2013 Unicef Myanmar

Nina Victoria Mattus Justiniani

[INITIAL RAPID ASSESS MENT OF SELECTED IDP SETTLEMENTS IN KAYIN AND TANINTHARYI, MYANMAR]

A report on 131 villages with internally displaced persons in Kayin state and Tanintharyi region, South East Myanmar. This report is based on an initial rapid assessment exercise carried out by volunteers from various faith-based organizations in late February to April, 2013.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... iv Acronyms ...... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 10 BACKGROUND ...... 10 OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIAL RAPID ASSESSMENT ...... 10 METHODOLOGY, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ...... 11 III. IDP CHILDREN AND THEIR VILLAGES ...... 18 GEOGRAPHIC AND ACCESS INFORMATION ...... 18 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ...... 22 DISPLACEMENT TRENDS ...... 25 SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS ...... 30 LIVELIHOOD AND FOOD SECURITY...... 32 WATER, SANITATION, HYGIENE ...... 38 HEALTH AND NUTRITION ...... 44 EDUCATION ...... 51 CHILD PROTECTION ...... 59 ASSISTANCE ...... 62 NEEDS PRIORITIZED: ...... 66 IV. FRAMEWORK: PEACE BUILDING AND DURABLE SOLUTIONS TO IDPS ...... 68 V. INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 69 ANNEX A. LIST OF VILLAGES ASSESSED ...... 72 ANNEX B: NEW RESETTLED VILLAGES ...... 77 ANNEX C: REPORTED IDP VILLAGES (not yet assessed): ...... 78 ANNEX D: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM...... 79

i

List of FiguresFigure 1: Respondents ...... 12 Figure 2: Map of the location of IDP settlements assessed ...... 18 Figure 3: Access by Land and Water ...... 20 Figure 4: Means of Transportation ...... 21 Figure 5: Hard-to-Reach Villages ...... 21 Figure 6: Numbers of Migrants, IDPs, Refugee Refugees ...... 22 Figure 7: Returning Refugees ...... 23 Figure 8: Numbers of Females, Males, Lactating Women, Pregnant Women and Children ...... 23 Figure 9: Vulnerable groups ...... 24 Figure 10: Languages spoken ...... 25 Figure 11: Description of Settlements ...... 26 Figure 12: New Arrivals ...... 26 Figure 13: Duration of Displacement ...... 27 Figure 14: Reasons for staying in the current settlement ...... 27 Figure 15: Reasons for not returning to their original village ...... 28 Figure 16: Where the IDPs would like to settle permanently ...... 29 Figure 17: Percentage of ID holders in the villages...... 30 Figure 18: Types of Identity Documents ...... 30 Figure 19: Shelter types ...... 31 Figure 20: Sources of Income ...... 32 Figure 21: Livelihood Opportunities ...... 33 Figure 22: Land Ownership ...... 34 Figure 23: Livelihood Shocks ...... 35 Figure 24: Loss due to Livelihood Shocks ...... 35 Figure 25: Food stock ...... 36 Figure 26: Assistance Received ...... 36 Figure 27: Coping Strategies ...... 37 Figure 28: Availability of drinking water, safe drinking water, cooking water and cleaning water in the villages ...... 38 Figure 29: Sources of Water...... 38 Figure 30: Condition of Borehole ...... 39 Figure 31: Condition of Pumps ...... 39 Figure 32: Availability of Latrines ...... 41 Figure 33: Number of Persons Using a Latrine ...... 41 Figure 34: Percentage of Villagers Using Flyproof or Unsanitary Latrines ...... 42 Figure 35: Percentage of Villages using latrines and openly defecate ...... 43 Figure 36: Functioning Latrines ...... 43 Figure 37: Availability of health facilities ...... 45 Figure 38: Availability of Health Care Providers ...... 46 Figure 39: Health Services ...... 47

ii

Figure 40: Recent Main Health Concerns ...... 47 Figure 41: Availability of Medication ...... 48 Figure 42: Nearest Health Facilities Available ...... 49 Figure 43: Vaccination Offered in 2012 ...... 49 Figure 44: Health Assistance During Delivery of Babies ...... 50 Figure 45: Nutrition Information ...... 50 Figure 46: School Fees ...... 51 Figure 47: Total Number of Students, Teachers, Classrooms ...... 52 Figure 48: Number and Location of Temporary Learning Facilities ...... 52 Figure 49: Types of School ...... 53 Figure 50: List of Villages with 20+ out- of- school IDP children...... 54 Figure 51: Reasons for Children not Attending Schools ...... 55 Figure 52: Sufficiency of School Supplies ...... 56 Figure 53: School Latrines ...... 56 Figure 54: School Building Repair Information ...... 57 Figure 55: Teaching Curriculum ...... 58 Figure 56: Vulnerable Children ...... 59 Figure 57: Monasteries assisting vulnerable children ...... 62 Figure 58: Organizations doing Coordination ...... 62 Figure 59: Organizations doing Education ...... 63 Figure 60: Organizations doing Food Security ...... 64 Figure 61: Organizations doing Health Assistance ...... 64 Figure 62: Organizations providing Non-Food Items ...... 65 Figure 63: Organizations providing Nutrition assistance ...... 65 Figure 64: Organizations in Shelter Assistance ...... 65 Figure 65: Organizations in WASH ...... 66 Figure 66: Needs Prioritized ...... 66

iii

Acknowledgements

This report is made possible because of the following:

UNICEF RPO Thet Wai Hlaing , who helped in the translation of the questionnaire form to Myanmar, trained the enumerators in Kayin and Tanintharyi, supervised the assessment in Kayin and provided important inputs to the whole exercise and to this is report;

UNICEF RPO Tin Aung, who prepared and supervised the assessment exercise in Tanintharyi region and provided important inputs to the whole exercise;

Volunteer enumerators from the Catholic Bishops Convention Myanmar, Karen Baptist Convention, Anglican Church, Kyainseikgyi Karen Baptist Association, Karen Women Action Group, Save the Children;

The German fund, for supporting the travel expenses and allowances of the volunteers

Cho Cho Lwin, for making the data base and data entry; and most importantly,

Participants from 131 villages who responded to the questions.

