. The Global Disability Advisor has a wealth of experience, currently chairing the International Disability and Development Consortium (IDDC) and sitting on the Livelihoods Working Group within IDDC. TLMEW’s Programme Officer (0.2 FTE/female) (MSc in African Studies) will support the project cycle and provide training on DFID compliance and reporting requirements. She will also provide technical support on the M&E process, working with the Project Manager to track M&E indicators and evaluate impact. In addition, she will be responsible for disseminating learning at international level, within the TLM network and with other NGOs including BOND’s Disability and Development Group and Micah Challenge. She will also share lessons from other projects and international best practice with this project.

B): £37,902 (6.9%) of the total project budget is allocated to TLMEW, covering salaries for two part-time members of staff (£28,227), TLMEW office costs relating directly to the project, including dissemination of information (£3,675), TLMEW Monitoring and Capacity Development Visits (flight and visa costs £3,000), and Technical Support Visits (flight and visa costs £3,000). 8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and

responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

TLMEW was established in 1874 and has significant experience of providing financial and technical support for programmes focused on the development of communities affected by leprosy and disability. It manages a programmes budget of almost £4,000,000 per annum across 12 countries, with all projects focusing on leprosy and disability. Technical support for field programmes includes providing support for elements of the project cycle such as project development, reflective learning, monitoring and evaluation and reporting, as well as providing technical support for programme implementation on livelihoods, disability inclusion, advocacy, etc. For example, TLMEW’s programmes team are at present providing technical support to an 11million Euro food security project implemented by an NGO consortium in Bangladesh which is mainstreaming people affected by leprosy and people with disabilities into the programme and supporting their access to livelihoods (see section 8.11 for a selection of other projects). TLMEW is also actively involved internationally in advocacy on leprosy and disability issues. A member of the programmes team has worked with the UN to develop principles and guidelines for governments on the elimination of discrimination against people affected by leprosy, and is working with supreme court lawyers in India to change discriminatory legislation (DFID CALL project). Lesson sharing and supporting best practice in disability and inclusive development is a high priority for the team. Staff are represented on BOND’s Disability and Development Steering Group, the board of the International Disability and Development Consortium (IDDC) and its Livelihoods working group. They have post graduate qualifications in development management and disability and have had papers published in academic journals on leprosy, disability and the MDGs. TLMEW has worked in partnership with TLMI Myanmar for 100 years. In 2011 programme support for Myanmar was over £210,000. This included support for the 7-Up Advocacy project, Disability Resources Centres, Leprosy Medical Services, and development support and emergency aid for leprosy communities in Eastern Shan State. TLMEW was involved in TLMI Myanmar’s annual review and both partners are working closely to ensure that lessons from TLMI Myanmar’s programmes are shared within the TLM community and with other NGOs.8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund

management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

‘7-UP’ Disability Advocacy Project, Myanmar (Burma) (2009 – 2012) Tearfund £200,025The purpose of this project is to equip persons with disability, their families, communities and key stakeholders with the knowledge, resources and freedom to fulfil their rights as equal citizens.

Food Security for the Ultra Poor, Bangladesh (in consortium with ICCO) EC (2008 – 2013) 18

Total project cost of EURO 11,471,211Providing livelihood support to 40,000 female-headed households, with The Leprosy Mission providing technical support for the mainstreaming of over 8,000 households with people with disabilities.

Community-based Rehabilitation, South India (2002-2007) DFID £384,466 Working the vulnerable groups in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, this project aimed to address social exclusion and encourage the acceptance of previously stigmatised individuals within their community. This included support for livelihood development.

Vocational Training for Earning Power, India (2002-2007) DFID £535,820 TLM Trust India’s six Vocational Training Centres provide training for young people affected by leprosy and disability. This project aimed to significantly increase the percentage of students who completed courses and gained lasting employment.

Communities Catching Up, Miraj-Kolhapur, Maharashtra and Belgaum, Karnataka, India (2004-2009) DFID £299,379 ‘Communities Catching Up’ worked through community information volunteers to empower people marginalised by leprosy, disability and caste to understand and overcome the causes of poverty, and improve their quality of life. This included support for livelihood development.

Empowering the Tribal Communities of Karwar, Haliyal, Joida and Yellapur for Equality, Karnataka, India (2005-2010) DFID £285,695The tribal groups of the Lamanis, Gowlis and Siddies are discriminated against within Indian society. This project empowered tribal people to address poverty and social exclusion through a rights-based approach to development.

