Cyclone Komen Early Recovery Assessment, Rakhine State Thea Tet village tract | Ponnagyun township | 13-14 August 2015
In August 2015 REACH Initiative conducted a rapid early recovery assessment in northern Rakhine state in collaboration with Swanyee Development Foundation, UNDP and IOM. The assessment aims to inform prioritisation and development of early recovery programming after cyclone Komen by identifying communities’ capacity to respond and recover from the cyclone, their vulnerability to future shocks, and main entry points for interventions. The assessment took a “snapshot” of one village tract per township in Kyauktaw, Ponnagyun, Mrauk-U, and Minbya townships. Village tracts were selected to be indicative of other cyclone-hit communities in each township in order to identify key broad trends in the affected area. Each snapshot combined key informant interviews with village administrators and a statistically representative household survey. Villages: 2 | Population (HHs): 438
Community infrastructure inventory^ Paddy farming*
Proportion (%) of HHs with access to paddy Total damaged or Access to paddy seed Asset Total pre-cyclone 77% 23% Access destroyed by cyclone No access Average HH paddy assets (acres) Paddy (acres) 2500 2500 Proportion of Before cyclone 16.1 Shelters 438 119 HHs with Shops 51 16 82% Damaged by cyclone 15.3 paddy seed Ponds 7 7 available Latrines 265 120 Available for re-planting 13.8 Primary school 1 1 Proportion (%) of HHs reporting damage to paddy embankments Proportion of Middle school 0 0 HHs with seed Secondary school 1 1 46% 2% 28% 22% 3% currently re- 97% Clinic 1 1 planting Bridges 5 5 All damaged ¾ ½ ¼ None damaged
Livestock* Vegetable / winter crop gardens*
Proportion (%) of households owning different livestock types Vegetable/winter crop gardens
Chickens 85% Proportion of HHs reporting garden access prior to cyclone 10%
Cows / buffaloes 50% Proportion of HHs reporting 50% or more damage to gardens 63%
Pigs 7% Fisheries
Proportion of HHs reporting engaging in fishing prior to cyclone 14% Average HH livestock ownership pre/post cyclone Proportion of fishing HHs reporting 50% or more damage to equipment 58% Livestock type Average pre-cyclone Average post-cyclone
Chicken 28.7 9.7 Shops Cows/buffalo 8.3 7.1 Proportion of HHs reporting shop ownership prior to cyclone 24% Pigs 1.5 1.3 Proportion of shop-owners reporting 50% or greater loss of stock 17% Shelter and non-food items (NFIs)*
Proportion (%) of HHs reporting different levels of shelter damage Proportion (%) of HHs reporting different levels of NFI damage
15% 6% 25% 54% 11% 1% 21% 18% 49%
Destroyed Heavy damage Light damage No damage All damaged ¾ ½ ¼ No damage Proportion of HHs with damaged shelters currently 44% Note: NFIs were defined as separate from economically productive assets – for example cooking equipment, re-building furniture, clothing etc.
^ - Data from key informant interviews with village administrators * - Data from household interviews (survey conducted at 95% confidence level and 10% margin of error) 1 Cyclone Komen Early Recovery Assessment, Rakhine State Thea Tet village tract | Ponnagyun township | August 2015
Sanitation and hygiene* Education* Proportion (%) of HHs reporting no access to sanitation facilities Proportion (%) of HHs reporting children in education before/after before/after cyclone cyclone
Secondary 20% After cyclone 44% 21% After 25% Middle 31% cyclone Before Before cyclone 25% 23% Primary 37% cyclone Income, savings and debt* Proportion (%) of HHs reporting different income sources Main income 73% 11% 5% 6% 6% source Second 4% 13% 5% 14% 6% 13% 8% 19% 18% income source Third income 12% 2% 5% 6% 7% 2% 6% 11% 49% source
Farming Casual labour Fishing Livestock Vegetable/winter crop Small business Government employment Remittances Other None Proportion (%) of HHs with debts and savings Average reported debt levels and debt sources
Average HH debt level (MMK) 750,000 Debts 82% HHs reporting government banks as primary lender 61%
HHs reporting friends as primary lender 17% Savings 12% HHs reporting informal moneylenders as primary lender 10%
Food security* Coping strategies* Proportion (%) of HHs reporting different amounts of food Proportion (%) of HHs reporting current vs. anticipated coping supplies stored strategies
38% Take loans 44% 1% 8% 46% 35% 13% Reduce spending 30% No food stores Less than one week 1-2 weeks 3-4 weeks More than 4 weeks Buy food on credit 38% 25% 11% Average proportion of HH food needs met by Spend savings 14% Anticipated within 3 purchasing food on the market 70% months if no aid received 5% Currently using None 8% Reported needs*
Most commonly reported immediate needs Most commonly-reported medium-term (three month) needs
Primary need Second need Third need Primary need Second need Third need
1. Food (81%) 1. Water (42%) 1. Fix farmland (26%) 1. Food (69%) 1.Water (45%) 1. Healthcare (26%) 2. Fix farmland (8%) 2. Fix farmland (26%) 2. Healthcare (18%) 2. Fix farmland (8%) 2. Healthcare (15%) 2. Fix farmland (21%) 3. Other (6%) 3. Healthcare (8%) 3. Education (14%) 3. Other (7%) 3. Fix farmland (11%) 3. Education (15%)
Social and environmental context Environmental damage^ None reported Protection* 58% perceive safety has got worse since cyclone. Risk areas reported at school (17%) and home (17%) Land use issues, disputes^ None reported
^ - Data from key informant interviews with village administrators * - Data from household interviews (survey conducted at 95% confidence level and 10% margin of error) 2