"Gil Francis Arevalo This article explores factors affecting the overall integration and mainstreaming of the response-wide accountability to affected people (AAP) in Myanmar since the internal conflict escalated in 2021. The military seized control in 2021, resulting in the violent crackdown on protests against the de facto government, displacing nearly 1.2 million people in the process. Understanding longstanding barriers From August to November 2022, in partnership with the subnational implementing and operational partners of the Protection, Camp Coordination/Camp Management and Shelter clusters, a series of localised AAP capacity-building sessions, community consultations and toolsvalidations were conducted in the following critical areas: Lashio (Shan North), Myitkyina (Kachin), and Taunggyi (Shan). Due to access and security issues, an online contextualised training was provided to the Northeast Region, which includes local partners from Chin, Sagaing, and Magway.CSOssupporting the subnational protection coordination mechanism in the Northeast Region conducted various community consultations in geographically isolated areas and stressed the gaps in dealing with feedback and making the feedback system more responsive. Among the general feedback received is that while the humanitarian community in Myanmar may have made efforts to advance AAP in 2022, including the establishment of the national AAP working group, a collective AAP mechanism with a responsive system has not been rolled out to at-risk communities and affected populations in a systematic, predictable and inclusive manner. Despite the creation of a ‘collective’ AAP workplan and several agencies investing in small projects to improve the process, people in need still have very little influence over the design of humanitarian interventions. Even the multi-sectoral needs assessment (MSNA) conducted in 2022 under the Myanmar Humanitarian Fundwas criticised by implementing partners for not sufficiently consulting persons with disabilities, people with special needs and other vulnerable groups of affected people. The inclusion of some accountability questions in the assessment itself was characterised as an afterthought or part of a tick-box exercise to ensure there were AAP components in the assessment. Adding to this is the unnecessary pressure of adapting and translating into Burmese various global guidelines, protocols, and other technical components on AAP. Contextualising these to address both immediate lifesaving needs and those that arise as people’s circumstances change, takes time. More time is lost in bureaucratic processes: for example, each agency within the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) has its own interpretation of what constitutes collective AAP, resulting in a disjointed approach. This is particularly egregious given that local actors are mostly excluded from providing crucial input, so international agencies end up coordinating AAP in Myanmar. This also means that local actors have less access to funding. The final straw is that this fragmentation exists alongside a genuine demand for AAP that far exceeds the supply, resulting in significant gaps in coverage..."