Local Governance Mapping The State of Local Governance: Trends in Myanmar A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions Photo credits
Emilie Röell Myanmar Survey Research
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of UNDP. Local Governance Mapping
The STaTe of LocaL Governance: TrendS in MyanMar a Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and regions
UNDP MYANMAR
Table of contents
Acknowledgements II Acronyms III
Executive Summary 1-3
1. Introduction 4 - 7 2. Demographic overview of CRC respondents and security context 8 - 17 2.1 Key demographic indicators and profile of respondents 9 2.2 Safety and security context 15 3. People’s perspectives: key findings 18 - 70 3.1 Recent developments 19 3.1.1 Recent overall developments in the States and Regions 20 3.1.2 Recent developments: access to services 30 3.1.2.1 People’s perceptions on education 30 3.1.2.2 People’s perceptions on basic health provision 34 3.1.2.3 People’s perceptions on quality of water supply 40 3.2 Development planning and participation 43 3.2.1 Indirect citizen participation 45 3.2.2 Direct citizen participation 50 3.3 Information, transparency and accountability 57 3.3.1 Information 57 3.3.2 Te role of the W/VTAs 61 3.3.3 Grievance redressal 65 4. Concluding remarks 68 - 69
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 I acknowledgements
UNDP would like to express its sincere thanks to the Ministry of Home Afairs and the General administration Department (GAD) for their unrestricted support and cooperation during the Local Governance mapping, which required extensive information gathering and interviews not only with citizen but also with staf members fom various departments. Te mapping would not have been possible without the General Administration Department’s support.
Tis report contains a synthesis of the data and findings across all States and Regions and concludes the mapping exercise. It builds on an earlier draf prepared by Mr. Gerhard Van’ t Land (senior Public Sector Management consultant for UNDP. Te final report was written by Ms. Alexandra Walcher, (UNDP Local Governance Consultant) who undertook an extensive analysis of all the data, brought in additional perspectives and further cross tabulated the empirical data. Te report has benefitted fom substantive contributions fom Ms. Emilie Röell (UNDP Consultant) and Ms. Anki Dellnas (UNDP Local Development and Governance Specialist).
A special word of thanks also for some of the many people who have contributed with technical expertise and in depth contextual knowledge of the Myanmar situation fom the beginning of the mapping project: U Aye Lwin (UNDP Local Governance Specialist) and Khin Kyaw (Local Governance Analyst)
Te community-level mapping and data analysis was undertaken by Myanmar Survey Research (MSR).
Te Local Governance Mapping being undertaken as part of UNDP Myanmar’s Local Governance/ Local Development Programme is funded by the Government of Japan, Government of Sweden, DANIDA and UNDP.
II A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 acronyms
BADF Border Afairs Development Fund CDF Constituency Development Fund CRC Citizen Report Card CSC Community Score Card CSO Civil Society Organisation FGD Focus Group Discussion FY Fiscal Year GAD General Administration Department GoM Government of Myanmar IDP Internally Displaced Person KII Key Informant Interviews LGB Local Governance Barometer NLD National League for Democracy PRF Poverty Reduction Fund RDF Rural Development Fund TA Township Administrator TDSC Township Development Support Committee TMAC Township Municipal Afairs Committee, also TMuC TS Township USDP Union Solidarity and Development Party W/VTA Ward/Village Tract Administrator W/VTDSC Ward/Village Tract Development Support Committee WA Ward Administrator
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 III 8 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 executive Summary
Myanmar has been undergoing drastic changes in the past few years. Even though the government’s reform process has started only recently, several encouraging early gains in terms of improved governance can already be noticed. At the same time a number of challenges remain that need to be further looked into and addressed.
Te local governance mapping was carried out to better understand how local governance actors, within the context of the current reforms, have been functioning so far. Te mapping focused on development priorities and improvements, development planning and participation, and information, transparency and accountability. Te findings help assess capacity needs particularly at the township level and below, and encourage local governance actors to adjust to the new situation and to new demands of people-centred service delivery.
One important part of the mapping was the citizen report card (CRC) survey, which collected the people’s perspectives on local governance. Tis report focuses on the findings fom this survey, presenting the people’s perspectives across Myanmar. While the CRC survey is not strictly based on statistical analysis, eforts were made to follow certain criteria to make the data representative and balanced, and the sample sizes were considered sufcient to draw valid conclusions. Te methodology was tested in two States and further refined in the second and third phase of the mapping process. In total, about 5,400 people in all 14 States and Regions were asked questions relating to the core principles of local governance, and relating to their satisfaction and experience with basic services provided by government (such as basic healthcare, primary education and water supply). Te findings help inform the reform agenda.
Te safety and security situation in some of the conflict afected areas has improved over the last few years due to cease-fire agreements, however, there remain safety concerns amongst people, also in other States/Regions. As the overall security situation afects development and people’s perceptions it was important to establish if respondents felt unsafe. On average, more people in the States feel unsafe than in the Regions (86% vs. 96%). While conflict is clearly the main factor for respondents to feel unsafe, the worsening morale of people (like alcoholism, no respect for others etc.) and the lack of law enforcement have also been mentioned in a number of States/Regions. As regards another aspect of safety and security, 38% of respondents felt fee to publicly express their opinion about the government and felt no restriction to say what they want. 31% would be careful to whom they say what they think and 26% do not feel fee at all. In general, people in the Regions and in urban areas appear to be more vocal than people in the States and in rural areas.
Water supply, roads and the lack of jobs appear to be the biggest concerns for people in the country overall. When asked to name the most important problem in their village tract or ward, water supply was most mentioned by respondents. Giving the data a diferent spin however, the lack of jobs emerges as the biggest issue when looking at the two most mentioned problems, representing about 60% of the people if seen as a share of the total Myanmar population. It has to be noted though that the data also reveals that the specific problems vary hugely across diferent villages and wards. Hence, it becomes very clear that a localised approach to addressing people’s needs would greatly benefit the local development situation and citizen’s satisfaction with public service delivery.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 1 Te W/VTA is the person people see foremost responsible for solving their development problems (33%), closely followed by the State/Region/Union Government (31%). Tese results seem to confirm the view, also backed by data collected on other questions, that the W/VTA plays an important role as “extended arm” of the government and as the interface between the government and the people. On a related question, over half of the respondents (57%) think that the government is aware of the development problems in the village/ward and out of those almost two thirds (65%) believe that the government is not doing anything to address their issues.
Remarkably, considering the short time since the reforms have been initiated, people have noticed improvements in their development situation over the last three years. Te improvements have been seen first and foremost in the education and roads sector. As for the other sectors, overall respondents in none of the States or Regions saw improvements in the health sector as most noticeable; and improvements in water supply were nowhere neither mentioned most nor second most. Almost one third of the people have not seen any improvements. Similar to the findings on the most important development problems though, there are significant variations across villages/wards with regard to the improvements people have noticed. It also needs to be noted that the development and service delivery conditions were very poor in most areas to begin with and any improvement comes with high visibility.
Over 90% of respondents overall are of the opinion that the situation is the same or better as regards primary education, basic health services and quality of water supply. Given their importance and suitability as proxy indicators for overall development systems and performance, the education, health and water sectors have been looked at in more detail through a range of survey questions. Over two thirds of the people see improvements in primary education, over half in basic health services and just one third in water supply. More than two thirds of respondents are satisfied with the quality of education and just over half with the quality of public health services. It also needs to be noted though that with regard to health services 43% of respondents said they use private health facilities and with regard to water supply the majority of the people use natural or private water sources in the absence of other options. Hence, it can be assumed that there is much room for improvement in that respect.
Te newly introduced development funds like the Poverty Reduction Fund, Rural Development Fund, Constituency Development Fund and in some areas the Border Afairs Development Fund have opened new avenues for the involvement of citizens in planning their development priorities at the local level. Citizens are involved indirectly through the people’s representatives in the TDSC, TMAC and W/VTDSC. Tere are quite a few improvements that could be made, though, to ensure that people’s needs are addressed through the committees. Tere are questions around the TDSC’s, TMAC’s and W/VTDSC’s role and representativeness and only very few citizens are actually aware of these committees, indicating a great need for more information, interaction and consultation with people. Direct participation of citizens in village tract/ward meetings is also fairly low, with less than half of respondents participating overall. With respect to participation there is a clear gender and urban/rural divide, with 54% men and 39% of women and 53% of rural and 36% of the urban population participating. Te interviews furthermore revealed that only 19% of the respondents have ever been invited to a meeting in which the government wanted to talk about new projects like schools or health facilities or about the problems in the villages/wards.
2 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 On average, the large majority (60%) of people rely on verbal communication through the 10/100 household heads being passed on to them, and the large majority of people would appreciate to receive more government related information. To improve people’s access to information it is crucial to look at how important government related messages get channelled down to citizens and who are the key actors in passing on information. Some specific information sharing strategies could be developed therefore to enhance the flow of information, building on the traditional and still efective way of “mouth to mouth” communication through W/VTAs, 10/100 HH Heads and village elders, accompanied by means of mass communication. As for people’s awareness of their government representatives, the W/VTA emerges once again as the main actor, with 86% of the people being familiar with their W/VTA’s name. In terms of people being aware of public funds that are spent in their village/ward just over one third of respondents have knowledge of government spending. When asked directly whether they feel sufciently informed it becomes clear that the great majority of people (76%) thinks that not enough information has been passed on to them. Access to and the availability of information are key aspects regarding transparency and accountability and a number of CRC survey questions aimed at getting a better understanding of how well people are informed and their sources for government related information.
In the people’s view the “traditional” roles of the W/VTAs are still dominating and much fewer people have noticed the new more development-oriented functions. Since the introduction of the 2012 Village Tract and Ward Law, the W/VTAs are now elected indirectly by the people by and fom the group of 10/100 household heads. While the W/VTAs mentioned that they do feel more accountable to the people since their election, fom the people’s perspective, less than one third (29%) of respondents have noticed a diference in the way W/VTAs respond to their requests or the way they communicate with the people. In line with the W/VTA’s perceived central role in community mediation and ensuring peace and security, the W/VTA also emerges as the first person that people approach in case of disputes – for 63% of respondents for land disputes and for 68% of respondents for disputes in general. Te low level of people’s awareness about the W/ VTA’s new development functions may not be surprising considering that the changes have been introduced only recently and that the W/VTA’s traditional role to that of a people’s representative hasn’t been fully transformed yet. For W/VTAs to act as interface between the people and the government seems important though as there is no ofcial mechanism at the moment for the committees like the TDSC and TMAC to regularly consult with citizens and also the practical difculty for TDSC/TMAC members to achieve this.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 3 1. introduction Myanmar’s political and institutional landscape has undergone dramatic change in recent years. Already prior to the “ofcial” beginning of the reform process in 2011 lead by the President His Excellency U Tein Sein a new Constitution was adopted in 2008. Following the National League for Democracy’s (NLD) gaining of parliamentary seats in the by-elections of April 2012 the military-dominated ruling Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) was confonted with an opposition in the National Assembly for the first time in decades. Decentralisation and local governance were declared priority areas for reform. Te need to improve public service delivery, making it more responsive to the people’s needs and the important role of sub-national institutions in that respect has been emphasised by President U Tein Sein and reiterated since on several occasions.1 While the pace of overall reforms has clearly slowed more recently, increasing responsibilities and resources have been transferred fom the Union government to lower government levels to achieve these goals.
To support this process, in 2013 UNDP and the General Administration Department (GAD) under the Ministry of Home Afairs agreed to conduct a local governance mapping across the country. Te purpose of this mapping was to present a snapshot of the state of afairs of local governance in all 14 States and Regions in Myanmar in particular at the township level. Te objective was to provide an overview of people’s perception of the quality of governance in general and the quality of governance in service delivery (for a selected number of key basic services namely basic health, primary education and water supply) at the township and the village tract or ward level; and to identif related capacity needs of government and non-government stakeholders to improve their performance for good local governance and efective service delivery. Te mapping was carried out in a phased manner in all 14 States and Regions of Myanmar between December 2013 and January 2015.
In order to obtain a holistic perspective of governance at the local level, the mapping used a combination of the below mentioned instruments to map the quality of local governance fom a ward/village-tract, township and Region or State level perspective. Te methodology has been developed particularly for the Myanmar context and draws on various local government assessment methodologies and fameworks that have been tried and tested in diferent parts of the world:
` Te Local Governance Barometer (LGB), which has been applied in countries such as South Afica, Malawi, Zambia, Liberia and Egypt, which are characterised by a limited availability of reliable administrative and statistical data on the service delivery process and the quality of governance. Te LGB uses a set of localised governance indicators that are used by various stakeholder groups to “score” performance on governance measures at the local level. It emphasises awareness raising and constructive dialogue around governance and presents an overview of governance strength and weaknesses; and
` A combination of the Citizen Report Card (CRC) and Community Score Card (CSC) techniques as developed in India and Bangladesh that seek to provide citizen feedback on the quality of service providers, and strengthening the capacity of service users to engage in a constructive dialogue with service providers and administrators about the quality of service delivery.
1. Most notably in President U Tein Sein’s speech to the Union Legislature in June 2012, and more recently in a similar address in December 2013 and January 2014 for example and in his monthly speeches on national radio.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 5 Tese methodologies are well suited for countries that are seeking to enhance active citizen participation, as is also the case in Myanmar. In line with the emphasis on driving participation in local governance, the mapping exercise focused more on what can be called the “interactive” dimensions of governance, i.e. on those indicators that describe and analyse the interaction between stakeholders, related to accountability, transparency and participation, and less on indicators that describe and analyse the internal functioning of government (such as financial management and administrative checks and balances, for instance).
It combines a variety of tools, namely citizen report cards, fontline service provider interviews, community dialogues at the grassroots level, and extensive background studies that included secondary data collection, key informant interviews and focus group discussions at the township and State/Region levels. Such tools not only facilitated the gathering of data and information on the dynamics of local governance, but they also served to introduce new methods of engagement by government of the community at both the village tract/ ward and township level.
14 State of Local Governance Reports
14 Regions Background study and validation and States workshop at State/Region level
Government staff 56 sample Township background study CSOs & media Townships MPs/politicians
Community Dialogue 112 with 4700 participants 112 sample Service providers interviews 700 nurses, teachers, WA/VTAs, etc Communities Citizen Report Card 5400 citizens
Overall, around 8,500 citizens and 3,000 government staf participated in the research.Te individual reports for each of the 14 States and Regions give a detailed account of the mapping and its findings for each and every State/Region. A comprehensive explanation of the overall background and the methodology can be found in the report on Mapping the State of Local Governance in Myanmar: Background & Methodology. Te present report focuses on the wealth of data the CRC exercise alone has yielded and provides a synthesis of the findings fom a citizen’s perspective. It compares the data collected in all States/Regions and describes the commonalities and diferences that emerge fom the CRC findings.