Choice, Dignity and Integration for Devadasi and the Socially Excluded, Belgaum, Karnataka, India (2008-2012) European Commission EUR 617,533 This project aims to empower devadasi and marginalised members of the community (including people affected by leprosy, disability and HIV) to escape exploitation and discrimination and achieve a sustainable, improved quality of life. The focus includes support for livelihood activities for marginalised groups, including people with disabilities.

Challenging Anti-Leprosy Legislation, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh, India(2010-2015) DFID £691,818This project aims to empower people affected by leprosy to claim equal rights and be included in the development process. It will ensure a strategic and coordinated approach to advocacy on leprosy-related human rights issues in India and aims to change discriminatory legislation.8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)

How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

TLMEW has a child protection policy in place. Any staff who may have contact with children and youth are CRB checked, including staff who undertake overseas travel. TLMEW’s monitoring and evaluation of this project includes ensuring the child protection policy at TLMI Myanmar is implemented and staff are aware its importance and purpose.8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the

last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

No, we are not aware of any fraudulent activity. A formal risk management process is in place to assess business risks on a regular basis and implement risk management strategies.

19

SECTION 8B: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS AND/OR CONSORTIUM MEMBERS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner /consortium member8.1 Name of Organisation The Leprosy Mission International Myanmar

8.2 Address 12/K, Pyithu Lane,7th Mile, Pyay Road,Mayangone Township,Yangon, Myanmar

8.3 Web Site http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Leprosy-Mission-Myanmar-TLM-Myanmar/128145310539335

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

N/A in Myanmar

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): $998,911Income (£ equivalent): £647,319Exchange rate: £1=$1.54

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2010To: 31/12/2010

8.6 Number of existing staff 76

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 19

New staff 16

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) x Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People x Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partner

20

A): 15 FTE physiotherapists (graduates in Physiotherapy, 80% female, with a wide range of post-graduate training in CBR and Disability Inclusive Development) will operate at the 15 DRCs. They will provide physical therapy and occupational therapy advice for 500 PwDs to enable livelihood participation (Activity 1.3). There will be one Livelihood Co-ordinator assigned full time to each of the 15 participating DRCs. The Livelihood Co-ordinators are graduates with post-graduate training in inclusive livelihoods and Disability Inclusive Development. They will contribute to Outputs 1 and 2, primarily working on activities within Output 1, providing technical support on livelihood programmes. 15 FTE Volunteers (appointed from local communities) will work to support the physiotherapists and livelihood co-ordinators at the DRCs.

The Project Manager (1 FTE) will be based at the Country Office and will co-ordinate activities with partners and donors, working on activities across all three Outputs. He/she will also be involved in tracking M&E indicators and evaluating impact, as well as providing input to training of 30 INGO/ LNGO (Activity 1.1). He/she will work alongside the Consultant on the advocacy based activities within Output 3. This will be a new appointment. An Administrator (1 FTE) will be based at the Country Office and will provide administrative support to the project. This is an existing staff member, with over 5 years experience in project administration. The role of the Head of Programmes (Operations) (0.1 FTE) is to take part in M&E and overseeing of project activities. This is an existing staff member, with over 5 years experience in management with UNDP, and Masters in Public Policy. The M&E/Learning & Dissemination Co-ordinator (0.5 FTE) will primarily be responsible for project M&E, evaluating impact and dissemination on project learning. His time will be split across the three Outputs. Lastly, TLMI Myanmar’s Consultant (0.1 FTE) will provide technical input to training, research, M&E, and inclusion training for INGOs/LNGOs, law drafting process, charter development and advocacy, working on activities across all three Outputs.

B): £515,041 (93.1%) of the total project budget is allocated to TLMI Myanmar.