Much appreciation to the following:

Norwin Schafferer, OCHA , for providing the OCHA questionnaire form;

Kelly Ryan, UNHCR, for the help in formulating the draft questionnaire on displacements and providing useful suggestions;

Nway Aung of MIMU, for locating the IDP settlements on the map .

iv

Acronyms

DKBA Democratic Karen Buddhist Army

IDP Internally Displaced Person

KBC Karen Baptist Convention

KNLA Karen National Liberation Army

KNU Karen National Union

MIMU Myanmar Information Management Unit

NMSP New Mon State Party

NSA Non-state actor

NSAG Non-state armed group

MNLA Mon National Liberation Army

TBC The Border Consortium

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ceasefire agreement between the government of Myanmar and the Karen National Union (KNU) in the south east Myanmar in early 2012 signaled a halt to hostility in the most bitter armed conflict in the country, and the oldest in the world, having lasted over 63 years. This offers an opportunity for UNICEF’s assistance to the internally-displaced children and their communities as access to the conflict-affected areas improves.

One major difficulty to start UNICEF’s engagement is the absence of knowledge on the situation of IDP villages in the southeast. Public information on their whereabouts and situation has been extremely limited due to the reluctance of most organizations to share pertinent information, or the lack of readily- sharable information when it was available. Other aggravating factors included the lack of humanitarian and development activities in conflict-affected areas, as well as restrictions imposed on travel to these areas. .

With the spport of local volunteer from several Christian faith-based organizations, an initial identification and rapid assessment exercise was implemented in 131 IDP settlements, with 10,960 households and 58,484 individuals, mainly in Kayin and northern Tanintharyi districts. This report is a product of the initial and rapid assessment done by local volunteers with limited training and technical capacity. Some information reported may not be as accurate as desired. However, initial findings can be used as a basis for further consultation, and for follow-up action – such as to further improve understanding of the local context, or to start specific activities for target communities.

There is a significant reduction of conflict after the ceasefire agreement was signed. However, peace remains fragile, and the process to resolve the political issues and core grievances of the armed opposition groups has not yet started. That many IDPs keep temporary houses, one foot in their place of refuge, and another foot in their original village, indicating lack of trust in the stability of the ceasefire.

Findings based on the initial information show that access to the villages has improved but this varies in different places. Despite the improvement of access brought about by to the ceasefire agreement, geographical difficulty (remote, bad and/ or impassable roads especially during the rainy season) as well as political, security, logistical and bureaucratic concerns continue to get in the way in reaching many IDP communities. There are IDP settlements in remote areas that remain inaccessible to international organizations. In many areas, both the government and KNU authorities require even members of local faith-based organizations to seek authorization from them in order to collect information. .

Some IDPs have started to return to their original villages. Some found their villages already removed from the list of government registered villages. Some were again dispossessed of their land and community social structures due to the occupation of military and agri-business establishments. IDPs who remain in their current village of refuge continue to visit and maintain their farms in their village of origin. Lack of livelihood opportunity, general remoteness, distance from social support services and fear for their physical safety are the main reasons that prevent them from returning permanently.

6

Many still lack identification documents. Among the total of 131 settlements, those living in 10 villages have no IDs, less than half have IDs in 59 villages, while more than half of the population have IDs in 41 villages. Birth registration certificates are issued in only 27 villages.

Landmine explosions are reported in Parpun, Thandaung, Dawei and Thayetchaung. The risk of landmines is one reason why the IDPs in 19 villages have not returned to their original villages.

Common source of income in most of the villages is daily wage. Farming is the main livelihood opportunity yet 48 per cent of the population are landless, thus they work as farm laborers and are daily wage earners. Compared to the host community households, the IDPs are more economically impoverished. Their main problem is the lack of livelihood opportunity.

A great majority of the IDPs have no land, have rely mainly on daily wage labor, live in temporary shelters, and are in need of household non-food items. Livelihood shocks in the past year occurred to most of them because of unemployment, sickness in the family, and poor harvest due to heavy rains and/ or drought. Travel restrictions, armed conflict and forced displacement during the past year greatly limited access of IDPs to their farms in 20 villages, and have thus caused adverse effects to their income. Main forms of coping strategy are borrowing, skipping loan payment, selling of young/ immature livestock, collecting wild products from the forest, harvesting immature crops, consuming seed stock and begging.

Water is scarce. More than half of the villages do not have sufficient drinking water and around one third g do not have sufficient cooking and cleaning water. Water is even more scarce during summer days. Thirty seven per cent of the boreholes are not working while only 2 out of 40 pumps are working. Thirty eight per cent of the villages think that their water is not safe for drinking and 51 per cent do not boil their water before drinking.

Given the lack of potable water, proper practice of sanitation and hygiene practice is worsened.. Although most villages have latrines, most of these are unsanitary and are inaccessible to many persons. . Open defecation is a common practice. Cases of diarrhea were found in 70 villages and dysentery in 41 villages two weeks prior to the assessment. In Kyainseikgyi, some villages have drinking water problem because the mine for Antimony production is very close to their village, polluting their source of drinking water.

Malaria and diarrhea top the list of ailments. Medicine is generally inadequate. Around 45 per cent of the villages have not received any vaccination in 2012. Only 15 villages have health facilities. These are mainly clinics run by the Myanmar government and NGOs. While here are 3 doctors available, their services cover only townships. The remaining health care attendants of the community are traditional birth attendants, healers, midwives, community and NGO health workers. Birth deliveries are mainly at home and majority are assisted by traditional birth attendants.

Obvious signs of malnutrition can be seen in 71 villages. 52 per cent of the villages have not received Vit. A, while 38 per cent of the villages have not had deworming

In 131 villages, nine have high schools, 26 have middle schools, 119 have primary schools, 39 have preschools and 28 have temporary learning facilities. Fifty two villages have no drinking water at school.

7

Only 10 schools have washing facilities. Sixty five per cent the school buildings need major repair and 35 per cent need minor repair. Eighty four per cent use the government curriculum. School supplies are generally insufficient in 62 villages.

Majority of the students speak Kayin (Sgaw is most dominant, followed by Pwo). A small number can speak Bamar, Dawei, and Mon.

There are 558 teachers and 239 are paid by the community. The teachers in 81 villages can speak the local language (Kayin mainly). Most teachers receive low salary. Teacher’s absenteeism is also one reason given for children not attending school.

Only 25 per cent of under- five years old are attending pre-schools. Preschools are available only in 39 villages (29 are community-supported and 10 are government pre-schools). Majority of the total 13,598 students are in primary schools. Of the 119 primary schools, 57 are community supported, 58 are government schools and 3 are affiliated schools. Classrooms in primary schools are limited with an average of 1 classroom for 49 students.