As part of the CRC survey, about 5,400 people were interviewed on their experiences and satisfaction with public services and government performance. Te questionnaires focused on the core principles of local governance, and the satisfaction and experiences of people using basic services provided by government (such as primary healthcare, primary education and water supply). Te mapping, and hence also the CRC survey, were carried out in three phases and first piloted in Mon and Chin State.2 On the basis of the experience in Mon and Chin, the questionnaires and interview process have been fine-tuned. Te second phase covered the States/ Regions Kayin, Kayah, Tanintharyi, Bago and Ayeyarwaddy and the third phase Kachin, Magway,
2. In order to pilot the methodology six townships were selected in each, Mon and Chin State, which is a higher number of TSs than in other States/Regions of comparable size and population.
6 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Mandalay, Rakhine, Sagaing, Shan and Yangon. Due to the changes and improvements in the interview process and questionnaires, some of the interview questions have been adjusted or questions added in later phases of the CRC survey (these diferences are pointed out throughout the report where applicable).
Te surveyed townships and village tracts/wards were selected jointly with government and civil society through purposive sampling. Te selection criteria attempted to capture the socioeconomic diferences within each State/Region and included township size, rural/urban, diversity in economic activities and development, accessibility factors and ethnic diversity. Given the current political and security situation in Myanmar and the consequent lack of access to many areas, random selection of townships was not deemed feasible. However, wherever the security situation allowed, post-conflict and ceasefire areas were included. In some of the Phase III States/Regions, more townships were selected to also include Self-Administered Zones (Sagaing and Shan), areas with minority populations (Rakhine) and IDP populations (Rakhine, Mandalay and Kachin) but no interviews were held with refugees or people in IDP camps.
Within each township, two village tracts/wards were selected on the basis of the same selection criteria as the townships, in close consultation with the Township Administration. A maximum of four villages/ward areas were then randomly selected within each village tract/ward. Te interviewed households were also selected through a random sampling method.
While the study is not strictly based on statistical analysis, eforts were made to follow certain criteria to make the data as representative and balanced as possible. Te total sample size of the pilot study for the community survey of 576 respondents per State and Region was considered sufcient to draw valid conclusions for the whole population of those two States (Chin and Mon) with a high confidence level and a negligible margin of error. In all other States and Regions, interviewing about 100 respondents in 3 to 8 townships per State/Region raised the error margin to about 10 percent (based on average population size per township), but was adequate to get a sense of local issues, experiences and perceptions, which are necessarily also context specific. States were oversampled as compared to the Regions.
As mentioned above, this report focuses on the citizen’s perspective and the findings fom the CRC survey. Following the executive summary and the overview of the reform context and the mapping methodology in the present introductory chapter, Chapter 2 explains the sample sizes for the survey and demographic background to provide an overview of the CRC respondent’s profile. It also looks at the safety and security context at the time of the survey and how comfortable respondents felt to express their opinion. Chapter 3 presents the key findings of the CRC survey. Te first section in this chapter looks at the main development challenges that people see in their area and whether they have seen any improvements in service delivery over the last three years. Going further into the changes people perceived this section also examines issues around access to specific services, i.e. primary education, primary health services and water supply. Te chapter then explains the survey findings with regard to development planning and participation to get a better understanding of the changes since the beginning of the reform process and whether development planning has become more responsive and participatory. Te last section in this chapter provides an overview of the current state of issues relating to information, transparency and accountability and gives an idea where changes have already started to take place and where more attention needs to be directed.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 7 2. demographic overview of crc respondents and security context 8 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Tis chapter intends to provide a brief introduction to the sample sizes that were used for the CRC survey and to the respondent’s background and profile per State or Region and on average. Tis is important as some of the findings of this mapping exercise may need to be read in the light of aspects of the respondent’s background and profile, for example that the urban population tends to be more vocal than the rural population; or that some rural areas, particularly in the States, have longer been “neglected” in terms of development and hence the change experienced and noted by people in this survey may appear higher.
e emo ra n ators an ro e o res on ents
Te tables and graphs in this section give a brief overview of the respondents’ profile, illustrating the urban/rural, State/Region, educational background and ethnicity ratios of the people interviewed. As for the gender balance, half of the respondents were male/female respectively.
Table 1 below provides an overview of population, size and number of townships of Myanmar’s States and Regions.
regions / States census 2014 Land area # of TSs Table 1: Main demographic 2 # % % urban Km % overview for 1. Kachin 1,689,654 3.3% 35.94% 88,980 13.3% 18 Myanmar3 2. Kayah 286,738 0.6% 25.3% 11,760 1.8% 7 3. Kayin 1,572,657 3.1% 21.9% 30,327 4.5% 7 4. Chin 478,690 0.9% 20.9% 36,277 5.4% 9 5. Sagaing 5,320,299 10.3% 17.1% 93,873 14.0% 37 6. Tanintharyi 1,406,434 2.7% 24.0% 41,061 6.1% 10 7. Bago 4,863,455 9.5% 22.0% 38,867 5.8% 28 8. Magway 3,912,711 7.6% 15.1% 45,025 6.7% 25 9. Mandalay 6,145,588 12.0% 34.8% 30,999 4.6% 31 10. Mon 2,050,282 4.0% 27.8% 11,242 1.7% 10 11. Rakhine 3,188,963 6.2% 16.9% 35,020 5.2% 17 12. Yangon 7,355,075 14.3% 70.1% 9,917 1.5% 45 13. Shan 5,815,384 11.3% 24.0% 155,672 23.2% 55 14. Ayeyarwaddy 6,175,123 12.0% 14.1% 33,705 5.0% 26 15. Nay Pyi Taw 1,158,367 2.3% 32.5% 7,069 1.1% 5 ToTaL 51,419,420 100.0% 29.6% 669,794 100.0% 330
Table 2 on the next page provides an overview of the Citizen Report Card sample sizes per state and region.
3. See the Myanmar census 2014.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 9 Table 2: citizen regions / States crc Sample report cards (crc) sample sizes # of TSs # of wards # of tracts urban village ToTaL respondents respondents respondents 1. Kachin 4 2 6 96 288 384 2. Kayah 3 2 4 96 192 288 3. Kayin 3 3 3 144 144 288 4. Chin 6 4 8 192 384 576 5. Sagaing 4 2 6 96 288 384 6. Tanintharyi 3 2 4 96 192 288 7. Bago 3 2 4 96 192 288 8. Magway 3 2 4 96 192 288 9. Mandalay 3 2 4 96 192 288 10. Mon 6 5 7 240 336 576 11. Rakhine 4 2 6 96 288 384 12. Yangon 3 3 3 144 144 288 13. Shan 8 5 11 240 528 768 14. Ayeyarwaddy 3 2 4 96 192 288 15. Nay Pyi Taw ToTaL 56 38 74 1,824 3,552 5,376
Certain factors regarding the representativeness of the CRC sample sizes need to be kept in mind when looking at the survey findings. Table 3 below shows that the Regions or States with lower population, like Kayah or Chin particularly, are over-represented in the CRC survey. Tese are in general the more rural States or Regions. As for States/Regions with a high total population (like Mandalay or Yangon) or with a high urban population (like Kachin) the urban population is under-represented, while it is over-represented in the more ‘rural’ States/Regions. Tis means that as compared to the total Myanmar population there is a higher percentage of Chin or Kayah State respondents represented in the survey, while there is a lower percentage of Yangon or Mandalay Region respondents. For example: Kayah’s population represents 0.6 % of Myanmar’s total population but Kayah’s respondents make up 5.4% of the total number of survey respondents; Yangon’s population represents 14.3 % of Myanmar’s total population but Yangon’s respondents make up only 5.4% of the total number of survey respondents. Hence, Kayah respondent’s views are over-represented while Yangon respondent’s views are under-represented (as compared to those State’s/Region’s population share of the total Myanmar population) in the overall (average) survey results. As for the urban bias, the percentage of total urban respondents (33.9%) is slightly above the total Myanmar urban population (29.6%), apart fom the over-/under-representation of the urban population in some particular States/Regions (see Table 3). Tese factors of over-/ under-representation could in some cases skew the average findings, particularly if the survey results are “extreme” in one of these specific States/Regions where such a bias occurs, like Chin or Yangon.
10 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 regions / States % of TSs population respondents as urban population urban Table 3: representativeness sampled as % of total % of total5 as % of total respondents as of the samples4 population % of total6 1. Kachin 22.2% 3.3% 7.1% 35.9% 25.0% 2. Kayah 42.9% 0.6% 5.4% 25.3% 33.3% 3. Kayin 42.9% 3.1% 5.4% 21.9% 50.0% 4. Chin 66.7% 0.9% 10.7% 20.9% 33.3% 5. Sagaing 10.8% 10.3% 7.1% 17.1% 25.0% 6. Tanintharyi 30.0% 2.7% 5.4% 24.0% 33.3% 7. Bago 10.7% 9.5% 5.4% 22.0% 33.3% 8. Magway 12.0% 7.6% 5.4% 15.1% 33.3% 9. Mandalay 9.7% 12.0% 5.4% 34.8% 33.3% 10. Mon 60.0% 4.0% 10.7% 27.8% 41.7% 11. Rakhine 23.5% 6.2% 7.1% 16.9% 25.0% 12. Yangon 6.7% 14.3% 5.4% 70.1% 50.0% 13. Shan 14.5% 11.3% 14.3% 24.0% 31.3% 14. Ayeyarwaddy 11.5% 12.0% 5.4% 14.1% 33.3% ToTaL 17.2% 97.7% 100.0% 29.6% 33.9%
Te below graphs (Figure 2 and Figure 3) show the ratio of urban/rural respondents by State or Region and show that in total more or less the same percentage of urban and rural respondents was interviewed for each “group” States and Regions, i.e. about 34% urban in States/Regions and 66% rural in States/Regions overall. Tis ratio largely corresponds with the overall urban/rural population ratio for the whole of Myanmar, which has an urban population of 29.6% according to the 2014 census.
figure 2: Urban/rural 100% respondents 75 75 75 66 67 67 69 67 67 67 67 67 58 50 50 50 50 42 34 33 33 31 33 33 33 33 33 25 25 25
0%
Chin Mon Shan Bago Total Kachin Kayah Kayin Rakhine Magway Sagaing Yangon Mandalay Tanintharyi Ayeyarwaddy
Urban Rural
4. Tis overview table does not include the figures for Nay Pyi Taw as it was not included in the survey. 5. Te fields in red mark the over/under-representation as compared to the percentage of total population. 6. Te fields in grey mark the over/under-representation as compared to the average urban population.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 11 figure 3: Urban/ rural respondents 34.1% 34.3% (grouped)
State Region
65.9% 65.7%
Urban Rural
Comparing the data for Regions and States with regards to educational background of the respondents (see Figure 4 and Figure 5), it can be seen that with the exception of Kachin and Rakhine7, in general the largest group of respondents in the States have either no education at all or have not completed primary school (33%), while in the Regions having at least completed primary school (grade 5) was most common (38%).” Te diferences between “high school” and “university training” graduates are not striking on the other hand.
figure 4: Total 29 34 20 665 respondents’ educational Shan 38 28 16 5 4 9 background (by State/region)8 Mon 38 32 14 3 6 7 Kayin 35 27 21 781 Chin 35 25 29 542 Kayah 33 30 25 561 Sagaing 30 38 13 4 10 5 Ayeyarwaddy 31 39 19 4 5 2 Rakhine 28 31 22 874 Bago 27 38 19 8612 Tanintharyi 26 44 18 434 Kachin 23 37 25 455
Magway 22 36 18 6 7 11 Mandalay 20 37 21 581 9 Yangon 13 33 23 11 1 10 8
0% 100%
No education or not finished Primary school (finished grade 5) Middle school (finished grade 9) primary school High school (finished grade 11) Vocational training University training
Literacy Group
7. Te percentage of respondents in Rakhine with primary school education is still lower (30.73%) than the average (34%) though. 8. Literacy group = people who didn’t complete primary education but who can read.
12 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 29 34 20 665 figure 5: respondents’ States 33 30 22 564 educational background (grouped) Regions 24 38 19 6 7 6
0% 100%
No education or not finished Primary school (finished grade 5) Middle school (finished grade 9) primary school High school (finished grade 11) Vocational training University training
Literacy Group
Looking at the data regarding the age groups of respondents (see Figure 6 and Figure 7), one can notice that the people interviewed in the States were generally younger than the people in the Regions. As for the age group 18-30 years there is a noticeable diference, with 22% of State respondents belonging to that age group as compared to 17% of Region respondents. Te diferences for the other age groups are marginal.
Total 19 25 24 19 11 2 figure 6: respondents’ age Kayah 27 30 23 14 7 group Shan 26 23 22 20 10 1 Sagaing 24 21 24 17 11 4 Kachin 24 31 22 17 5 1 Tanintharyi 23 30 24 15 8 1 Chin 23 26 20 17 13 1 Rakhine 21 26 25 16 10 3 Ayeyarwaddy 17 31 22 20 73 Kayin 16 22 25 22 16 Mon 16 20 25 24 14 1 Mandalay 16 19 28 21 15 1 Bago 14 20 29 24 12 2 Magway 14 20 26 22 15 3 Yangon 14 27 20 23 12 4
0% 100%
18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Above 70
Total 19 25 24 19 11 2 figure 7: respondents’ age group (grouped) States 22 25 23 19 11 1 Regions 17 24 25 20 11 3
0% 100%
18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Above 70
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 13 Overall, the majority of people interviewed were fom the majority group ethnic Bamar (see Figure 8). Tere are, of course, big diferences across States and Regions though, as can be seen fom the below Figure 9 and Figure 10. As expected, on average the large majority of respondents in the Regions were Bamar (82%) compared to merely 16% ethnic Bamar in the States. However, Bamar is still the largest ethnic group represented across all State respondents, closely followed by the ethnic Chin (15%) as the second largest ethnic group in the States. Other ethnic groups are barely found among Region respondents.