8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

TLMI Myanmar is the leading agency for disability in Myanmar, and has played a leading role in the development of disability policy, disability law and conducting the National Disability Survey in Myanmar. TLMI Myanmar has conducted disability inclusion training for over 100 humanitarian organisations, and frequently provides expertise to other humanitarian agencies both within Myanmar and in the region. TLMI Myanmar’s Disability Consultant conducts training and research internationally. In terms of field expertise, TLMI Myanmar has over 100 years of experience of working with persons with disabilities in Myanmar, and conducted a highly regarded disability inclusive relief and recovery project in the aftermath of the 2008 Cyclone. TLMI Myanmar operates 25 Disability Resource Centres (DRCs) in 8 of the 14 States and Regions of Myanmar, providing access to rehabilitation, referral and other assistance to over 2,000 persons with disabilities each year. Additionally, TLMI Myanmar operates Community Based Rehabilitation projects in 100 villages in Myanmar, and is a partner in several development projects in the Delta and Dry Zone, implementing initiatives to ensure inclusion and participation of PwD. TLMI Myanmar has existing DRCs in all of the selected project areas, enabling the work of this project to be conducted alongside existing activities, providing synergy and allowing this project to retain a clear focus on livelihoods.8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund

management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

TLMI Myanmar has an annual operational budget of approximately US$1 million, which has steadily grown from 2007. Recent fund management includes funds from the LIFT (Livelihood and Food Security Trust Fund) both individually and as part of large project consortiums. TLMI Myanmar also managed a large project in the post-Nargis recovery programme, and has managed several livelihoods projects, including the REVEAL project funded by ICCO. A summary of recent fund management history is detailed below:

21

‘7-Up’ Disability Advocacy Project, Myanmar (2009-2012) Tearfund £200,025Persons with Disability, their families, communities and key stakeholders will have the knowledge, resources and freedom to fulfil their rights as equal citizens through policy development, knowledge of rights, equitable access to employment and life long learning, improved function and wide spread positive media portrayal.

Myanmar Integrated Rehabilitation and Non-Discriminatory Access (MIRANDA), Myanmar (2011-2013) General Funds £388,638MIRANDA will focus on enabling access through physical rehabilitation, developing enabling/barrier free communities and building community capacity to develop and sustain inclusive communities. Linking project working in the areas of advocacy and livelihoods, wider participation and access to livelihoods and education.

San Bya Ywa: Transformation and Renewal of Leprosy Affected Communities in Eastern Shan State (SBY), Myanmar (2011-2013) General Funds £103,293Communities affected by Leprosy will become ‘San-Bya Ywa’-model villages-where persons with leprosy, disabilities and other social disadvantages will be enabled to participate equally in the social and economic life of the community, building a sustainable, protected future for them and their children.

Eastern Shan State Earthquake Relief and Recovery, Myanmar (26/03/11 - 30/09/11) Tearfund and Partners £36,560 Following a richter scale 7.0 magnitude earthquake on 23rd March 2011 that hit Tar Lay Town and the surrounding hilly areas TLM in partnership with other organisations was able to identify problems and find solutions to immediate and long term needs including provision of assistive devices, water/ sanitation, housing, and farm land restoration.

Mawlamyine Christian Leprosy Hospital, Myanmar (2010-2012) General Funds £126,405Persons affected by leprosy in southern Myanmar can access prompt, affordable and effective physical and socio-economic rehabilitation in order to have increased self-dignity, and experience significant changes in their quality of life. Rehabilitation will be continued in the community through capacity building of persons affected by leprosy, community workers, health workers and community leaders.

Reducing Economic Vulnerability through Enabling Alternative Livelihoods (REVEAL), Myanmar (01/01/10 – 31/12/10) ICCO £45,688Through improved health and alternative livelihoods, persons with disability in project areas will have decreased economic vulnerability, through vocational skills training, credit access, and access to rehabilitation services.8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)

How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

TLMI Myanmar has a child protection policy developed in conjunction with CBM and UNICEF, and conducts mandatory child protection training for all staff (training done by UNICEF). Although this project will not directly involve children, child protection policies and training requirements will be in place for all staff and activities. 8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the

last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

No episodes of fraud. Since 2009 an internal auditor has maintained vigilance on financial activity, and financial audits are conducted annually for all projects. In addition, a new finance system was introduced in 2011 which enabled more transparent tracking of funds from source to field.

22

SECTION 9: CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION 9.1 Please check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form.

All documents must be submitted by e-mail to: gpafimpact@tripleline.com Mandatory Items Check

Y/NProposal form (sections 1-7) Y

Proposal form (section 8 - for applicant organisation and each partner or consortium member)

Y

Project Logframe Y

Project Budget (with detailed budget notes) Y

Most recent set of organisational annual accounts Y

Project organisational chart / organogram Y

Project bar or GANTT chart to show scheduling Y

9.2 Please provide comments on the documentation provided (if relevant)

23