Middle school students account for 15.5 per cent while high school students only 4 per cent of the entire student population. Population count shows that there are 9,463 children between the ages of 12 to 18 years old. But middle school and high school students total 2,938 only. This means that 6,535 children ages 12 to 18 (or 69 per cent) are not attending schools.

On missing and vulnerable children, one hundred forty eight (148) child-headed households were identified. Thirty (30) children have been identified are missing from 20 families. One hundred forty (140) children are unaccompanied, 134 children are separated from their parents, 322 are orphans, and2504 children are working. Nine (9) children have been identified with HIV/Aids and 300 children with visible disabilities. Reports on recruitment of children by armed groups have been heard of in Parpun and Kyainsekgyi.The sexual abuse and possible trafficking of young girls in Parpun have also been reported. This information need further verification on the ground.

Ten monasteries and Christian churches providing assistance to the vulnerable children have been identified. Organizations providing assistance to some communities include UNICEF, other international organizations, INGOs, NGOs, faith-based, KNU, and business companies. Unfortunately, we have no information about the existence of village-level self-help organizations. Initial inquiry with the assessors show that people’s organizations at the village level are either non-existent or weak.

The communities prioritized their immediate needs as the following: 1) education (95 villages), 2) health (92 villages), 3) water (74 villages), 4) livelihood and land (48 villages), 5) electricity ( 32 villages), 6) safety (30 villages), 7) roads and bridges (25 villages), and 8) fly-proof latrines (17 villages). Whereas, the IDPs ranked land, income and livelihood as their most important need, followed by education and health. Shelter and household items are also given higher priority by the IDPs. The needs identified are not comprehensive.

8

Addressing the needs of the IDPs and conflict-affected communities in the south east should be done in the framework of durable solutions to displacement and peacebuilding. This requires due attention in understanding the specific context on the ground, and to ‘do-no-harm’, while taking care not to undermine peace. Initiatives should ensure acceptance, and cooperation, and generate trust from all sides. Support requires linking short-term humanitarian actions to peace building and long-term development at the same time.

In the peace process, specific and distinct needs of the IDPs should be considered as they have special concerns, apart from the rest of the affected population, due mainly to displacement. The voices of the IDPs and their participation should be included in the humanitarian, peace and development processes. Conflict-affected communities have been resilient for a long time and they have relied mainly on their local capacities and support mechanisms to survive.

It is important that support further strengthen their local capacities, not undermine nor overwhelm these. It is the primary responsibility of the government to address internal displacements and to establish conditions and provide the means to allow the IDPs to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and with dignity. Support should help stabilize local and national capacities as quickly as possible to encourage a quicker and sustainable transition to longer term recovery. Coordination with other agencies is also important to optimize available resources and to harmful effects of uncoordinated interventions.

9

I. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

In January 2012, a ceasefire agreement was signed between the Karen National Union (KNU) and the government of Myanmar. This signaled a halt to hostility in the oldest and most bitter armed conflict in the country (and the world), a conflict which has lasted for more than 63 years. Other armed opposition groups in the southeast by that time had already signed their respective ceasefire agreements with the government. These included the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), DKBA’s “Kloh Htoo Baw” group, Karen Peace Force (KPF), and KNU/KNLA Peace Council 1, and the New Mon State Party (NMSP), with its armed group, the Mon National Liberation Army (MNLA). These ongoing ceasefire agreements have provide opportunities for UNICEF to reach the affected children for the first time in the new ceasefire areas and to respond to their humanitarian and development needs. In 2012, in the 3 states of Mon, Kayin and Tanintharyi, TBC recorded 195,800 IDPs in 2012 2.

Before starting any intervention targeting IDP children in the states of Kayin, Mon and Tanintharyi, UNICEF first needed to identify their location and needs. However, very little information on the location of IDP villages in southeast Myanmar was shared within the humanitarian and development community. The lack of humanitarian and development engagement in conflict-affected areas, fear of sensitive information falling into the wrong hands, concerns about the quality of information and unprocessed information not in readily sharable formats were some of the reasons for the lack of available public information on IDPs 3. Furthermore, many government officials deny the existence of the IDP villages or of recent incidents of displacements. Verification of reported IDP locations was difficult because of travel restriction to most of the remote areas. There were also doubts about the reported number of IDPs as exaggerated. However, contacts with local faith-based organizations with networks in IDP communities provided an opportunity to verify and collect information on IDP settlements.

OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIAL RAPID ASSESSMENT

To build a shared understanding within UNICEF on the situation of IDPs in the southeast states, a decision to undertake an initial rapid needs assessment was reached in late January 2013. The aims of the initial rapid assessment were:

a) To identify and verify the IDP settlements, their locations and population; b) To know the current trends of internal displacement and resettlement in the southeast; c) To collect information on some socio-economic needs, specifically in health, education, WASH, and child protection issues, for UNICEF’s response;

1 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict, 2011 2 The Border Consortium, Changing Realities, Poverty and Displacement in Southeast Burma/Myanmar, 2012, 3 Findings of the JIPS scoping mission in the southeast in March 2013

10

d) To highlight some critical areas of needed action and suggest practical ways to address these in the context of peacebuilding and durable solutions to IDPs.

METHODOLOGY, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

A UNICEF team led by Nina Victoria Justiniani and the RPOs of Mon/ Kayin and Tanintharyi (Thet Wai Hlaing and Tin Aung) as members, was organized to implement the assessment.

An initial rapid assessment questionnaire form was prepared. The questionnaire form adapted OCHA’s Multisectoral initial rapid assessment of IDP village/ camp questionnaire (June 2012) which was agreed by the humanitarian country team. This was an attempt to come up with a ‘common approach’ in collecting information that will also be usable to other agencies. This form was expanded to accommodate information needed by UNICEF in WASH, Education, Health and Child Protection. This form also included UNHCR’s concerns regarding some displacement issues. The final version of the questionnaire was translated into Myanmar language. The questionnaire form and the list of targeted villages for the initial rapid assessment were shared with UNHCR and TBC to avoid duplication, as the two agencies were also planning to do their own assessments. An agreement was to share relevant information.

Volunteers from several local faith-based organizations were chosen as enumerators. These volunteers were church workers, lay leaders and pastors. Most of them had prior knowledge of the IDP villages because they have either worked there or are natives of these villages. Majority of them are Sgaw-speaking Karen. It was for practical reason that due to their knowledge and access to most of Sgaw-speaking Karen villages, those villages initially assessed were predominantly Sgaw Karen..