11% figure 8: respondents’ 8% ethnicity (overall) 3% 52% 8% 1% 3% 8% 6%
Bamar Kachin Chin Mon Rakhine
Shan Kayah Kayin Other
14 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 52 7 8 3 1 8 3 8 11 figure 9: respondents’ Chin 91 8 ethnicity (by State/ 9 Kachin 4 79 8 10 region) Kayah 8 1 21 40 7 23 Kayin 27 57 15 Mon 52 34 10 3 Shan 7 4 53 1 34 Ayeyarwaddy 82 14 3 Bago 69 10 7 11 3 Magway 93 7 Mandalay 86 4 Sagaing 75 25 Tanintharyi 75 2 2 2 17 Yangon 86 644
0% 100%
Bamar Kachin Chin Mon Rakhine Shan Kayah Kayin Other
Total 52 7 8 3 1 8 3 8 11 figure 10: respondents’ ethnicity (grouped) States 16 14 15 6 2 14 7 12 14 Regions 82 252 8
0% 100%
Bamar Kachin Chin Mon Rakhine Shan Kayah Kayin Other
2.2. Safety and security context
While the safety and security situation in some of the conflict afected areas has improved over the last few years due to cease-fire agreements, there remain concerns about safety amongst people and not only in the States where there is ongoing conflict. As the overall security situation afects development and people’s perceptions it was important for the mapping to establish if respondents felt unsafe.
Not unexpected, more people in the States said that they felt unsafe than in the Regions (see Figure 11). In Kachin, where there is an ongoing conflict, 20% of the respondents felt unsafe. In Rakhine 14% and in Shan 10% reported to feel unsafe. Interestingly, when those who indicated they felt unsafe or neither safe or unsafe, were asked why they felt like that, the majority of those respondents in Shan mentioned the worsening morale of people (like alcoholism, no respect for others, etc.) as primary reason (see Figure 12). Tis is also the main reason in Ayeyarwady (for 86% of those who felt unsafe or neither safe nor unsafe), in Mandalay (for 54), and in Kayin (for 42%). In Rakhine clearly the conflict between diferent groups of people stands in the forefont (69%); and in Kachin the ongoing conflict (44%) and that people feel threatened as a member of their community (41%). In Mandalay two thirds of respondents are concerned with the lack of law enforcement, which is also a safety factor that has been mentioned by quite a number of people in the other States/Regions.
9. Tis graph does not include ethnicity data for Rakhine. Due to sensitivity issues this question was not asked in Rakhine. Regarding their religious background, the majority of Rakhine respondents was Buddhist (87%), 10% were Muslim and 3% Christian.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 15 figure 11: in general, Total States 86 59 do you feel safe in your village tract/ Mon 93 2 4 ward at the moment? Chin 92 3 4 (by State/region) Kayah 91 5 4 Kayin 88 75 Shan 86 3 10 Rakhine 83 3 14 Kachin 70 10 20
Total Regions 96 23
Magway 99 Sagaing 98 11 Tanintharyi 97 12 Yangon 96 22 Bago 95 22 Ayeyarwaddy 92 26 Mandalay 91 45
0% 100%
Safe Neither safe Unsafe or unsafe figure 12: “Why do 100% 86 you feel ‘Unsafe’ or ‘neither safe nor unsafe’? (only asked 69 69 67 to respondents who 54 indicated to feel 50% 44 unsafe or neither 41 42 36 safe nor unsafe. 31 32 data selected for 27 28 23 21 20 20 18 States and regions 16 16 15 17 17 12 13 12 where more than 5% 9 8 3 3 2 of respondents felt 0% unsafe) Kachin Kayin Shan Rakhine Ayeyarwaddy Mandalay
There is an ongoing armed eel threatened as a The morale of people has worsened con ict in the area mem er o my community (like more alcoholism no respect or others etc ) There are con icts etween ack o law en orcement Too many crimes are taking place di erent groups o people (religious ethnic language)
Another aspect of safety and security relates to feedom of expression, which is also an important factor for transparency and accountability. Whether people feel fee to publicly express their opinion about the government is a key consideration when carrying out the CRC survey and interpreting the findings. On average 38% of respondents said they feel no restriction to say what they want. 31% would be careful to whom they say what they think and 26% do not feel fee at all. It may be assumed therefore that people in some areas at least are still cautious expressing their
16 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 opinion and that some of the answers that were provided to the interviewers may be influenced by that and perhaps have a bit of a positive bias.
In general, people in the Regions tend to be a lot more vocal than in the States (See Figure 13). In general, In the Regions 44% of the respondents felt completely fee to speak and only 23% felt not at all people in the fee while in the States more people felt restricted (31%) than feeling fee to speak (30%). Also, Regions tend more people in rural areas don’t feel fee (29%) than in urban areas (18%). It was also found that to be a lot for example in Yangon and Mandalay almost half of the respondents feel no restriction in voicing more vocal their opinion (see Figure 14). than in the States. Overall, it appears that the urban population, particularly in the Regions, tends to be more vocal than the rural people and some of the findings may need to be seen in that light.
Total 38 31 26 4 figure 13: To what extent do you feel free to say in public Regions 44 29 23 3 your opinion about States 30 33 31 4 the government in 10 Urban 39 38 18 4 general? (grouped) Rural 38 26 29 4 Male 40 31 25 3 Female 36 30 28 4
0% 100%
I feel free to say what I want I would be careful as to I do not feel free at all I whom I would say what I think will keep it private I don’t want to answer this question
Total 38 31 26 4 figure 14: To what extent do you feel free to say in public Yangon 48 26 18 6 your opinion about Mandalay 47 34 18 1 the government in Sagaing 41 30 22 3 general? (by State/ 11 Magway 39 25 32 3 region) Rakhine 32 33 29 4 Shan 29 29 35 5 Kachin 28 38 29 3
0% 100%
I feel free to say what I want I would be careful as to I do not feel free at all I whom I would say what I think will keep it private I don’t want to answer this question
10. Tis information is available only for seven States/Regions, this question was included only in the third phase of the mapping in the following States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Yangon. 11. Ibid.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 17 3. People’s perspectives: e n n s
18 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 As explained earlier, this report focuses on the citizen’s perspective using the wealth of data the CRC exercise has yielded. Te survey questionnaires were developed in a way to capture local governance dynamics rather than a subjective interpretation of an issue, i.e. respondents were not asked to speak directly on governance matters but asked questions that allow for conclusions on the relevant governance issues. Te questions were guided by the core principles of good governance, i.e. efectiveness and efciency, transparency and rule of law, accountability, participation and equity.
Te survey findings described here are clustered into groups of related questions, forming the sections of this Chapter. It has to be noted though, that some of these issues are very much interrelated and could also be structured diferently. Tis is the case particularly with questions that can be linked to information, transparency and accountability issues, like questions on who is responsible for addressing development problems or whether or not people have to pay for medicines for example.
In the following section the report will be looking at the findings relating to the main development problems that people perceive in their area and the improvements they have noticed in the last three years. Tis section also seeks to take stock of the most important government initiatives taken so far and what they mean for people on the ground. Further examining people’s perceptions of the changes over the last three years with regard to access to services, the CRC survey looked more closely at the three sectors primary education, health services and drinking water supply. In section 3.2 on development planning and participation the report presents, fom the people’s point of view, the findings on how far the attempts to make development planning more participatory and people-centred have resulted in actual changes on the ground. Te last section (3.3) discusses people’s perceptions on information, transparency and accountability issues.
3.1 recent developments
In this section, the current development situation and the recent developments overall and regarding the sectors education, health and water supply in particular, are described fom the people’s perspective. Tis not only provides information on whether the reform process has resulted in changes on the ground, but also gives an indication of which areas future interventions could focus on as well as serve as baseline data that can be used to establish any progress that is achieved by such interventions over time.
In the last few years, the GoM has increased the amount of resources available for service delivery substantially. Some of these resources are channelled through the newly introduced special funds for local development (see section 3.2. below) and through grants or loans made available for specific State/Region level departments, supplemented by local tax and other revenue options. Te introduction of these funds constitutes one of the most significant policy initiatives as they allow for a more decentralised approach for governance and decision-making at the township level. But also at the Union level the funds for public services have been on the rise. Te education sector budget for example has grown fom Kyats 310 billion (USD 310 million) in FY 2010/11 to Kyats 1,142 billion (USD 1,142 million) in FY 2014/15.12 While this is still only 5.92% of the GoM’s budget and a mere 1.33% of Myanmar’s GDP13, compared to 5 years ago this is a very significant
12. As mentioned by President U Tein Sein during the 2014-15 fiscal year budget meeting of the Financial Commission on 7 January 2014. 13. UNICEF, 2013; Snapshot of Social Sector Public Budget Allocations and Spending in Myanmar. Other countries in the region spend on average approximately 3% of their GDP on education, with Tailand leading the group with more than 5%.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 19 increase. As for health care, the national health budget has grown fom Kyats 92 billion (USD 92 million) in FY 2010/11 to Kyats 652 billion (USD 652 million) in FY 2014/15. Although this is a huge increase over the last years, it amounts to only 3.38% of the GoM’s budget and 0.76% of the total GDP in FY 2014/15.14 Although these amounts are still relatively low compared to sector budgets in other countries in the region, for Myanmar they show a substantial increase, which also seems to have been noticed by the people.
3.1.1 Recent overall developments in the State and Regions
To get an idea about the current state of service delivery in the country and at the same time to understand if people have started to notice any changes in the past few years when reforms have started to be implemented, respondents were asked what the most important problem in their village tract or ward is, and whether they think responsible actors are aware of the problem and are doing something about it, and whether they think responsible actors are aware of the problem and doing something about it. Table 4 and Figure 15 provide an overview of the most important problem in people’s village tract or ward.
Table 4: What is State/region population as State/region Water roads health electricity Jobs the most important share of national population problem in your village tract/ward? 0.6% Kayah 37.2% 13.2% 14.2% 16.7% 8.3% 0.9% Chin 32.0% 6.8% 4.2% 16.7% 12.7% 9.5% Bago 26.7% 11.8% 8.7% 13.2% 24.3% 11.3% Shan 25.0% 16.8% 11.7% 18.2% 10.0% 7.6% Magway 25.0% 18.4% 14.2% 9.0% 20.1% 2.7% Tanintharyi 24.7% 11.1% 17.0% 12.2% 16.0%
12.0% Ayeyarwaddy 10.8% 29.2% 6.9% 12.2% 28.8% 4.0% Mon 7.1% 25.5% 7.6% 15.8% 11.8% 14.3% Yangon 14.9% 22.9% 10.8% 13.2% 19.8% 6.2% Rakhine 15.6% 18.2% 16.4% 8.6% 14.1%
10.3% Sagaing 21.4% 17.2% 24.2% 7.3% 16.7% 12.0% Mandalay 18.8% 19.4% 19.8% 12.8% 18.8%
3.3% Kachin 15.0% 21.0% 8.0% 24.0% 13.0%
3.1% Kayin 15.6% 7.3% 9.0% 16.3% 21.2%
Averages (% of CRC average 20.70% 17.06% 12.35% 14.01% 16.82% respondents) population weighted 18.97% 19.24% 13.22% 12.95% 18.66% average Share of national population most mentioned problem 33% 37% 23% 3% 3% 2nd most mentioned 14% 16% 9% 20% 57% problem Total (1st and 2nd most 47% 53% 32% 24% 60% mentioned problem)
14. Myanmar Times 5 November 2014.
20 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 figure 15: What is 37 13 the most important Kayah 14 17 problem in your 8 village tract/ward? 32 (by State/region) 7 Chin 4 17 13 27 12 Bago 9 13 24 25 17 Shan 12 18 10 25 18 Magway 14 9 20 25 11 Tanintharyi 17 12 16 11 29 Ayeyarwaddy 7 12 29 7 26 Mon 8 16 12 15 23 Yangon 11 13 20 16 18 Rakhine 16 9 14 21 17 Sagaing 24 7 17 19 19 Mandalay 20 13 19 15 21 Kachin 8 24 13 16 7 Kayin 9 16 21
0% 40%
Water Roads Health Electricity Jobs
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 21 figure 16: What is 25% the most important 21 problem in your 19 19 19 village tract/ward? 17 17 (Total and weighted 14 average for all 13 13 States/regions) 12 0% Water Roads Health Electricity Jobs
Average Population weighted average
Te data resulting fom the question “what is the most important problem in your village tract or ward” can be looked at in several diferent ways. While the respondents’ views vary greatly across States and Regions, and across the diferent townships (see the respective States/Regions reports for details), water is seen as the major development issue for almost 21% of the respondents overall. It emerged as the most important problem for the majority of respondents in six States and Regions, which represent about 33% of the people if seen as a share of the total Myanmar population. Bad roads were cited as most important problem by about 17% of respondents and it was the most important problem for the majority of people in four States/Regions, representing about 37% of the total Myanmar population. In two of the Regions health is perceived as the largest problem for the majority of the population, representing about 23% of the total Myanmar population. Overall, about 12% of respondents noted health as their main development issue. Electricity and the lack of jobs each stand out as most important problem in one State respectively. Electricity is a problem for 24% of respondents in Kachin, representing about 3% of the total Myanmar population. 21% of respondents in Kayin see the lack of jobs as their most important problem, representing about 3% of the total Myanmar population. Overall, 14% of respondents saw electricity as their main problem and about 17% of respondents noted the lack of jobs. Interestingly, in none of the States/ Regions education emerged as people’s most important problem, neither was it second most mentioned by respondents as their main problem. On average, only 7% of the total respondents cited education as main issue, with the highest number of respondents in Rakhine (13%), followed by Kachin (10%).
Taking into account only the first and second most mentioned development issues and combining these figures (see Figure 17) we get a slightly adjusted picture, if the results are put into context and seen as a share of the total Myanmar population. Te lack of jobs was second most mentioned by a number of respondents representing as many as 57% of the total Myanmar population, which is by far the highest percentage for the second most pressing development issue. Looking at the development issues most and second most cited together, the lack of jobs also emerges with the highest score in six States/Regions, representing about 60% of Myanmar’s total population. Tis is followed by roads, the first and second problem given in six States/Regions, representing about 53% of Myanmar’s population and by water, which is the first, and second most mentioned issue in eight States/Regions, representing about 47% of the population.
Overall, it can be Overall, it can be concluded that the three priority areas that need further attention in future concluded that development planning are: road infastructure, water supply and employment. Having said that, the three priority the data emerging fom the townships covered in this survey and in all States and Regions also areas that need clearly shows that there are huge variations across diferent localities in terms of development further attention problems, and clearly ‘one size does not fit all’ and development needs to be localised. Trough the in future development recently introduced local development funds, like the Poverty Reduction Fund, Rural Development planning Fund or Constituency Development Fund, and with the local level planning process becoming are: road more participatory and responsive, there is a great opportunity to direct these funds to local infastructure, projects that meet the needs of the people. water supply and employment.
22 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 57 figure 17: Share 60% of population (as share of total national population) 37 naming their most 33 important problem and the second most 23 mentioned problem 20 16 14 9 3 3 0% Water Roads Health Electricity Jobs
1st problem 2nd problem
Te identified development problems lead to the next question, asking people who in their opinion is the responsible institution or person to address these issues, which is an important aspect of accountability (this will be discussed in more detail further below).
Overall, the VTA or WA is the person people see foremost responsible for solving their development Overall, the problems (33%, see Figure 18). Tis is closely followed by the State/Region or Union Government, VTA or WA which were grouped into one category in the CRC questionnaire (31%). Tis trend is the highest is the person in Mandalay with 41% attaching the main responsibility to the W/VTA and only 26% to the State/ people see Region/Union government, which is the lowest compared to other States/Regions. A fairly high foremost number of respondents in Magway (39%) see the responsibility lying with State/Region/Union responsible for government, but still also 32% with the W/VTA. Very few people (13%) think that the TA should solving their solve their development issues, which is probably a sign that the TA is not very visible to and development approachable for the people, although the TA has in fact much more control over solving their problems problems than the W/VTA. Chin is an exception, where 20% of respondents see the responsibility (33%). with the TA. It should also be noted that the TA rotates while the W/VTA lives in the community and very seldom takes up jobs in other locations than where he/she lives.
Ayeyarwaddy stands out in a diferent way in the sense that 23% of the respondents expect the members of their own community to address the problems in their area, much more than people in other States/Regions. Only in Kayah this view is also relatively high among people (19%). One of the reasons could be that people there have become used to solving their own problems – in Ayeyarwaddy because there people got together for reconstruction eforts in the afermath of the cyclone Nargis and in Kayah perhaps because many areas where long isolated fom public services due to armed conflict.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 23 13 figure 18: Who is 4 t e rst erson Total 33 13 responsible for 31 solving this problem? (by State/region) 8 8 Mandalay 41 13 26 9 3 Rakhine 39 12 30 9 4 Sagaing 39 15 28 14 2 Yangon 36 12 32 9 1 Chin 34 20 28 13 3 Tanintharyi 33 16 31 15 5 Mon 30 15 27 19 7 Kayah 27 15 27 11 Magway 32 12 39 9 3 Kachin 36 8 37 11 6 Bago 30 12 36 12 6 Shan 28 10 35 17 7 Kayin 29 7 29 23 4 Ayeyarwaddy 27 13 29
0% 50%
Members of the community 10/100 Household Heads W/VTA
Township Administrator State/Region or Union Government
24 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Te diferences between States’ or Regions’ and male or female respondents are minor (see Figure 19). Interestingly though, most urban respondents tend to hold the State/Region or Union Government (36%) responsible and only 26% of them the W/VTA, while 36% of the rural respondents see the responsibility with their W/VTA and only 28% of them with the State/Region or Union Government. Tis may be an indication that in rural areas people feel their W/VTA is more accessible than the higher-level government institutions and for the potentially important role of the W/VTA as the ‘extended arm’ of the government and as the interface between the government and the people. Te important role of the W/VTA is further discussed below (Section 3.3.2).
40% figure 19: Who is 36 36 35 33 34 33 t e rst erson 31 31 32 31 responsible for 30 29 28 solving this problem? 26 (grouped)
17 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 13 12 11 12
4 4 5 5 4 5 2 0% Total Regions States Urban Rural Male Female
Members of the community 10/100 Household Heads W/VTA
Township Administrator State/Region or Union Government
When asked whether in their opinion the government is aware of the problem at all, the majority (57%) thinks that the government is indeed aware (see Figure 20).
Total 57 43 figure 20: do you think that Kayah 70 30 the township Kachin 68 32 administration or Chin 63 37 the government in general is aware of Sagaing 60 40 this problem? Magway 59 41 Yangon 58 42 Mon 57 43 Mandalay 54 46 Shan 53 47 Tanintharyi 53 47 Rakhine 52 48 Bago 51 49 Ayeyarwaddy 50 50 Kayin 46 54
0% 100% Yes No
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 25 For those who think that the government is aware of the problem the question follows what the township administration or any other government body is doing to resolve the problem. Almost two thirds of the respondents (65%) think that the government is not doing anything to address their issues (see Figure 21). Tis view is particularly prevalent in Chin, where 76% of the people say the government is doing nothing and only 9% think it is still discussing the problem. Also for people in the conflict afected states: Shan (74%); Kayin (73%); Kachin (73%) and Rakhine (72%) the visibility of government actions appears very low. Te exception is Kayah, which interestingly is right at the opposite end of the spectrum and 53% think the government is doing something to resolve their problems (the lowest score). Tis may be due to several possible reasons – either the government is responding better to people’s needs, or it is better at informing about what it is doing, or the government is doing more. Te government doing more is perhaps the most significant factor as Kayah in the last few years has had a much higher development budget per capita than any other State or Region. Also, Kayah has been neglected for a long time hence any positive change would be more obvious to the people. 10% of Kayah’s respondents explicitly mentioned that the government is allocating more money to solve the problems. Overall only 7% believe that the government is allocating more resources to solve the identified development issue. More on the positive side, at least 16% think that the government is still discussing the problem. Again, together with Tanintharyi in this case, this score is the highest for Kayah’s respondents where 28% think that the government is still discussing.
figure 21: What Total 65 16 7 2 5 4 is the township administration or any Chin 76 97242 other government Shan 74 13 7 1 2 2 body doing to resolve this problem? (by Kayin 73 13 3 2 6 3 State/region) Kachin 73 79245 Rakhine 72 75556 Bago 70 16 5 1 3 6 Mon 68 15 5 1 8 3 Mandalay 66 22 6131 Ayeyarwaddy 63 16 16 1 3 1 Yangon 61 17 43 10 4 Magway 61 17 6 3 6 7 Tanintharyi 57 28 333 6 Sagaing 54 18 14 3 6 4 Kayah 47 28 10 2 58
0% 100%
Nothing Still discussing the Allocating more money problem
Allocating more Don’t know Other government sta
26 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 In general, more people in the States than in the Regions are of the opinion that government is doing nothing (69% vs. 62%) and slightly more women (67%) than men (64%). Also people in urban areas hold a slightly more negative view than in rural areas (68% vs. 64%) (see Figure 22).
Total 65 16 7 25 4 figure 22: What is the township Regions 62 19 8 2 5 4 administration or any other government States 69 13 6 2 5 4 body doing to resolve Urban 68 15 5 2 4 6 this problem? (grouped) Rural 64 17 8 2 6 3 Male 64 18 6 2 55 Female 67 14 7 2 6 3
0% 100%
Nothing Still discussing the Allocating more money problem
Allocating more Don’t know Other government sta
Moving on fom the main development issues, despite the many challenges there are also positive trends that people noted when they were asked about improvements made by the government in their village tract or ward over the last three years.
Overall, education emerges as the sector where most improvements were noted (35% of respondents, Overall, see Figure 23). Tis was clearly seen as most important improvement by people in Mandalay (52%), education Sagaing (48%), Magway (47%) and Rakhine (46%). Te majority of respondents in six States/ emerges as Regions cited the changes in education as most important improvement in fact. Putting this the sector into context with the total Myanmar population, like was done above for the main development where most problem, these six States/Regions represent about 52% of the total population. Education as main improvements improvement was also reported second most by respondents in five States/Regions, representing were noted about 26% of Myanmar’s population. (35% of respondents). Improvements in the roads sector were seen as most important change by 33% of overall respondents. Education Roads improvements were particularly noteworthy and mentioned most in three States, Kayah as main (56%), Shan (47%) and Kachin (43.4%), representing about 16% of Myanmar’s population. Road improvement improvements were however also mentioned second most by respondents in eight States/Regions, was also representing about 63% of Myanmar’s population. 28% of all respondents noticed no major reported improvement in the last three years, which corresponds to the majority of people asked in five second States/Regions representing about 32% of Myanmar’s population (see Figure 24). most by respondents As for the other sectors, in none of the States or Regions improvements in the health sector were in five States/ seen as most noticeable. Only respondents in Sagaing (35%) noted changes in the health sector as Regions, second most important improvement. Improvements in water supply were nowhere seen neither representing as most nor second most important change. In Shan 27% of respondents noted improvements in about 26% of water, the highest score for water overall. Only very few respondents noted any improvements Myanmar’s with regard to employment generation (less than 1% overall). population.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 27 figure 23: What are 35 33 the most important Total 28 12 improvements the 14 government has made to the situation in your village tract/ 52 35 ward over the last Mandalay 9 19 three years? (by 17 State/region) 48 28 Sagaing 15 35 21 47 31 Magway 27 8 8 46 34 Rakhine 24 24 20 42 27 Tanintharyi 27 7 24 35 33 Ayeyarwaddy 29 11 7 43 43 Kachin 21 8 17 43 56 Kayah 7 14 18 29 47 Shan 13 18 27 16 17 Yangon 51 5 6 24 20 Chin 46 5 6 8 37 Mon 44 2 10 29 23 Bago 43 9 1 27 28 Kayin 33 7 18
0% 60%
Education Roads No major Health Water improvement
28 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 78 79 figure 24: The two 80% most mentioned improvements 63 seen as a share of Myanmar’s total 52 population
40% 32 32 26
16
0% Education Roads No major improvement
Most noted improvement 2nd most noted improvement Total (2 main improvements)
Comparing the data in terms of other aspects perhaps the most remarkable diference is that Many more many more rural than urban respondents (43% rural as compared to 20% urban) see improvements rural than urban in education, while more urban than rural respondents (40% urban as compared to 30% rural) respondents (43% rural as see improvements in roads (see Figure 25). Also, more urban respondents (32%) noted no compared to improvements than rural respondents (25%). Whether this is indeed because there have been less 20% urban) see changes in urban areas or because of the urban population being perhaps more vocal than the improvements rural population is not entirely clear. Looking at diferences between States and Regions, more in education, respondents in the Regions mentioned improvements in education and roads (38% and 37%) than while more in the States (31% and 28%). Also, in the Regions only 24% noted no major improvements in the urban than rural respondents last three years, while 32% in the States saw no positive change (see Figure 25). (40% urban as compared to 30% rural) see improvements in 50% 43 roads. 40 3837 35 3635 33 34 figure 25: What are 31 32 32 31 30 29 the most important 28 28 27 25 improvements the 25% 24 20 government has made 18 17 16 to the situation in 14 14 1415 15 12 12 12 1312 your village tract/ 10 10 11 8 9 ward over the 7 6 5 last three years? 0% 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 (grouped) Total Regions States Urban Rural Male Female
Water Health Education Jobs Roads
Electricity Safety and Ownership Nothing security of the Land
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 29 3.1.2 Recent developments: acces to service
Further examining changes over the last three years with regard to access to services, the CRC survey looked more closely at people’s perceptions of primary education, basic health services and water supply. Tese sectors are ofen used as an indicator for overall local government systems and performance and because of their fundamental importance to the people and therefore a core responsibility of a responsive government. Te people’s perspective on the functioning of certain aspects of these sectors provides a valuable insight and contribution to the assessment of the quality of service delivery.
Overall, for all Overall, for all three sectors, over 90% of respondents are of the opinion that the situation is the three sectors, same or better. Te biggest improvement has been seen in the education sector, by over two thirds over 90% of of the people, followed by health with just over half, while just one third of the people saw an respondents improved situation for water supply (see Figure 26). Also regarding the quality, more people are are of the explicitly satisfied with the quality of primary education (74%) than health services (52%). opinion that the situation To keep in mind also, as for education, people are entirely dependent on public service delivery. is the same or With regard to health services and water supply people have alternative options, like private better. service providers or other channels, and therefore perhaps tend to be less critical of government. figure 26: Percentage of people who 80% 80% 74 think that the 69 education/health/ water situation has improved and who 57 are sat s e t t e 52 quality of education and health
33
0% 0% Situation improved Satisfied with uality
Water Health Education
3.1.2.1 People’s perceptions on education
Overall, the primary education sector is where people have seen the biggest improvements (69%) over the last three years and noted so explicitly (see Figure 27). In some States or Regions this was noted by as many as 78% (Kayin and Yangon) and up to 80% (Tanintharyi) of the people. Te least improvement was seen in Chin and Bago, with 51% however still by over half of the respondents and by 55% in Rakhine. Tere don’t appear to be big diferences between rural/urban, male/female or State/Region respondents, apart fom that rural respondents (72%) seemed more positive than urban (63%) and slightly more State respondents (9%) noted a worsened situation than Region respondents (4%). With the exception of Rakhine, also a large majority of people in the conflict-afected States (Kachin, Kayah, Kayin and Shan) saw improvements in primary education (see Figure 28).
30 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 6% figure 27: People’s views on improvements in 23% primary education (average)
69%
Improved More or less the same Worsened
Total 69 23 62 figure 28: People’s views on improvements in Tanintharyi 80 18 11 primary education (by Kayin 78 14 7 1 State/region) Yangon 78 18 3 1 Ayeyarwaddy 76 22 2 Kayah 75 18 3 4 Kachin 74 20 5 1 Sagaing 74 23 2 1 Shan 69 26 3 2 Magway 69 24 6 1 Mon 68 19 10 3 Mandalay 63 32 5 Rakhine 55 27 17 1 Chin 51 31 15 3 Bago 51 36 9 4
0% 100%
Improved More or less the same Worsened Don’t know
Total 69 23 62 figure 29: People’s views on improvements in Regions 70 25 4 1 primary education States 67 22 9 2 (grouped) Urban 63 28 7 2 Rural 72 21 6 1 Male 69 23 7 1 Female 68 23 6 3
0% 100%
Improved More or less the same Worsened Don’t know
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 31 Te reason given in all but one State/Region for the improved situation in education was a new or improved school building. Only in Rakhine the most cited reason was an increase in the number of teachers (closely followed by better/new building though). Interestingly, the reason given in most States/Regions for the worsened situation was also poor maintenance of buildings, not enough classrooms or toilets. Only in four States/Regions other reasons were mentioned more (i.e. less teachers and worse teaching system). Tis perhaps points to very diverse conditions across village tracts/wards and townships and the need for localised solutions to these problems that help to address the issues in the particular areas.