The enumerators were given a short training on the questionnaire form and methods in doing the assessment. They were organized into several teams and assigned 5 to 10 villages. After several weeks, an end of assessment meeting and evaluation was held with each group of volunteers. Submitted questionnaire forms were checked and collected. The enumerators were asked to share the highlights of their assessment, discuss their key findings and challenges faced in information gathering.

In general, the volunteer enumerators sought permission from the local authorities and KNU authorities before they conducted the assessment. They also sought the assistance of the parish priest or pastors present in the village in convening community meetings . The village authority called on the intended respondent who were community leaders, teachers, health workers, IDP men and women. In many instances, more people came and eagerly participated in the group discussions based on the questionnaire form. Key informant interviews were also done to collect information. Another method employed was direct observation of the infrastructure and access issues. Despite limited availability, the aid of GPS devices was used to locate some villages. An average of one day was used to collect information in a village. A total of 7,000 respondents were asked, including 2218 IDP women, 1712

11

IDP men, 314 community leaders, 93 teachers, 86 health workers, 521 elders, 1590 2012 children, 44 other villagers.

Respondents

Other villagers 44, 1%

Children, 2012, 29%

IDP women, 2218, 32%

Elders, 521, 7%

HealthWorkers, 86, 1%

Teachers, 93, 1%

Community Leaders, IDP men, 1712, 24% 314, 5%

Figure 1: Respondents

Data collection was done from late February until end of April, 2013. This was a good period to reach most of the remote villages that would have otherwise been difficult to reach during the rainy season. However, this period was not favorable for the collection of information on education because all the schools were not in operation during this summer break and many educators were not available for the interview.

In data consolidation, a local consultant was hired to customize an MS Access database in accordance with the questionnaire form. The same consultant prepared the data entry and computer-generated analyses.

The unit of analysis is the village level .

12

The assessment covers only the initially known and accessed 131 villages mainly in the states of Kayin and Tanintharyi. We can assume that it covers only the “tip of the iceberg” compared to the TBC report of 3,700 villages destroyed, relocated and abandoned in whole of southeast Myanmar since 1996 4.

The focus of this assessment is on armed conflict-induced displacement and not on other types of displacement such as disaster and development-induced. It includes population counts, displacement trends, health, education, WASH, protection, livelihood, food security concerns. Because of the sweeping nature of this initial assessment, more detailed assessments will still be needed when starting specific program interventions are actually invited.

There are inherent shortcomings and limitations in the methodology used. Due to travel restriction to remote areas and limited availability of the consultant in leading the exercise, the collection of information relied mainly on the limited technical capacity and training of volunteer enumerators who had access to the IDP villages. The use of closed questions was formulated to facilitate easy and quick gathering of facts. However, this also limited the variation of responses from the respondents and could not capture the opinions, feelings, and specific stories. Some questions in the questionnaire form have limited multiple choices when there are more probable responses. Using the village as the unit of analysis may be useful in informing village-level interventions benefitting the entire population, but since the community people are not homogenous, individual needs of IDPs were not given due attention. Much of the information can only show names and numbers of villages affected but there is no population count to determine the number of persons affected. Although the information needs are generally in the context protracted displacement, some questions in the questionnaire form adapted from OCHA were more relevant in the emergency context and camp setting.

There are also limitations in collecting accurate and reliable information on population estimates (difficult for respondents to identify exact ages of individuals), on diseases (respondents sometimes guessed the causes of illness), measuring the land or farm areas (difficult for respondents to calculate the size of land), safe drinking water (“it seems safe for drinking”), number of students and education-related issues (school teachers were not available for interview), etc. Some enumerators failed to fill in some questions in the questionnaire form, thus the percentages and ratios would not be accurate as desired. Caution should be taken when using this data, and the context in which this information was drawn should be carefully considered.

At this initial stage when collecting specific information on IDPs can still be considered “sensitive”, protection-related questions are not as exhaustive as desired.

Access was not granted in some areas. In Parpun, enumerators were not allowed to collect any information unless granted permission from the central committee of the KNU. KNU just issued a “policy on humanitarian operations in ceasefire zone” requiring local and international organizations wishing to operate in these areas to register, obtain approval, and enter into a memorandum of understanding with

4 The Border Consortium, Changing Realities, Poverty and Displacement in South East Myanmar, October 2012.

13

the group, who will then issue operational permissions and identity cards for humanitarian workers and assist them with safe passage and security 5 .

Despite the limitations and shortcomings, the initial information collected by the local volunteers can provide a starting point for UNICEF in its consultation with partners, in doing follow up actions and future interventions, including further assessments .

5 Karen National Union, Policy on humanitarian operation in ceasefire zone , 25 March 2013, cited by the JNA desktop review done in March 2013. 14

II. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CONFLICT AND DISPLACEMENT IN KAYIN AND TANINTHARYI

The main armed conflict in the southeast states of Kayin and Tanintharyi for over 60 years now is the conflict between the central government and the Karen National Union/ Karen National Liberation Army (KNU/ KNLA), which represents the Karen nationalist ethnic minority. Historically, the most fundamental grievance of the Karen people is their lack of influence on the political processes and decisions that affect their lives. They consider themselves discriminated against and marginalized in economic, political, social, cultural, linguistic, and religious rights. They have accused successive governments of a deliberate policy of “Burmanisation”. Historically, the Myanmar government’s approach to nation-building seems intent on assimilating the Karen people into the dominant Burman-Buddhist culture. The government’s suspicion of the Karen people seeking to split the country served as justification for its repressive, often brutal policies in minority areas 6 in the past.

The Karen/ Kayin people are estimated to be from 3-7 million and are not a homogenous group. They speak more than 12 dialects 7. Majority are Buddhists, an estimated 20 per cent are Christians, and there are a few animists and Muslims. Karen communities are living in Irrawaddy Delta, lowland areas of Yangon and Bago regions, Tanintharyi division, Mon and Kayin. Majority are living in government- controlled areas and have not been involved in the armed conflict with the government, although they may be deeply critical of the government. Aspirations for self-determination are deeply held by many members of the Karen communities 8 The Karen communities living in the mountainous areas bordering Thailand have always been subjected to armed conflict and various forms of violence 910 .