Also regarding the quality of primary education there are no big diferences between urban/ rural, male/female respondents (see Figure 30). Looking at the States or Regions, the Regions’ respondents on average seem to be more satisfied with the quality of education in their respective areas. Of all States or Regions, with 82% Magway and Kayin receive the highest score, while only 56% of Rakhine’s respondents are satisfied with the quality of primary education, which is by far the lowest score (see Figure 31). In Rakhine 26% of respondents expressed they were not satisfied with the quality of education. figure 30: Total 74 17 9 Perceptions on the quality of primary Regions 77 16 7 education (grouped) States 70 18 12 Ur an 71 18 11 Rural 75 17 8 Male 72 18 10 emale 75 16 9
0% 100%
Satisfied Not good not ad Not satisfied figure 31: Total 74 17 9 Perceptions on the quality of primary Magway 82 15 3 education (by State/ Kayin 81 13 6 region) Sagaing 81 12 7 Yangon 81 13 6 Ayeyarwaddy 78 16 6 Tanintharyi 78 16 6 Mon 74 15 11 Chin 73 15 12 Mandalay 72 17 11 Shan 70 20 10 Kayah 70 23 7 Bago 69 23 8 Kachin 66 21 13 Rakhine 56 19 25
0% 100% Satisfied Not good not ad Not satisfied
32 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 A positive picture emerges when looking at people’s perceptions on whether they believe that 94% of their children receive the same treatment as all other children in the class (see Figure 32). On respondents average 94% of respondents think their children are treated equally at school and only 4% think think their this is not always the case. Te large majority of people in all States/Regions share that view, children are only in Rakhine (88%) and Kayin (89%) less than 90% believe their children are not equally treated equally treated. Almost all school children in Magway (99%) appear to be receiving the same treatment. at school and Interesting is perhaps also that 98% of respondents in ethnically very diverse Shan State think that only 4% think their children are always treated equally. this is not always the Tere are no significant diferences between the views of male and female and respondents in case. States and Regions overall, and only a slight diference between urban (90%) and rural people (96%).
Total 94 411 figure 32: regarding the education for Magway 99 1 your child, do your children receive the 98 11 Shan same treatment as all Kayah 97 3 other children in his/ Sagaing 96 22 her class? (by State/ region) Kachin 96 4 Mon 95 23 Tanintharyi 95 311 Yangon 95 5 Chin 93 25 Ayeyarwaddy 92 8 Bago 92 44 Mandalay 90 82 Kayin 89 542 Rakhine 88 714
0% 100%
Yes, always No, not always No, never Don’t know
Total 94 4 11 figure 33: regarding the education for Regions 94 4 11 your child, do your children receive the States 94 3 1 2 same treatment as all Urban 90 6 3 1 other children in his/ Rural 96 3 1 her class? (grouped) Male 94 4 11 Female 94 411
0% 100%
Yes, always No, not always No, never Don’t know
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 33 3.1.2.2 People’s perceptions on baic health proviion
Unlike for education where people are (almost) entirely dependent on the government provision of education, with regard to basic health care people in many areas have the option of choosing between a public and a private health care facility. Overall, 49% of respondents use public health facilities while 43% use private health care (see Figure 34), either one ofen for reasons of proximity, depending on which one is closer to their homes. Almost 9% of respondents use other alternatives like traditional doctors, quacks, auxiliary midwives or simply no health facilities. Tis figure appears particularly high in Chin (see Figure 35), where out of the 34% that use alternative ‘services’ about 11% use quacks and a fairly large number of respondents (15%) use no health facilities at all. Te most cited reason by Chin respondents (62%) for using any (or no) health facility is that there is no other option nearby, followed by habit (33%) and the availability of well qualified/experienced staf. figure 34: Use of Total 49 43 8 public or private health care facilities Regions 44 50 6 (grouped) States 53 36 11 Urban 17 79 4 Rural 66 23 11 Male 49 43 8 Female 49 43 8
0% 100%
Public Health Facility Private Health Facility Other/nowhere figure 35: Use of Total 49 43 9 public or private health care facilities Kachin 68 25 7 (by States/regions) Kayah 66 31 3 Rakhine 59 33 8 Magway 57 33 10 Chin 56 10 34 Shan 53 34 13 Sagaing 47 45 9 Tanintharyi 45 52 2 Yangon 43 53 3 Mandalay 42 45 13 Kayin 39 59 1 Ayeyarwaddy 38 61 1 Bago 37 58 5 Mon 32 56 12
0% 100%
Public Health Facility Private Health Facility Other/nowhere
34 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 People in the States seem to rely more on public health facilities (53%) than in the Regions (44%) Te majority and tend to use ‘other’ or no facilities more ofen than in the Regions (11% vs. 6%) (see Figure 34). of urban Further, the data shows clearly that the majority of urban people first and foremost use private people first health facilities (79%), while the majority of the rural population (66%) uses public health care. and foremost Tere don’t appear to be any gender diferences. use private health Overall, over half of the respondents that use public health facilities feel that health services have facilities improved in the last three years and over 90% think that the situation is the same or better (see (79%), while Figure 36). Te main reason for the improvements cited by people in most States/Regions are the majority new or improved health facilities. Interestingly, health services scored the highest in three of the of the rural conflict afected States Kachin, Kayah, Kayin (67% and 66%) (see Figure 37). Te least improvement population was seen in Chin and in Shan but with 49% still almost half of the people thought health services (66%) uses have become better. Rakhine stands out in terms of worsened situation – 13% of respondents in public health Rakhine expressed that basic health services have worsened, to a large extent due to a negative care. change in the attitude of health staf. Te degrading or closing down of health facilities was the most cited reason for people in Chin, where 10% see a worsened situation. Overall, in at least half of the States/Regions (e.g. Rakhine, Mon, Kachin, Shan, Magway, Sagaing, Bago) the majority of people attributed the worsening of health services to a negative change in the attitude of health staf. In at least three States/Regions (e.g. Chin, Ayeyarwaddy, Kayah) the degrading or closing down of health facilities was the reason given for the worsening of the situation.
5% figure 36: People’s views on Improved improvements in 36% health services (average) More or less the same
Worsened 57%
Total 57 36 52 figure 37: People’s views on Kachin 67 27 6 improvements in health services (by Kayah 67 25 53 State/region) Kayin 66 28 4 2 Sagaing 65 30 3 2 Magway 63 32 2 3 Mandalay 55 42 3 Bago 55 38 1 6 Yangon 55 37 5 3 Mon 53 35 5 7 Tainintharyi 52 43 2 3 Ayeyarwaddy 51 44 4 1 Rakhine 51 35 13 1 Chin 49 36 10 5 Shan 49 47 3 1
0% 100%
Improved More or less the same Worsened Don’t know
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 35 On average there are no big diferences between States and Regions, although 6% of State respondents mention that the situation has worsened as compared to only 3% of Regions’ respondents (see Figure 38). More urban than rural respondents see improvements (61% vs. 56%), while for more rural respondents the situation appears more or less the same. Female respondents are only marginally more positive (by 1%) than male respondents.
figure 38: Total 57 36 52 People’s views on improvements in Regions 57 38 3 2 health services States 58 34 7 1 (grouped) Urban 61 32 5 2 Rural 56 37 5 2 Male 57 36 5 2 Female 58 36 4 2
0% 100%
Improved More or less the same Worsened Don’t know
Regarding the quality of basic health services, over half of the respondents (52%) are satisfied while 19% were not satisfied overall (see Figure 39). Female respondents seem to be a bit more positive about the quality than male (55% as opposed to 50%) and urban more positive than rural respondents (56% vs. 52%). Of all States or Regions, Sagaing stands out with 67% of the respondents satisfied with the quality of health services and only 13% are explicitly not satisfied. Te opposite picture appears in Ayeyarwaddy which has the lowest number of satisfied respondents (39%) and 28% are explicitly not satisfied, closely followed by Rakhine where only 44% are satisfied and 30% not satisfied. In Chin the highest number of respondents expressed their dissatisfaction with the quality of health services (33%), however still half of the respondents stated to be satisfied. Tis points to the very diverse conditions in the diferent townships and village tracts/wards and hence the need for localised solutions.
figure 39: Total 52 28 19 1 Perceptions on the quality of primary Regions 53 29 18 health services (grouped) States 52 26 21 1 Urban 56 26 17 1 Rural 52 27 20 1 Male 50 28 21 1 Female 55 26 17 2
0% 100%
Satisfied Not good not Bad Not satisfied Don’t know
36 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 52 28 19 1 figure 40: Perceptions on the quality of primary Mandalay 61 18 20 1 health services (by Sagaing 60 20 13 7 State/region) Magway 60 30 10 Mon 57 23 17 3 Kayah 56 33 10 1 Kayin 55 27 17 1 Yangon 53 31 15 1 Shan 53 27 19 1 Chin 50 16 33 1 Kachin 48 33 18 1 Bago 48 31 21 Tainintharyi 45 32 21 2 Rakhine 44 25 30 1 Ayeyarwaddy 39 33 28
0% 100%
Improved More or less the same Worsened Don’t know
As an aspect of access to basic health services as well as accountability, people were asked whether or not they had to pay for the medicines at the public health care facilities.
Overall, a clear majority (59%) of respondents claimed they always had to pay for medicines, while Overall, a clear 24% did so sometimes and 17% never. Te diferences across States and Regions are significant majority (59%) with over 70% of the people in Mon (74%), Mandalay (73%) and Chin (70%) always paying for of respondents claimed they drugs and less than 50% in Sagaing (47%), Tanintharyi (46%) and the lowest score in Bago (40%); always had to however the highest percentage of respondents in Bago (36%) sometimes pay for medicines (see pay for Figure 41). On average, 83% of the people pay always or at least sometimes. In Mandalay even 95% medicines, and in Yangon 93%. On the positive side, 29% of respondents in Tanintharyi and 27% in Rakhine while 24% did never pay for medicines. so sometimes and 17% never. whether this is In general, more people in the States than in the Regions (63% vs. 55%) reported that they always a question of pay for medicines at their public health facility, and slightly more so in rural than urban areas mismanage- (59% vs. 55%) (see Figure 42). 26% in urban areas said they never pay for essential drugs however, ment or as opposed to just 16% in rural areas. misunderstand- ing, if not be- ing addressed this could contribute to an erosion of the new- ly emerging trust between citizens and government institutions.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 37 figure 41: do you Total 59 24 17 always, sometimes or never have to pay Mon 74 14 12 for the medicines that Mandalay 73 23 5 the nurse or doctor Chin 70 12 17 gives to you or a household member, Ayeyarwaddy 65 26 9 at the public health Shan 64 26 9 facility? (by State/ Kayah 62 26 13 region) Yangon 59 34 7 Rakhine 59 15 27 Kachin 57 24 20 Kayin 56 24 20 Magway 55 21 23 Sagaing 47 35 17 Tanintharyi 46 25 29 Bago 40 36 24
0% 100% Always Sometimes Never
figure 42: do you Total 59 24 17 always, sometimes or never have to pay Regions 55 28 16 for the medicines that States 63 20 17 the nurse or doctor Urban 55 19 26 gives to you or a Rural 59 25 16 household member, Male 60 24 16 at the public health 58 24 18 facility? (grouped) Female
0% 100%
Always Sometimes Never
Since 2013 essential (and generic) drugs are supposed to be available fee of charge at public health facilities, if in stock. Only if out of stock patients have to pay and for other than essential medicines. Te CRC survey questions did not provide for a distinction between medicines that have to be paid for and those fee of charge. Many of the respondents who mentioned that they always had to pay for medicines claimed that they were not given an explanation fom the medical staf why they were charged. Whether these incidents are an indication for mismanagement at health facilities or simply point to poor articulation and misunderstandings between health workers and service users could not be clearly established through the survey and would need to be further investigated. What is clear though, they results demonstrate that people are not aware of the rules pertaining to payment for medicines and when they have to pay. And whether this is a question of mismanagement or misunderstanding, if not being addressed this could contribute to an erosion of the newly emerging trust between citizens and government institutions.
38 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Regarding people’s perceptions on equal treatment at the local public health facility overall 94% believe they or their families receive the same treatment as everyone else in the village and only 4% say that is not always the case (see Figure 43). 1% of respondents think they are never treated equally. Tere are no significant diferences between State/Region, urban/rural and male/female respondents. Te diferences across States and Regions are marginal, only Chin stands out with merely 73% of respondents receiving the same treatment in their opinion. 9% of Chin respondents say they don’t always receive the same treatment and 16% don’t know.
Total 94 411 figure 43: regarding health services, do Magway 98 11 you or your family members receive the Yangon 97 3 same treatment as Kayah 97 21 everyone else in this Mandalay 96 31 village? (by State/ Sagaing 96 31 region) Tainintharyi 96 3 1 Ayeyarwaddy 96 4 Shan 96 31 Kayin 96 31 Bago 95 41 Kachin 94 51 Rakhine 93 52 Mon 92 621 Chin 73 9 2 16
0% 100%
Yes, always No, not always No Never Don't know
Total 94 4 11 figure 44: regarding health services, do Regions 96 31 you or your family members receive the States 92 431 same treatment as Urban 94 4 2 everyone else in this Rural 94 411 village? (grouped) Male 93 5 11 Female 95 3 11
0% 100%
Yes, always No, not always No Never Don't know
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 39 3.1.2.3 People’s perceptions on quality of water supply
For water supply it is important to take a closer look at the main water sources that people are using for drinking water. Te majority, one third of the people, rely on a shallow well as their main water source, and more so in rural areas (36%) than in urban areas (26%) where the majority of people use water fom a deep tube well (28%). 31% of the people in rural, and 8% even in urban areas, get their water supply fom a natural source, like a river, lake or pond. On average only 9% of the people use a public water connection (inside or outside their housing compound) as their main water source. 13% have access to water through a private connection, 22% of such in urban and 7% in rural areas (see Figure 45).
39 figure 45: Main water 40% sources (grouped) 36 35% 33 31 30 30% 28 27 26 26 25% 23 22 20 19 20% 15 14 15% 13 12 10 10% 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 4 3 3 3 5% 2 1 1 0% Total Regions States Urban Rural
A shallow well Natural water source like Deep tube well river, lake or pond
Private water supply Public water supply Public water supply connection connection (inside compound) connection (inside compound) outside compound (like tap or pump)
Buy bottled water
Looking at the distance people have to travel to get to their water source, overall the majority (57%) of respondents spend 0-5 minutes to get to their water source, 30% spend 5-15 minutes, 9% 15-30 minutes, 3% 30-60 minutes and only 1% spend more than 60 minutes. Tere are, of course, big variations across diferent localities and also States and Regions as can be seen fom the below figure. As expected fom its difcult terrain, people in Chin are taking the longest time to get to their main water source. People in Magway and Kayin seem to be spending much less time to get water (see Figure 46). Overall, the diferences between States and Regions are not so striking, with the large majority of respondents of States and Regions spending up to 15 minutes to get to their main water source. Between urban and rural areas there are clear diferences though – it takes up to 5 minutes for 77% of urban respondents to get to their water source, and up to 15 minutes for 93% of them. In rural areas it’s up to 15 minutes for 85% of respondents, out of which only 47% spend less than 5 minutes to get to their water source (see Figure 47).
40 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 57 30 931 figure 46: how long does it take to get to the main source Mon 72 17 6 3 2 of drinking water for Kachin 69 25 51 your household? (by Kayah 63 15 10 7 4 State/region) Kayin 61 36 3 Shan 59 31 37 1 Rakhine 47 40 11 2 Chin 40 26 20 8 5
Yangon 70 20 91 Tainintharyi 64 27 64 Ayeyarwaddy 58 27 4 37 Bago 58 26 13 2 Mandalay 51 29 15 41 Sagaing 50 38 921 Magway 36 60 31
0% 100%
0-5 minutes 5-15 minutes 15-30 minutes
15-30 minutes More than 60 minutes
figure 47: how long Total 57 30 931 does it take to get to the main source Regions 55 32 9 2 1 of drinking water States 59 27 9 3 2 for your household? (grouped) Urban 77 16 5 11 Rural 49 36 11 3 1
0% 100%
0-5 minutes 5-15 minutes 15-30 minutes
15-30 minutes More than 60 minutes
Looking at the data regarding people’s perceptions on questions surrounding water supply the main message is that there is quite a bit of room for improvement. Te positive side is that overall 91% of respondents are of the view that water supply is the same or has improved over the last three years (see Figure 48). For 9% the situation worsened however. Te installation of new or more water pumps is the main reason for improvements given by people in most States/Regions. In a few States/Regions the water source is now closer than three years ago. In about half of the States/Regions the water source is now further away, while in most other States/Regions the source has become polluted and the situation worsened therefore. Respondents in Kachin (43%),
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 41 Mandalay (42%) and Magway (41%) see the biggest improvements in water supply. Te negative outliers are Chin and Tanintharyi where for 22% in Chin and 21% in Tanintharyi the situation has worsened, in both cases the majority of people found their water source now further away (see Figure 49).
On average there are neither big diferences between States and Regions nor between male and female respondents. However, more rural than urban respondents see improvements (35% vs. 28%), while there is no diference in terms of worsened water supply (see Figure 50).
9% figure 48: People’s views 33% on improvements in water supply Average (average)
58%
Improved More or less the same Worsened
figure 49: Total 33 58 9 People’s views on improvements in Kachin 43 52 5 water supply (by State/region) Shan 35 61 5 Kayah 33 57 10
Kayin 31 63 7
Rakhine 30 59 11
Chin 29 49 22
Mon 27 66 6
Mandalay 42 51 7
Magway 41 56 3
Sagaing 39 57 3
Yangon 31 64 5
Bago 29 54 17
Ayeyarwaddy 26 66 8
Tainintharyi 26 53 21
0% 100%
Improved More or less the same Worsened
42 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 figure 50: Total 33 58 9 People’s views on improvements Regions 33 57 91 in water supply States 32 58 9 1 (grouped) Urban 28 63 9 Rural 35 55 9 1 Male 33 57 10 Female 33 58 9
0% 100%
Improved More or less the same Worsened Don’t know
Considering that the majority of respondents mentioned water as their main problem, and looking at people’s perceptions on the water supply situation and their available water sources it becomes apparent that there still is a great need for improvements in this sector. Also with regard to water supply, the newly introduced local development funds ofer the opportunity to direct resources to those priority areas that people have identified in their specific localities.
3.2 development planning and participation
Te newly introduced funds for spending on local infastructure development, particularly the Although still Poverty Reduction Fund (PRF), the GAD’s Rural Development Fund (RDF), the Constituency of modest Development Fund (CDF) and in some (only conflict afected) areas the Border Afairs Development financial Fund (BADF), have opened new avenues for the involvement of citizens in development planning volume, the and the prioritisation of projects at the local level. Although still of modest financial volume, introduction the introduction of these funds is one of the most significant policy initiatives of the current of local government and constitutes perhaps the most significant change in terms of governance and development decision-making at the township level. Sub-national/local discretion over financial resources is a funds is one critical aspect of (fiscal) decentralisation. Tese special funds allow State or Region governments, of the most elected Hluttaw members and townships to participate in the selection of development projects. significant While the final discretion formally still lies with higher government authorities, the township policy level plays a key role in the management of these funds and in many cases their proposed project initiatives of selection is respected by the final decision-makers. Te involvement of citizens and communities the current in the project identification and selection is currently in a nascent stage still and happens primarily government indirectly through the people’s representatives in the development support committees (see and below). Strengthening the mechanisms for citizen participation and raising people’s awareness in constitutes that respect is a key concern therefore. Te CRC findings reveal that these areas deserve to be given perhaps some further attention, given the potential of these funds to build trust between the people and the most government as communities increasingly recognise the government as service provider addressing significant their needs, a key aspect of improved local governance. change in terms of In financial terms, these special development funds are at present of negligible size compared governance to overall government expenditure. Teir funding pool has seen a substantial increase though. and decision- Under the PRF for example each State/Region was allocated Kyats 1 billion in FY 2013/14, with the making at exception of Chin, which received Kyats 3 billion due to its high poverty rate. In FY 2014/15 the PRF the township saw a huge increase fom a total of Kyats 16 billion to Kyats 50 billion, with State/Region funding level.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 43 allocations seeking to take into account poverty, remoteness and post-conflict reconstruction needs.15 Regarding the RDF it is not possible to establish the amounts with sufcient certainty, as there are no documents publicly available on how the funds are allocated. It appears that each GAD ofce at township level may have received Kyats 20 million for the PRF in FY 2013/14 but ofcials in some townships claimed they did not receive such funds. Moreover, according to some townships the RDF includes or is supplemented by own source revenue components. Hence the RDF amounts vary across townships. Te CDF allocations have remained at Kyats 100 million per township for the last two years. Since the development funds have not been allocated based on population criteria the available amount per capita varies greatly across States/Regions, as is being illustrated with the examples below (see Figure 51).
figure 51: Per capita Chin 10445 Chin 11456 allocations for the Prf and the cdf per Kachin 8878 Kachin 11121 State/region in Kyats Rakhine 4704 Kayah 5368 (fy 2014/15) Kayah 3488 Rakhine 5116
Thanintharyi 711 Shan 1871
Shan 688 Kayin 1663
Kayin 636 Thanintharyi 1299
Mon 488 Yangon 847
Magway 256 Sagaing 805
Bago 206 Mon 762
Sagaing 188 Magway 720
Mandalay 163 Bago 700
Ayeyarwaddy 162 Mandalay 578
Yangon 136 Ayeyarwaddy 501
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
PRF per capita CDF per capita
Te participation of citizens can take two main forms – indirectly through the recently established committees like the Township Development Support Committees (TDSC), Township Municipal Afairs Committees (TMAC) and Village Tract or Ward Development Support Committees (W/ VTDSC) or the W/VTA that being indirectly elected actually represent the people through his/her formal role in the planning process for certain development funds; and directly through people’s participation in various meetings at village tract or ward level where development priorities in their respective areas are discussed.
A detailed description of these committees, the above mentioned decentralised development funds and the related planning process can be found in the report Mapping the State of Local Governance in Myanmar: Background & Methodology.
15. In FY 2014/15 Kyats 1 billion was allocated to each S/R except for 5 billion to Chin, 15 billion to Kachin, 15 billion to Rakhine and 4 billion to Shan State.
44 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 3.2.1 Indirect citizen participation
As part of the attempt to make development more people-centred the Township Development Support Committees (TDSC) and Village Tract or Ward Development Support Committees (W/ VTDSC) were established in 2013 and a bit later the Township Municipal Afairs Committees (TMAC). Apart fom playing a consultative and advisory role they are assisting the TA and township level departments, including in diferent ways in development planning.
Te committees appear to be set up and functioning everywhere. In most places they have started to play a role in the township development planning process to varying degrees, particularly also with regard to the decentralised development funds. However, the committees’ composition and election procedures vary across diferent townships and States/Regions. In many townships the public representatives on the committees were elected fom among selected interest groups, ofen the business sector, and therefore their ability to represent the interests of people fom all segments of society has been questioned. Also, only in a few places the committees, either themselves or through the 10/100 household heads or W/VTAs have actually held direct consultations with citizens. In quite a number of places logistical challenges have been cited that hamper direct consultations in practice, particularly in rural areas. For citizen’s interests to be represented it is however important that they are involved in the process in one way or another to be able to voice their concerns. Te issue of representation is also an important aspect of accountability and improving the accountability relationships between the people and government.
To enhance the committees’ legitimacy and their role as citizen’s representative’s in the township On average development planning process it is important for people to be aware of these committees. Currently a mere 4% of this awareness is extremely low. On average a mere 4% of respondents have heard of either TDSC respondents or TMAC, with the urban population (8%) being clearly better informed than the rural population have heard of (2%) (see Figure 52). Te highest overall awareness level is seen in Mon (8%), while in Bago only either TDSC 1% knew about those committees (see Figure 53). Looking at the level of awareness among urban or TMAC, respondents the picture is a lot more positive than the overall figures (see Figure 54 and Figure with the urban 55). Tis can probably be explained by the fact that many of the TDSC and TMAC members have population been elected fom ward based (more urban) interest groups. It was claimed that this would make (8%) being regular meetings at township level easier and members would not have to travel so far, as there clearly better are no mechanisms to compensate for travel expenses. Sagaing is the positive outlier with 18% informed of urban respondents being aware of the committees, followed by Chin and Mandalay with 14%. than the rural Te urban population of Yangon, Bago and Ayeyarwaddy is with 2% the least informed about the population existence of the TDSC/TMACs (see Figure 53). (2%).
8% 2% 4% figure 52: citizen’s awareness of TdSc/ TMac (urban/rural) Yes Urban Rural Total No
92% 98% 96%
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 45 figure 53: citizen’s Total 4 96 awareness of TdSc/ TMac (by State/ Mon 8 92 region) Sagaing 7 93 Mandalay 7 93 Chin 6 94 Magway 5 95 Kayah 3 97 Kayin 3 97 Shan 3 97 Tainintharyi 3 97 Ayeyarwaddy 2 98 Kachin 2 98 Rakhine 2 98 Yangon 2 98 Bago 1 99
0% 100% Overall Yes Overall No
figure 54: citizen’s Total urban 8 92 awareness of TdSc/ TMac – urban Sagaing 18 82 respondents (by Chin 14 86 State/region) Mandalay 14 86 Mon 10 90 Magway 9 91 Shan 8 92 Kayah 7 93 Rakhine 6 94 Kayin 5 95 Kachin 5 95 Tainintharyi 4 96 Yangon 2 98 Ayeyarwaddy 2 98 Bago 2 98
0% 100%
Urban Yes Urban No
46 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total rural 2 98 figure 55: citizen’s awareness of Mon 7 93 TdSc/TMac – rural respondents (by 3 97 Sagaing State/region) Ayeyarwaddy 3 97 Chin 3 97 Mandalay 3 97 Magway 2 98 Tainintharyi 2 98 Yangon 2 98 Bago 1 99 Kachin 1 99 Kayah 1 99 Kayin 1 99 Shan 1 99 Rakhine 100
0% 100%
Rural Yes Rural No
Like the TDSCs, as per the Presidential Notification the States and Regions were also obliged to establish the W/VTDSC in 2013. Except for one member who is a government representative, all other W/VTDSC members are supposed to be elected by the people in the wards/village tracts and one fom among the 10/100 household heads. While the W/VTDSC’s set up is conceived in a more democratic way, many questions remain for example regarding their relationship with other committees and membership. In many areas their role has been rather marginal in the short time they have been around but given their proximity to the people they could potentially play a much more important part, for example in their mandate to support the W/VTA, particularly if the W/ VTA’s role becomes stronger.
On the positive side, while hardly any of the respondents have heard of the TDSCs or TMACs, comparatively many more people are aware of the Village Tract or Ward Development Support Committees (W/VTDSC) in their area, on average 27% (see Figure 56). However, considering that almost all their members are supposed to be elected directly by the people this figure seems quite low still. Tis may be an indication that such elections have not been consistently held everywhere or that people have not been well informed about them. Te highest level of awareness was found among respondents in Magway, where more than one third (37%) know about their W/VTDSC. In Kachin (32%), Sagaing (30%) and Mandalay (30%) at least more than average knew about the W/VTDSC. Merely 15% of Shan’s respondents are aware of W/VTDSC. Generally, more people in the Regions (30%) and more in the rural areas (29%) than in the States (23%) and the urban areas (25%) knew about it. Te level of awareness among men is also significantly higher than among women (32% vs. 23%) (see Figure 57).
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 47 figure 56: do you Total 27 73 know about the W/ vTdSc in your area?16 Magway 37 63 (by State/region) Kachin 32 68 Sagaing 30 70 Mandalay 30 70 Yangon 24 76 Rakhine 21 79 Shan 15 85
0% 100%
Yes No
figure 57: do you Total 27 73 know about the W/ vTdSc in your area?17 Regions 30 70 States 23 77 Urban 25 75 Rural 29 71 Male 32 68 Female 23 77
0% 100%
Yes No
Of those who knew about the W/VTDSC in their area, only 30% participated in the election of its members. Te variations across States/Regions are not huge so there appears to be a general issue of people not being well informed about the elections and about the role and potential benefits of the W/VTDSCs. Yangon saw the lowest participation in the W/VTDSC elections (21%). In Shan, although it had the lowest level of awareness (see above) 33% of respondents participated in the elections, which is at least above average and the third highest participation rate among States/ Regions. In Magway on the other hand only 26% participated in the election although it had the highest level of awareness. Still very modest, the highest level of participation was found in Kachin (35%) (see Figure 58).
Overall, the diferences between States and Regions are not big, but clearly the participation in rural areas (32%) and among the male population (33%) is higher than among the urban (24%) and female population (25%) (see Figure 59).
16. Tis information is available only for the following 7 States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Yangon. 17. See footnote above.
48 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 30 67 4 figure 58: did you participate in the Kachin 35 63 2 election of the W/ vTdSc?18 (by State/ Mandalay 34 63 2 region) Shan 33 61 6 Sagaing 32 66 2 Magway 26 68 6 Rakhine 26 68 6 Yangon 21 77 1
0% 100%
Yes No Don’t know
Total 30 67 4 figure 59: did you participate in the Regions 29 69 3 election of the W/ vTdSc?19 (grouped) States 31 64 5 Urban 24 72 3 Rural 32 64 4 Male 33 63 4 Female 25 72 3
0% 100%
Yes No Don’t know
Of those who knew about the W/VTDSC in their area, 27% have been consulted by members On average of the committee at least once (see Figure 60). Interestingly, while Magway had the highest a mere 4% of percentage of respondents knowing about the W/VTDSC’s existence it seems to have the lowest respondents percentage of respondents that have ever been consulted by a committee member (22%). So being have heard of aware does not necessarily translate into being involved. Kachin is the positive outlier, with one either TDSC third of the people that have been consulted. In Shan, which has the lowest level of awareness, at or TMAC, least 29% have been consulted. Again, more people in rural than in urban areas (30% vs. 22%) have with the urban been consulted by committee members, and more men than women (30% vs. 24%). But in this case population slightly more respondents in the States than in the Regions (29% vs. 26%) have been approached (8%) being by W/VTDSC committee members (see Figure 61). clearly better informed than the rural population (2%).