The Karen National Union is the main leading armed opposition group of the Karen people. Its military arm is the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA ). As of 2011, it has 7 brigades with around 3,000 soldiers operating in Kayin, Mon, Bago, Tanintharyi 11 . KNU was set up in 1947 by well-known Karen nationalists. They worked closely with the British colonial government and pushed for an independent state, fearful of Burman domination over the Kayin people. Historical support to KNU included the activities of missionaries and Cold War security interests. KNU also received material support and legitimization through support for refugees in camps in Thailand- Burma border 12 . KNU at that time functioned like a government exercising authority over large “liberated areas” along Thai border. It absorbed a lot of activists after the 1988 military crackdown. However, KNU was weakened when it became the target of the brunt of government’s military offensives because of ceasefires that were

6 International Crisis Group, Asia Report, 2003 7 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict, 2011 8 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict, 2011 9 ibid 10 11 ibid 12 ibid

15

being held in other parts of the country and after the DKBA split 13 . Thailand also put a pressure to stop the flow of food and arms from Thailand.

Other Karen armed groups and ex-KNU/KNLA factions as of 2011 were the: 1) “Kloh Htoo Baw” group ( ex-Democratic Karen Buddhist Army – a.k.a. DKBA Brigade 5 plus some other non-BGF DKBA units) with an estimated 500-800 soldiers. They are active in Kawkariek, Myawaddy, Kyarkdon, Hlain Bwe and Myaing Gyi Ngu areas. They cooperate with KNU; 2) Thandaung Peace Group (a.k.a Leikto Group) – 100 soldiers, operating in Northern Kayin; 3) P’Doh Aung San Group – 20 soldiers; area: Hpaan, central Kayin; 4) KNU/KNLA Peace Council, 300 soldiers, operates in southern Kayin state 14 . Some of the armed groups were transformed into Border Guard Force under the Tatmadaw’s control 15 .

Historically, the mountainous ethnic border areas were never been fully controlled by the State. These areas were administered separately by the ethnic armed opposition groups. The Karen National Union, for example, operated as a ‘de facto’ government controlling areas, and had modern state-like structures including departments for health, education, law, forestry, other civil administration, security, policing, taxation 16 . The areas were categorized as: “black” areas” (rebel held), “brown areas” (contested between rebels and government); and “white area” ( government-controlled). To reduce the “black areas”, the government launched its brutal searched and destroy “Four-cuts” campaigns (depriving the insurgents with food, funds, intelligence, and recruits) , a military strategy using “free fire zones” to penetrate insurgents’ areas, extensive population relocation, ‘sweeping’ an area, meaning removing any suspected villagers and burning their villages.

After a series of ceasefire agreements in the 1990’s, the Tatmadaw military offensives in KNU areas, and the splits within KNU, the conflict-affected areas in the southeast were subjected to multiple authorities. The demarcations between these areas of disputed authority and influence blur into each other, depending on the dynamics of the conflict. Many Karen villages have both a KNU headman and a government headman, and a village leader accountable to another armed faction 17 .

The protracted armed conflict in the southeast has resulted in the isolation, underdevelopment, lack of social services, displacement, abuses and untold suffering of hundreds of thousands, and even possibly millions, of people. The Border Consortium’s (TBC’s) community-based partners have documented the destruction, forced relocation and abandonment of more than 3,700 villages in 36 townships since 1996. They have estimated around 450,000 persons displaced. For the IDPs and communities in conflict- affected areas, their key needs are physical security, legal security and material security. As TBC pointed

13 According to Ashley South (2011), the historical prominence of KNU in the Karen struggle brought with it the dominance of Christian, Sgaw-speaking elite, resulting to the frustration of the non- Christian Karen. This led to the emergence and breakaway of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (majority are Buddhist and Pwo speaking Karen) from KNU. Later, DKBA was transformed into Border Guard Force under the leadership of the Tatmadaw. 14 ibid 15 ibid 16 ibid 17 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict , 2011

16

out, “ the challenge remains to create conditions which will support the sustainability of these initial population movements and facilitate the voluntary return in safety and with dignity of internally displaced persons in Myanmar and refugees from Thailand. Voluntary return incorporates informed consent and free choice without any form of political, physical, psychological or material coercion. Returning in safety implies physical security (including protection from armed conflict and landmines), legal security (including public assurances of non-discrimination and access to justice) and material security (including access to land and support from humanitarian agencies). Returning with dignity relates to the full restoration of human rights including access to citizenship ”18 .

To date, peace is very fragile in conflict-affected areas of the southeast. The ceasefire agreement still needs to be consolidated. Talks about political settlement to resolve the core grievances of the non-state armed actors have not yet started. Along the Thailand border, the Tatmadaw continues to operate and there are reports of occasional skirmishes between the Tatmadaw/ Border Guard Force and the local KNLA units. Practices such as portering/ forced labour, recruitment of child soldiers and burning of houses persist. Meanwhile, resource-based companies and major infrastructure projects are aggressively occupying vast tracts of land dispossessing communities and returning IDPs. Unregulated, these business “development” projects could in fact be potential drivers of conflict.

18 The Border Consortium, Changing Realities Poverty and Displacement in South East Burma/Myanmar , 2012

17

III. IDP CHILDREN AND THEIR VILLAGES

GEOGRAPHIC AND ACCESS INFORMATION

Map of IDP settlements in the Kayin and Northern Tanintharyi

Figure 2: Map of the location of IDP settlements assessed

A total of 131 villages were assessed in 7 townships of Kayin, 5 townships Tanintharyi and 2 townships of Bago East. Majority of these villages are populated by Kayin ethnic groups. The list of these villages are in Annex A.

STATE TOWNSHIPS VILLAGES Bago (East) Kyaukkyi 1 Taungoo 1 KAYIN Hlaingbwe 12 Hpa -An 1 Hpapun 6 Kawkareik 10 Kyainseikgyi 32 Myawaddy 9 Thandaunggyi 19 TANINTHARYI Dawei 11 Launglon 1 Palaw 10 Thayetchaung 7 Yebyu 11

There are 32 newly-resettled villages, some were previously abandoned due to protracted conflict and the names are already deleted in the government records. A total of 15 villages cannot be located in the map in the absence of GPS coordinates 19 . These villages that cannot be located in the map are the following:

Townships Village Tract Names Village Remark Names Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub - Htee Phoe Kyainseikgyi (New V illage ); No township) Wai coordinates

19 Due to unavailability of GPS coordinates, of the total known villages, only 56% of Kayin villages and 60% of Tanintharyi villages can be mapped by MIMU in Feb. 2013.