18. Tis information is available only for the following 7 States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Yangon. 19. See footnote above.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 49 figure 60: have you Total 27 71 2 ever been consulted by members of that Kachin 33 67 committee?20 (by Yangon 30 67 3 State/region) Shan 29 68 3 Sagaing 26 72 2 Mandalay 26 72 2 Rakhine 25 72 4 Magway 22 75 3
0% 100% Yes No Don’t know
figure 61: have you Total 27 71 2 ever been consulted by members of that Regions 26 72 2 committee?21 States 29 69 2 Urban 22 76 2 Rural 30 68 2 Male 30 68 2 Female 24 74 2
0% 100%
Yes No Don’t know
3.2.2 Direct citizen participation
With regard to direct participation of citizens in village tract or ward meetings the situation varies across diferent States and Regions and ranges fom 63% of respondents in Tanintharyi claiming that they sometimes participate, to only 38% in Sagaing. On average, less than half (47%) sometimes participate in village tract/ward meetings (see Figure 62).
20. Tis information is available only for the following 7 States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Yangon. 21. See footnote above.
50 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 47 53 figure 62: do you sometimes participate in a Tanintharyi 63 37 village tract/ward Kachin 61 39 meeting? (by State/ Ayeyarwaddy 53 47 region) Chin 51 49 Kayah 50 50 Rakhine 48 52 Magway 48 52 Kayin 43 57 Yangon 42 58 Mandalay 41 59 Mon 39 61 Shan 38 62 Bago 38 62 Sagaing 38 62
0% 100%
Yes No
While overall there is hardly any diference between State and Region respondents, there is however In rural areas an urban/rural as well as a gender divide regarding participation. In rural areas people appear to people appear be far more likely to participate (53%) than in urban areas where on average only 36% participate. to be far When it comes to gender diferences, on average 54% of men sometimes participate in village more likely to tract/ward meetings as opposed to merely 39% women (see Figure 63). Looking at the gender participate in diferences in more detail it can be seen that there are big variations across diferent States and village tract/ ward meetings Regions, with participation of women as low as 29% in Bago and the highest in Tanintharyi with (53%) than 58%. Te most striking diference can be seen in Chin, where 70% of male respondents sometimes in urban participate but only 33% of women. In Magway the situation appears the most balanced with 49% areas where men and 47% women participating (see Figure 64). on average only 36% participate.
Total 47 53 figure 63: do you sometimes Regions 46 54 participate in a village tract/ward 47 53 States meeting? (grouped) Urban 36 64 Rural 53 47 Male 54 46 Female 39 61
0% 100% Yes No
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 51 figure 64: Percentage 80% 71 70 of male/female 67 respondents 63 that sometimes 58 56 57 54 52 participate in village 49 51 49 45 47 47 47 45 tract/ward meetings 44 44 43 39 38 38 (by State/region) 35 33 33 32 30 29 31
0%
Total Chin Mon Shan Kachin Kayah Kayin Bago Rakhine Magway Yangon Sagaing Tanintharyi Mandalay Ayeyarwaddy Male Female When asked for the reasons for not participating, respondents, male and female, in most States/ Regions said that they were either never invited, they did not hear of any meetings or that there were no meetings organised in their village22. In some States/Regions people said that they don’t have the time to attend or that meetings are planned at the wrong time. Tis reason was given by a higher number of female than male respondents.
Further looking into the question whether or not people have been invited to meetings to discuss development issues in the village, overall only 19% of respondents have ever been invited (see Figure 65). In Shan even as many as 90% of respondents have never been invited. Remarkable considering the many geographical and logistical challenges, almost 26% of Chin’s respondents have been invited which is the highest among all States/Regions. Tis can perhaps be attributed to a rather innovative solution local administrations in some townships have come up with to address the accessibility problems, like the voluntary ‘terrain representatives’ in Tantlang Township who support the VTAs on development issues and communications. Tis or similar models could be considered in other places as well to encourage citizen participation, or to improve communication for example.
Overall, more rural than urban respondents have been invited (23% vs. 13%) and more men than women (22% vs. 13%) (see Figure 66), an issue that has already been mentioned above. figure 65: Were Total 19 81 you ever invited to a meeting in which Chin 26 74 the government Tainintharyi 25 75 wanted to talk to the Mon 24 76 villagers about new Ayeyarwaddy 23 77 projects like schools Kayin 20 80 or health facilities in Mandalay 20 80 this village or about Kachin 20 80 the problems in this Magway 19 81 village? (by State/ Sagaing 19 81 region) Kayah 18 82 Rakhine 17 83 Yangon 16 84 Bago 15 85 Shan 10 90
0% 100% Yes No
22. Tis information is available only for seven States/Regions. Tis question was asked only in the third phase of the mapping in the following States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Yangon.
52 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 19 81 figure 66: Were you ever invited to Regions 20 80 a meeting in which States 19 81 the government wanted to talk to the Urban 13 87 villagers about new Rural 23 77 projects like schools Male 22 78 or health facilities in Female 13 87 this village or about the problems in this village? (grouped) 0% 100% Yes No
Taking a sector specific angle on the question whether people have ever been involved in or More people invited to meetings with government ofcials to talk about health services, primary education or participate water services in their village tract/ward it becomes apparent that by far more people participate in and are in and are invited to education related events (28%) than health (6%) or water (7%) (see Figure invited to 67). Whether this is because education authorities are more active or there is a greater interest by education citizens regarding education matters is not clear though. Te situation varies greatly across States related events and Regions for all sectors. Nonetheless, the general trend shows that overall more people in the (28%) than States than in the Regions have been involved or invited, more men than women and more rural health (6%) or than urban people. water (7%).
figure 67: Percentage of people having 28 been involved in or Yes invited for a meeting 6 with government 7 o a s to ta a o t the health services, education and water 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% in the village tract/ ward (total average) Education Health Water
Regarding health, on average a mere 6% of respondents have been involved or invited to meetings. Te highest percentage of people involved/invited was found in Kachin (14%) followed by Yangon (12%) (see Figure 68). As for Kachin this is in line with the comparatively high rate of participation in general village tract/ward meetings, unlike Yangon where participation rates were below average in general meetings. Te lowest outliers are Bago (1%) and interestingly also Tanintharyi (2%) which seems to have the highest participation rate in village tract/ward meetings otherwise.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 53 figure 68: have you 80% ever been involved in or invited for 70% 63 a meeting with 61 overnment o a s 60% 53 to talk about the 51 50 48 48 health services in 50% 47 43 42 41 your village tract/ 38 38 39 38 ward? (by State/ 40% region) 30% 26 25 23 24 20 20 20 19 19 19 18 20% 16 17 14 15 12 9 10 8 7 7 10% 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 0% Chin Mon Total Kayah Shan Kayin Bago Kachin Yangon Sagaing Rakhine Mandalay Magway Tainintharyi Ayeyarwaddy
Involved/invited to health Invited in village tract/ward Participation in village related meetings meetings tract/ward meetings
figure 69: have you Total 6 93 1 ever been involved in or invited for Regions 6 93 1 a meeting with States 7 92 1 overnment o a s Urban 4 95 1 to talk about the health services in Rural 8 91 1 your village tract / Male 7 92 1 ward? (grouped) Female 5 94 1
0% 100% Yes No Don’t know
As for education, although overall less people than participate in village tract/ward meetings on general issues, education sees by far the highest rates of involvement compared to health and water services. Also, a larger number of people appear to be involved in and invited for education related meetings than are invited for regular village tract/ward meetings. It has to be noted though that the sector related data on participation does not leave room for diferentiating between “being involved” and “being invited”. Te highest number of respondents being involved/invited was again found in Kachin (43%), and followed by Yangon (38%) (see Figure 70). In Mon, which has below average participation rates in village tract/ward meetings (39%) 37% of respondents claim to be involved in/invited to education meetings. Te least involvement was seen in Magway (15%), Sagaing (15%) and Shan (17%). Unlike for Magway, as for Sagaing and Shan this seems to be in line with the general trend on participation in village tract/ward meetings.
54 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 figure 70: have you 70% ever been involved 63 in or invited for 61 60% a meeting with overnment o a s 53 51 to talk about primary 50 education in your 50% 47 48 48 village tract/ward? 43 43 42 41 (by State/region) 39 40% 38 37 38 38 38 34 30 30 30 30% 28 29 28 26 24 25 23 22 19 20 20 20 19 19 19 20% 18 17 17 16 15 15 15
10 10%
0% Mon Chin Total Kayah Kayin Bago Shan Kachin Yangon Rakhine Sagaing Mandalay Magway Tainintharyi Ayeyarwaddy
Involved/invited to education Invited in village tract/ward Participation in village related meetings meetings tract/ward meetings
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 55 figure 71: have you Total 28 72 ever been involved in or invited for Regions 24 76 a meeting with States 31 69 overnment o a s Urban 20 80 to talk about primary education in your Rural 32 68 village tract/ward? Male 30 70 (grouped) Female 25 75
0% 100% Yes No
Regarding water supply, on average only 7% of respondents have been involved in or invited to meetings. Te highest involvement rate far ahead of other States/Regions was found in Kayah (23%), followed by Kachin and Rakhine (13% each) (see Figure 72). A mere 1% of respondents stated to be involved/invited in Kayin and Mon and only 2% in Bago all of which have comparatively low participation rates also in general village tract/ward meetings.
figure 72: have you 70% ever been involved 63 61 in or invited for 60% a meeting with 53 50 51 overnment o a s 48 48 to talk about the 50% 47 43 water services in 42 41 38 38 38 39 your village tract/ 40% ward? (by State/ region) 30% 25 26 23 23 24 19 20 19 19 20 20 18 17 20% 16 15 13 13 10 9 8 7 7 6 10% 5 5 4 4 2 1 1 0% Chin Total Kayah Shan Bago Kayin Mon Kachin Rakhine Yangon Sagaing Magway Mandalay Tainintharyi Ayeyarwaddy
Involved/invited to water Invited in village tract/ward Participation in village related meetings meetings tract/ward meetings
56 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 7 93 figure 73: have you ever been involved Regions 6 94 in or invited for a meeting with States 8 92 overnment o a s Urban 4 96 to talk about the Rural 9 91 water services in your village tract/ Male 9 91 ward? (grouped) Female 6 94
0% 100% Yes No
3.3 information, transparency and accountability
Transparency and accountability of government and its institutions and ofce bearers are some of the cornerstones of democratic societies. In the wake of the reforms of the past years, the Myanmar government has expressed the willingness and commitment to become more accountable to the people and increase transparency. Considering Myanmar’s past and the previously limited opportunities for citizens to exercise their voice and to influence change, it is expected to take some time until behavioural and attitudinal changes take root – on both, citizen and government side. Nevertheless, some changes, perhaps more informal than formal, in the interaction and relationship between citizens and government are starting to appear and are important steps towards restoring the basic mutual trust between citizens and state.
3.3.1 Information
Access to and the availability of information are key aspects of transparency and accountability. Without the necessary information, for example on government decisions or responsibilities, development plans and budgets etc. citizens have no basis to hold government accountable. Information is therefore a crucial element in any attempt to increase accountability.
For that reason, it is necessary to also understand people’s sources of information and how people On average, learn about important government related information. On average, the large majority (60%) of the large the people rely on communication through the 10/100 household heads. Tis is the main channel majority (60%) of information in rural as well as urban areas, although more so in rural areas (63%) (see Figure 74). of the people Te second most important source of information for urban respondents is television (55%), while rely on com- for rural respondents it is the VTA (46%). Overall, people’s peers (fiends, family or other people munication in the village) are the second most important information source (44%). Apart fom radio, media through the (TV and newspapers) clearly play a bigger role in urban areas. In general, verbal communication 10/100 house- is still the main information channel for both, rural and urban respondents, although more so hold heads. for the rural population. Consequently, it is crucial to look at how important government related messages get channelled down to citizens and who are the key actors in passing on information. Again, the W/VTAs play a critical role here, as they receive information fom the TAs and can share it either directly with citizens and/or through the 10/100 household heads. In practice, it depends very much on the willingness and attitude of the individual W/VTAs if and how much information is being communicated.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 57 figure 74: if there 70% 63 are new laws or 60 57 directives from the 55 Rural government, how 46 Urban would you usually 4443 44 learn about them? 40 39 39 39 39 Average 34 32 29 27 25 23 18 14 11 88 6 4 5 0% Radio heads Television Village Elders Newspapers concerned ( A o ce) 10 or 100household Department/Ministry Friends, family or othe people in the village Township Administrator Village Tract Administrator Te awareness In order to get an idea about the familiarity of respondents with key government figures, of government they were also asked to mention the name of various government representatives. On average, representa- most people know the name of their W/VTA (86%), even more than those knowing the name tives in gener- of the President of Myanmar (78%). However, in urban areas more people know the name of al seems to be the President of Myanmar (90%) than that of their W/VTA (81%), while in rural areas 90% of slightly higher respondents know their W/VTA and only 75% know the President’s name. Te awareness of government representatives in general seems to be slightly higher in urban than in rural areas. Tis in urban than is more pronounced in the Regions where also more people overall are able to name government in rural areas. representatives than in the States. Also more men than women know the names of key government actors (see Figure 75). Looking at the diferent States/Regions, the highest levels of awareness of government representative’s names overall appear in Sagaing, followed by Magway, where 97% of respondents named their W/VTA for example. Respondents in Shan were the least aware of key ofcials (see Figure 76). figure 75: Knowledge 100% of the names of 90 90 various government 88 89 23 representatives 86 85 83 83 84 81 78 75 76 40% 68 33
27 24 22 20% 19 18 18
13 11 11 11 12 12 12 10 10 9 10 9 9 7 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 5 6 5 6 4 4 3
0% Total Regions States Urban Rural Male Female
Name of President of Myanmar Member Pyithu Hluttaw Hluttaw Member Amyotha Hluttaw Chief Minister Member of the Region/State Township Administrator Huttlaw Name of the VTA
23. Tis information is available only for seven States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing and Yangon.
58 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 figure 76: Knowledge 100% 97 of the names of various government 91 89 90 representatives (by 88 24 86 87 86 States/regions) 82 83 80% 78 78 78 74
64
60% 57
44
40%
30
22 22 21 18 18 18 20% 16 14 14 14 12 10 10 11 10 8 9 9 8 88 7 7 7 6 7 7 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 2 3 2 3
0% Total Kachin Magway Mandalay Rakhine Sagaing Shan Yangon
Name of President of Myanmar Member Pyithu Hluttaw Hluttaw Member Amyotha Hluttaw
Chief Minister Member of the Region/State Township Administrator Huttlaw Name of the VTA
Another aspect of information and people’s ability to hold government better accountable is their awareness of public funds that are spent in their village/ward. Overall, with just over one third (35%) of respondents, there appears to be very limited knowledge of government spending. Te rural population (41%) is much more aware though than urban people (23%) and similar for respondents in the Regions (40%) compared to respondents in the States (29%) (see Figure 77). Te diferences across States and Regions are also substantial, with only 25% of Kachin’s respondents being aware of public spending compared to 50% of Mandalay’s respondents. Interestingly perhaps, the awareness of respondents in Yangon is comparatively low (26%) (see Figure 78).