18

Hlaingbwe Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Sub - Htee Hpoe No coordinates township) Khee Myawaddy Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Chaung Sone No coordinates Sub-township) Myawaddy Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Taw Oke No coordinates Sub-township) Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub - Hpa Aung No coordinates township) Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub - Hpar Naw No coordinates township) Mee Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta Dawt Ka Kyar Hlaingbwe (New Village ); No coordinates Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta War Hae Hta Hlaingbwe (New V illage ) Thandaunggyi Lel Kho Doe Kar Ka Mu Do Coordinates given are in Bago Region Thandaunggyi Dar War Law Chee Lo Lar Way Coordinates given are in Bago Region Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub -township) Ka Lit Gyi No coordinates Palaw Pa La Pa La Oke Palaw (New V illage ); No Htar coordinates Thayetchaung Yae Pu Yae Pu Thayet Chaung Group Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Ngar Tet No coordinates Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Htaw Ta Li Palaw (New V illage )

ACCESS AND MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION: Most of the identified 131 settlements can be accessed by motorcycles. Some settlements can be reached by 4-wheel drive cars, htaw lar gyi ( a small truck), and some can be reached using boats. A significant number of settlements can be accessed only by foot due to damaged roads and/ or bridges. It is more difficult to reach these villages during the rainy season.

Aside from geographical and transportation difficulties are political, bureaucratic, logistical and security concerns. As mentioned, permission from both the government and NSAG is required. There is also the presence of landmine in some areas. Just this year (January 2013), in Kataing Hti village, Parpun, 4 persons died, and in Tadar U village, one man died, all due to landmine explosion. There are reports that some DKBA soldiers set landmines to protect themselves from the pursuit of government forces. Landmine explosions are reported in the forested area of Dawei township and Thayetchaung. In Bawgali, Thandaung, mines exploded in March 2012, and another one in January 2013, in the forest killing 4 soldiers and damaging 1 bulldozer and 1 truck.

Before doing any assessment on these villages, the volunteer enumerators sought the permission of the local authorities (both state and non-state actors operating in the village). They were also advised to take with them some local guides and residents. In Northern Kayin, the assessment was welcomed by both the government and KNU authorities and they urged the enumerators to reach as many villages possible with the hope that those assessed are more likely to receive assistance. While in Parpun, the enumerators were not allowed to assess the IDP villages unless given permission from KNU central committee. Also in

19

Parpun, there was tension between the KNU and government troops, reports of villagers fleeing whenever government troops approach the villages, and houses burned by these government troops. In a village in Thayetchaung, northern Tanintharyi , some villagers were wary of the assessment because of ‘broken promises’ by one UN organization to provide them with shelters. The village authority also told the enumerators that they should not ask any more question if there is no support coming to the village.

Access

45

40

35

30

25

20

Number Villages ofNumber 15

10

5

0 Hlaingb Kawkar Kyainse Kyaukk Myawa Launglo Thayetc Hpa-An Hpapun Palaw Dawei Yebyu we eik ikgyi yi ddy n haung Water 3 1 1 1 10 3 1 2 Land 12 1 6 10 32 1 9 10 1 11 7 11

Figure 3: Access by Land and Water

20

Means of Transportation 140

117 120

100

80 80

60 53

No. of Villages ofNo. 40

20 11 10 7 5 1 0 Htaw Lar Motorbik 4WD Boat By Foot Car Other Truck Gyi e No of Villages 11 1 80 53 10 117 7 5

Figure 4: Means of Transportation

Villages with Access Problems

30 26

25 23

20

15 11 10 No. of Villages ofNo. 6 5 2

0 General Broken bridge Flood Other River crossing remoteness No of Villages 6 2 23 11 26

Figure 5: Hard-to-Reach Villages

21

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

There are 10,960 households and 58,484 individuals in the identified 131 communities. There are more females than males in the total population count of all age groups.

The enumerators failed to complete the population count of IDPs in all 131 villages and only counted them in 72 villages. Thus, it may seem to comprise only 20% of the total residents, but this percentage should increase had they counted all the IDPs in 131 villages. Returning refugees are estimated to be 0.2 per cent, and economic migrants 3.5 per cent of the total households. Child-headed households comprise 1.3 per cent while women-headed households reach 10.4 per cent.

Vulnerable individuals include: 20 HIV/AIDs positive, 550 persons with disability, 140 unaccompanied children, 320 unaccompanied adults, 322 orphans and 2,504 working minors.

Migrants, IDPs, Refugee Returnees 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000

population 20000 10000 0 No. of No. of Refugee No. of Economic No. of IDP Total number returnees Residents Migrants Total HH 389 2200 59 6208 10960 Total Individuals 1726 11588 280 33751 58484 Number of Vlgs 72 18 131

Figure 6: Numbers of Migrants, IDPs, Refugee Refugees

Location of Returning Refugees in 18 villages

State / Region Township Village Tract Village Households Individual s Kayin Thandaunggyi Ho Thaw Pa Lo (Leik Tho Sub- Ho Thaw Pa Lo 1 4 township) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub- Se Yoe (Kalar Pa 5 25 township) Soke) Kayin Hpa-An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin 3 19 Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Htee Par 2 9 Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar 2 8 Kayin Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Hpa Aung 2 11 Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub- Htee Phoe Wai 10 56 township) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Win Lone 1 6 Sub-township)

22

Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub- Hpay Nar Mone 1 4 township) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Aung Chan Thar 1 5 Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Pa Dat Chaung Taung Zin 2 7 Tanintharyi Yebyu Mi Kyaung Hlaung (Kaleinaung Sub- Mi Kyaung Hlaung 5 25 township) Tanintharyi Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub- Kywe Tha Lin 3 20 township) Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Ma Yan Chaung 7 21 Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Rar Hpu (Thit) 6 30 Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Mile (60) Ywar 6 24 Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) War Taw 1 2 Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Wa Zum Oke 1 4 TOTAL 59 280 Figure 7: Returning Refugees

30000 27141 25650 25000

20000

15000 F M

10000

5238 4676 4919 4855 5000 3226 3064 2351 1023 1487 1249 0 Lactating Pregnant Total Under 1 Under 5 Under 12 Under 18 women women F 2351 1023 27141 1487 3226 5238 4919 M 25650 1249 3064 4676 4855

Figure 8: Numbers of Females, Males, Lactating Women, Pregnant Women and Children

23

Vulnerable Groups 1600

1400 1359

1200 1137 1145

1000

800

600

400 266 189 202 148 178 166 156 137 118 200 111 113 87 53 1 8 6 5 0 Unaccom Child Female Persons Unaccom Children Children Chronical panied headed headed disabled Orphan with panied Working with with ly ill minors Househol household persons children HIV/AID elders Children disability HIV/Aids persons (Under ds s S (above 60) 18) HH 148 1137 F 111 1 266 113 166 6 202 53 1145 M 189 8 178 137 156 5 118 87 1359

Figure 9: Vulnerable groups

Languages spoken in the villages: Majority speak Kayin (Sgaw is dominant, followed by Pwo, Gabar and Bawe) while Bamar is spoken in 49 villages, Dawei in 22 villages and Mon language in 8 villages. This shows the dominance of Kayin ethnic groups among the IDPs in these villages.