24. Tis information is available only for seven States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing and Yangon.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 59 figure 77: are Total 35 65 you aware of any government funds Regions 40 60 being spent in your States 29 71 village/ward?25 (grouped) Urban 23 77 Rural 41 59 Male 37 63 Female 33 67
0% 100% Yes No
figure 78: are Total 35 65 you aware of any government funds Mandalay 50 50 being spent in your village/ward?26 (by Sagaing 46 54 State/region) Magway 38 62 Rakhine 35 65 Shan 27 73 Yangon 26 74 Kachin 25 75
0% 100% Yes No
When asked When asked directly whether they feel sufciently informed it becomes clear that the great directly majority of people (76%) thinks that not enough information has been passed on to them. In whether general, people in rural areas (28%) feel better informed than in urban areas (18%) and people in they feel the Regions (27%) more so than in the States (22%) (see Figure 79). Te views vary greatly across sufciently diferent States and Regions – information provision in Magway has been comparatively better informed it (39%) than in other State/Regions while in Rakhine only 11% say they have been getting sufcient becomes clear information (see Figure 80). that the great majority of All in all, to support the government’s aim for increased transparency and accountability and to people (76%) address the citizen’s call for more information, some specific information sharing strategies could thinks that be put in place to enhance the flow of information fom the government to the people. Tese could not enough build on the traditional and still efective way of “mouth to mouth” communication (through W/ information VTAs, 10/100 HH Heads and village elders) and means of mass communication. has been passed on to them.
25. Tis information is available only for seven States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing and Yangon. 26. See footnote above.
60 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Total 25 75 figure 79: citizen’s views on whether t e ee s ent 27 73 Regions informed by States 22 78 government (grouped)
Urban 18 82
Rural 28 72
Male 26 74
Female 23 77
0% 100%
Yes No
25 75 Total figure 80: citizen’s views on whether Magway 39 61 t e ee s ent informed by Tainintharyi 36 64 government (by Chin 33 67 State/region) Mandalay 28 72 Sagaing 28 72 Ayeyarwaddy 25 75 Kayin 25 75 Mon 25 75 Kayah 23 77 Kachin 20 80 Shan 19 81 Bago 18 82 Yangon 13 87 Rakhine 11 89
0% 100%
Yes No
3.3.2 Te role of the W/VTAs
Prior to the 2012 Village Tract and Ward Law, which provides for their election, the Village Tract/ Ward Administrators (W/VTAs) were selected and recruited by the TAs. Te W/VTAs are now indirectly elected by the people by and fom the group of 10/100 household heads27. Te pool of local candidates is still mostly controlled by a limited group of government ofcials though and according to tight criteria. Still, the W/VTAs in most States and Regions mentioned that they do feel more accountable to the people since their election.
27. Te 10/100 household heads, also called village heads or village administrators (incorporated in the administrative system during the British colonial rule), still play an important role in assisting the VTA who usually oversees 4-6 villages. Tey are not part of the formal government structure and are either elected by the community or self-appointed.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 61 When comparing Less than one third (29%) of people’s respondents have noticed a diference in the way W/VTAs with before the respond to their requests or the way they communicate with the people. Te diference was 2012 W/VTA felt more in the Regions and in urban areas (29%) than in the States (26%) or rural areas (29%), elections, less and also more by men (32%) than women (27%) (see Figure 81). Te least change was noted by than one third respondents in Shan (21%), while 38% of Sagaing’s respondents felt there was a change, which is (29%) of people’s still just over one third of the people. respondents have noticed While the 2012 Village Tract and Ward Law provided for their election, it only marginally a diference changed the W/VTAs role to act as elected representative of the people. Te traditional mandate in the way W/ VTAs respond and functions of the W/VTA position have been largely retained, like the maintenance of law to their requests and order in the village tract/ward, disciplinary matters or organising community labour, while or the way they the new law has also given some room for a few functions relating to a more developmental role, communicate like consulting with villagers in decision-making, providing information and bringing village with the people. problems to the Township Administration.28 figure 81: do you feel Total 29 71 t at a er t e s were elected in 2012, Regions 31 69 anything changed in the way they respond States 26 74 to people’s requests Urban 31 69 and demands, and the way they Rural 29 71 communicate with Male 32 68 the people in the Female 27 73 ward/village?29
0% 100%
Yes No
Overall, in the Overall, in the people’s view the “traditional” functions of the W/VTAs are still dominating. 49% people’s view of the people see the W/VTAs conflict mediation role in the forefont, followed by 42% that the “traditional” noted the ensuring peace and security role (see Figure 82). Also, 20% still mentioned “ensuring functions of the that people participate in community labour” which originally related to forced labour. With the W/VTAs are exception of “bringing village problems to the Township Administration” which scores relatively still dominating. high (35%), the new more development related functions have not been noticed by many people. Te low level Only 17% of respondents mentioned “Consult and involve villagers in decision-making at village of people’s level” and merely 9% saw the information provision role of the W/VTA. Te new functions seem to awareness about be a bit more visible to people in rural areas and in the Regions than in urban areas and the States. the W/VTA’s new Likewise, slightly more male than female respondents noted the new roles. Te people’s awareness development of the W/VTA’s new roles also varies greatly across diferent States and Regions. Respondents in functions may not be surprising Magway seem to be the most familiar with the W/VTAs development related functions, followed considering that by Kachin, Kayah and Yangon. People in Mon appear to be the least aware and also comparatively the changes have few respondents in Chin and Kayin have noticed the new roles (see Figure 83). been introduced 27. Te 10/100 household heads, also called village heads or village administrators (incorporated in the administrative system only recently. during the British colonial rule), still play an important role in assisting the VTA who usually oversees 4-6 villages. Tey are not part of the formal government structure and are either elected by the community or self-appointed. 28. Ward or Village Tract Administration Law. Ministry of Home Afairs, 2012. Chapter 7, clause 13. As outlined in the Law, the VT/WA is e.g. responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the village tract/ward; disciplinary matters; monitoring development projects; helping with rural development and poverty reduction; informing and assisting government agencies on crime prevention; submitting requests for public events to the TA; monitoring overnight guests; issuing entertainments licenses, registration of deaths and births, maintaining irrigation works; collecting land revenue and carrying out additional duties assigned by the TA and government departments in accordance with the law. 29. Tis information is available only for seven States/Regions: Kachin, Rakhine, Shan, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing and Yangon.
62 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Te low level of people’s awareness about the W/VTA’s new development functions may not be surprising considering that the changes have been introduced only recently and that the W/VTA’s traditional role to that of a people’s representative hasn’t been fully transformed yet. Te W/VTAs are potentially highly instrumental to support the Township Administration in their coordination role, as they directly interact with citizens, and are able to bring people’s development needs to the township level. For W/VTAs to act as interface between the people and the government seems even more important as there is no ofcial mechanism at the moment for the committees like the TDSC and TMAC to regularly consult with citizens and also the practical difculty for TDSC/ TMAC members to achieve this.
42 49 figure 82: The role Total 20 of W/vTas as seen by 17 citizens (grouped) 35 9
45 48 Regions 20 20 39 9
39 51 19 States 14 30 9
52 51 17 Ur an 15 31 10
37 48 21 Rural 18 36 8
45 50 20 Male 19 39 10
39 49 20 Female 15 30 7
0% 60%
Ensure peace and security Mediate when there are Ensure that people participate in the village con icts etween villagers in community la our
Consult and involve villagers Bring village pro lems to Provide villagers with information in decision-making at village the township administration and directives from government level
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 63 42 figure 83: The role 49 20 of W/vTas as seen by 17 Total 35 9 citizens (by States/ 10 regions)
38 54 21 13 Ayeyarwaddy 37 10 10 44 38 15 17 Bago 41 11 13 34 30 17 9 Chin 23 7 26 39 73 28 20 Kachin 37 13 2 36 42 15 Kayah 12 47 11 6 47 48 14 13 Kayin 25 5 15 56 30 25 36 Magway 44 6 5 49 52 19 22 Mandalay 35 10 3 44 43 12 18 Mon 13 8 23 38 61 23 15 Rakhine 36 9 3 46 42 22 19 Sagaing 44 7 5 32 59 19 15 Shan 30 7 9 50 44 7 18 Tainintharyi 30 8 14 36 77 32 Yangon 18 44 8
0% 80%
Ensure peace and security Mediate when there are Ensure that people participate in the village con icts etween villagers in community la our
Consult and involve villagers Bring village pro lems to Provide villagers with information in decision-making at village the township administration and directives from government level
Don't know
64 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 3.3.3 Grievance redresal
In line with the W/VTA’s perceived central role in community mediation and ensuring peace and In case of security, the W/VTA also emerges as the first person that people approach in case of disputes – for a dispute, 63% of respondents for land disputes and for 68% of respondents for disputes in general (see Figure more urban 84 and Figure 85). As for land disputes, there is hardly any diference between States/Regions respondents and men/women, but more urban respondents turn to the W/VTA than rural respondents. As turn to the for disputes in general, there is a clear diference between Regions (73%) and States (59%) and W/VTA between urban (76%) and rural areas (64%). Te 10/100 household heads are the second most than rural approached person but much less than W/VTAs. respondents.
Tere are big diferences across the States and Regions though (see Figure 86 and Figure 87). In Magway for example 85% of respondents first approach the W/VTA and only 11% the 10/100 household head. As opposed to Shan, where the 10/100 household heads seem to play a much stronger role and are the first person to approach for 49% of respondents and for 44% the W/ VTA. With the exception of Shan, in all other States and Regions the W/VTA is the first person that people approach either for land disputes or disputes in general. All other options are rarely used by people. Mon stands out though where 22% of respondents didn’t know who they would approach for land disputes and the same for 10% of people in Chin.
70% 67 figure 84: first person approached in 63 63 63 63 62 case of land dispute 60 (data grouped for 7 States/regions: chin, Mon, Kayin, ayeyarwaddy, Bago, Kayah, Tanintharyi)30
30 29
23 23 22
18
12
9 9 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 111 1111 11 11 11 111 1 0% Total Regions States Urban Rural Male Female
W/VTA 10 or 100 HH heads Agricultural sta at Township Administrator township o ce Friends or relatives Village elders Don't know / NA
30. For the seven States/Regions of the phase I&II mapping the question related to land disputes only. For the seven States/ Regions of phase III of the mapping the question was asked regarding disputes in general.
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 65 figure 85: first 100% 76 person approached in case of dispute (data 73 grouped for 7 States/ 68 68 regions: Kachin, 66 rakhine, Shan, 64 Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing yangon) 59 40%
33 31 28 26 25 22
16
3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 1 1 11 11 1 11
0% Total Regions States Urban Rural Male Female figure 86: first 100% person approached in 73 case of land dispute
(data 7 States/ 68 regions: chin, Mon, 67 65 Kayin, ayeyarwaddy, Bago, Kayah, 59 Tanintharyi) 57
50 45%
40 37
25 24 22 21
10 10
6 5 5 4 33 3 2 2 2 222 2 2 11 11 11 111 11 111 11
0% Chin Kayin Ayeyarwaddy Bago Mon Tainintharyi Kayah
W/VTA 10 or 100 HH heads Agricultural sta at Township Administrator township o ce Friends or relatives Village elders Don't know / NA
66 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 figure 87: first 90% person approached in 85 case of dispute (data for 7 States/regions: 77 75 Kachin, rakhine, Shan, Magway, 71 Mandalay, Sagaing yangon)
60 56
49
44
37 35
20 21
13 11
5 2 3 3 33 1 111 1 11 2 1 2211 1122 0% Magway Rakhine Yangon Sagaing Mandalay Kachin Shan
W/VTA 10 or 100 HH heads Agricultural sta at Township Administrator township o ce Friends or relatives Village elders Don't know / NA
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 67 4. concluding remarks
68 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 Myanmar’s process of change started only recently, but several encouraging early gains in terms of improved governance can already be noticed. At the same time, a number of challenges remain that deserve to be further looked into and addressed. Tese challenges are not surprising given the decades of military rule, isolation and conflict, and the short time since the beginning of the reforms.
Te synthesis report complements the detailed state and region specific State of Local Governance reports that have been developed under the mapping. A detailed analysis of local governance structures in Myanmar is outlined in Mapping the State of Local Governance in Myanmar: Background and Methodology. Te CRC survey database will also be publicly available for other stakeholders and development partners to use and draw data fom.
Te primary objective of the synthesis report is to make an overview of the key findings fom all States and Regions available in one single report, outlining the diferences in the geographical areas - the States and Regions - fom a gender and rural/urban perspectives. As shown in the report, people do recognize improvements in their areas and they also start to be aware of the diferent new opportunities in which they can influence local decision-making.
But whilst we see an evolving local governance structure that actually allows people to have a voice in local decision-making, such as the indirect election of the Ward and Village Tract administrators, and the establishment of Township and Ward/Village Tract Development Support Committees with interest group and public representation, the general understanding of representation is still weak. Te election of committee members is in some cases more of a selection than an open election of candidates put forward in a structured manner by organisations or people.
It was also noted that there still are extremely few women in local administrative or elected positions. As the World Bank pointed out in their World Development report 2012, gender equality not only matters for reasons of equity, it is also plain smart economics as it enhances economic efciency and improves development outcomes in several ways.
Maybe ‘representation’ is one of the single most important aspects of Myanmar’s governance reforms that needs attention; not only vis-à-vis women; it is equally important that various committee members and elected representatives actually represent the group they are acting on behalf of, or represent. Only through strong and capable state institutions and genuine representation that includes all groups of society the agenda of good governance can be achieved. Tis topic will be further addressed in a policy paper based on a more in depth analysis of the local governance findings and how they can be used to further support the reform agendas and the policy makers.
Meanwhile, past and future reports developed under the UNDP local governance program published under the Local Governance mapping series are posted at the UNDP Myanmar web page: Please keep following http://www.mm.undp.org/
A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015 69 70 A Synthesis of people’s perspectives across all States and Regions - UNDP Myanmar 2015
United Nations Development Programme No.6, Natmauk Road, Tamwe Township P.O. Box 650, Yangon 11211 Myanmar
www.mm.undp.org July 2015