24

Languages Spoken

90 79 80

70

60 49 50

40 33

No. of Villages ofNo. 30 27 22 20 8 10 5 1 1 1 2 1 0 Shan Kayin Kayin Kayin Kayin Shan Pa Ohe Mon Kayin Dawei Bawe Bamar (Law) (Sagaw) (Poe) (Gabar) (Bawe) No of Villages 1 1 1 8 79 27 5 2 33 22 1 49

Figure 10: Languages spoken

DISPLACEMENT TRENDS

In describing the categories of the IDP settlements, 77 settlements are living with host communities, 77 are places of origin for IDPs, 5 villages are experiencing ongoing displacement. Some villages fit into different categories. It is assumed that displacement happened in villages of origin, but the enumerators only identified 23 villages. Many IDPs residing in their host villages are also visiting their original villages to maintain their farms where they generate their income. Some IDPs are taxed twice by KNU (as residents in host community and maintaining their farms in their original village).

25

Description of Settlements

Active displacement is happening in the village Place of origin for IDPs living in the village Previous displacement happened in the village Relocation site Village has IDPs in host community

77 77

23 5 3

Villages

Figure 11: Description of Settlements

There seems to be a significant population movement in these villages with the coming of new arrivals in the past 12 months. New arrivals in the villages are mainly IDPs (located in 73 villages), followed by migrant workers (12 villages), elsewhere in Thailand (potential refuges) and some returning refugees (5 villages). We have no number of individuals/ families. Only 3 villages declared that the IDP population is decreasing in their village. Most of the villages claimed that the IDP population is increasing. It is not clear if the IDPs are returning to their original villages or just moving to another location. Although there are economic migrants in the villages, the trend is for younger villagers to go to Thailand to work (outmigration).

Origin of New arrivals since January 2012

From Camps in Thailand (refugees) Elsewhere in Myanmar (IDPs) Elsewhere in Thailand (potential refugees) Myanmar people who moved here to work (economic migrants)

7 73 5 12

Villages

Figure 12: New Arrivals

26

Most of the villages host IDPs that have been displaced for a long time. Those who have not yet returned identified 128 villages where they originated.

Duration of Displaced

70 62 60 49 50

40 32 29 30 20 14 14

Number of Villages of Number 7 10 6 1 0 f. More g. More h. More i. More a. 1 month b. 3 months c. 6 months d. 9 months e. 1 year than 1 year than 3 than 5 than 10 Number of Vlgs 6 14 7 1 14 29 32 49 62

Figure 13: Duration of Displacement

When asked why the IDPs chose to stay in their current location, the three main reasons given were: first, access to community support; second, physical safety ; and third, livelihood opportunity.

Reason for Staying 90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 close to schools and we earn our friends and medical income here relatives live we feel safe services (access to Birth place here (access to good access Other Reasons here (physical (access to economic/ community/ safety) education, livelihood social support) health opportunity) services) Reason for Staying 15 20 81 3 11 48 61

Figure 14: Reasons for staying in the current settlement

27

Reasons given for not returning to their original villages: first, limited livelihood opportunity; second, no road or too far and no access to community/ social services ; third, physical insecurity and risk of landmines . Despite the stated reason of ‘no livelihood opportunity’ in the original villages, the enumerators informed that many IDPs continue to go to their original villages to tend to their farms for economic reasons and even maintain temporary houses there. They refused to stay for fear for their safety, fear that fighting might resume, and due to lack of social services.

Reasons for Not Returning to Original Village 90 80 77 70 60 50 41 38 40 30 20 18 19 20 No. No. of Villages 8 10 2 0 no access to original land fear from frequent social services No livelihood No road access/ risk of occupied by Other reasons physical harm displacements (education, opportunity Too far landmines others health) No of Villages 20 2 38 77 41 18 8 19

Figure 15: Reasons for not returning to their original village

When the IDPs were asked where they would like to settle permanently if given the opportunity, majority would like to settle in their current location (76 villages), while 29 IDP settlements would like to return to their original villages and 35 would like to settle elsewhere. A few (3 settlements) would like to settle outside Myanmar. We still need to sort out the classification of these 76 villages, if ‘current’ location are places of refuge or places of origin.

28

Where IDPs Want to Settle Permanently 76 villages

35 villages 29 villages

4 villages

No of Villages Elsewhere inside Myanmar 35 Elsewhere outside Myanmar 4 In their original village (not this 29 village) In this current settlement 76

Figure 16: Where the IDPs would like to settle permanently

IDENTITY DOCUMENTS

Out of 131 villages, the respondents estimated that:

• In 10 villages, people have no IDs • In 59 villages, less than 50% of the population have IDs • In 41 villages, more than 50% of the population have IDs • In 21 villages, all have IDs

29

ID Document

8% 16% No ID less than 50% have IDs 50% and more have IDs 45% 31% everyone has ID

Figure 17: Percentage of ID holders in the villages

Types of ID Document

120

106

100

80

60

41 40 No. No. of Villages 27

20 15 12 8 2 2 3 1 0 National Birth Birth Associated Citizenship Registration Naturalized Registration Registration Temporary Scrutiny Scrutiny Card (3 Scrutiny Temporary Certificate Certificate Family List Other Registration Citizenship Card folded card, Citizenship Family List Issued in Issued in Card (TRC) Card (CSCs) Pink green or Card Myanmar Thailand pink) No of Villages 2 27 2 106 41 15 8 3 1 12

Figure 18: Types of Identity Documents

SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS Number of households in: open shelter 496 (5%), in temporary shelter: 4164 (40%), in solid shelter: 5854 (55%). There are no community center or collective shelter. Shelter (and home lot) is one

30

major concern of the IDPs as compared to the host community households. IDPs usually stay only in temporary shelters. They are also in need of non-food items and identified this as a priority problem as compared to host community households.

SHELTER Open Shelter 5% 0%

Solid Temporary Shelter shelter 55% 40%

Figure 19: Shelter types

Number of villages and estimated percentage of households with sufficient non-food items:

Non -food Items 0% <25% 25 -45% 50% 55 - 75% or 100% 75% more Blankets and Bedding 23 14 15 22 19 Clothing 2 26 6 11 25 29 Cooking Utensils 1 19 10 15 32 23 Fuel Wood 1 3 2 2 5 106 Jerry Cans 3 23 15 16 27 12 Mosquito Nets 8 13 9 11 13 58 Plastic Sheeting 44 17 6 2 2 3 6 Sanitary Pads 22 41 15 8 9 Shelter (with roof and 2 16 15 8 27 45 walls) Soap 2 26 12 19 23 18

31

LIVELIHOOD AND FOOD SECURITY

Main source of income for most of the villages is daily wage labor while farming is the main livelihood opportunity (if farmland is available to 48 per cent of the villages).

Main Sources of Cash Income

120 111

100

80

60 No. of Villages of No.

40 41 41 40

29

20 18 20

8 6

0 no cash sale of sale of Aid or daily wage fishing or sale of income in petty trade regular job agricultural forest remittance labor hunting livestock past month crops products No of Villages 6 111 8 40 41 18 41 29 20

Figure 20: Sources of Income

.

32

Livelihood Opportunities

140

119 120

100

80

60 No. of Villages ofNo.

39 40 36

22 21 19 20 11 7 5 7 1 3 0 health daily Educat rubber constru farmin and livestoc public wages ion fishing mining other plantat trade ction g social k servant labour work ion work No of Villages 7 1 21 119 5 19 36 3 22 7 39 11

Figure 21: Livelihood Opportunities

Land ownership : 48 per cent have no land; 23 per cent own land less than 2 acres; 20 per cent own land between 2-5 acres and 9 per cent own land more than 5 acres.

Land rights and security is very much connected to displacement. Majority of the IDPs have no land of their own and are just working in other people’s farms. They cannot build permanent houses on other people’s land. In Dawei, 9 previously abandoned villages are not recognized by the government thus no permanent structure is allowed. Returning to their original villages, there are many cases that their land were already occupied by companies or military (camp or training school). Some of the cases affecting the IDPs losing their land are:

• In Palau, Tanintharyi, the military took over the land / farms of the IDPs to build a military training camp; • One agriculture company occupied the land at the border of Palau and Thayetchaung for rubber plantation; • In Dawei township, a rubber plantation company also occupied a forest where villagers have their farms; • In Naung Bo village, Kyaukkyi (Bago East), a military camp fenced in the land of the returning IDPs, including the school and church inside the camp preventing the use of school and church. This village is listed as a destroyed village (unregistered). There are 35 IDP returnee families.

33

• The 3 IDP settlements (wards) in Thandaunggyi originated from 16 villages inside the jungle. Between the IDP settlements to the their original place is the presence of a huge of military camp. The IDPs cannot go to their original places without the permission of the military. The IDPs are worried that may lose their land to business companies in their absence. • In Kyarinseikkyi, some villagers are warned to be moved to places close to the road by by the government as road construction will take place for Antimony mine through their villages. Similar complaints were received from some villages in Tanintharyi.

Land Ownership for Farming

acres 5 plus 9%

with 2 to 5 acres of land 20% No Land for Farming 48% less than 2 acres of land 23%

Figure 22: Land Ownership

Shocks to livelihood: During the previous year, the common livelihood shocks experienced were: loss of job illness in the family, death of the main breadwinner, destruction or loss of property due to natural disasters, reduced access to farms, landmines and armed conflict are the major sources of shock that have occurred in the past 12 months in these villages. Not shared by most of the villages, conflict- related shocks are identified in 21 villages having landmine problems, 12 villages having reduced access to their farms and travel restrictions and 6 villages still affected by armed conflict. Loss of farm products and farm animals are cited. Food stocks vary, from 1 week to 16 weeks, and in 44 villages, some people have no food stock at all. Only 9 villages in the townships of Dawei, Hlaingbwe and Thandaunggyi received food assistance. Main forms of coping strategy are borrowing, skipping loan payment, selling of young/ immature livestock, collecting wild products from the forest, harvesting immature crops, consuming seed stock and begging.

34

Difficulties or Shocks to Livelihood

120 107 98 100

83 80

60 52

40 24 No. of Villages ofNo. 21 22 20 12 6 1 1 2 0 reduced no job loss of access to flood/ opportu difficult forced illness employ loss of farm; afraid armed heavy landmin nities or road displace or ment or producti others travel Robber conflict rain/ es less job access ment injury reduced ve assets restricti drought opportu wages ons nities travel No of Villages 1 6 1 83 2 98 21 52 22 107 24 12

Figure 23: Livelihood Shocks

Loss due to Shock

60

50

40

30

51 49

No. of Villages ofNo. 20 31 26 26 10 17 14 9 0 1 2 2 2 Chicke Harves Buffalo Cow Crops Donkey Duck Geese Goat Horse Pig Turkey n t stocks No of Villages 26 31 26 51 1 14 2 9 49 2 17 2

Figure 24: Loss due to Livelihood Shocks

35

Food availability

90.0

77 80.0 74 71 70.0 61 60.0 52 50.0 44

40.0

No. of Villages ofNo. 30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 Currently <1 week 1-2 weeks 2-4 weeks 4-8 weeks 8-16 weeks not able No of Villages 52 61 71 74 77 44

Figure 25: Food stock

Assistance Received

4.5 4 4

3.5

3

2.5

2

No. of Villages ofNo. 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.5

0 Dawei Hlaingbwe Thandaunggyi Clothes 1 Oil 1 Pulses 1 Rice 1 4 1

Figure 26: Assistance Received

36

Coping Strategies

120

100 97

80 71 71 70 62 59 60 50

39

No. of Villages ofNo. 40 35 32 25 24

20

5 4

0 Sell Sell Skip Sell livestoc Reduce Limit Consum Collecti Harvest Consum non- less Borrowi loan young k or number portion e more Skip ng wild immatu e seed Begging product preferre ng paymen livestoc farm of meals sizes at livestoc meals food re crops stock ive d food ts k equipm per day meals k assets ent No.Villages 97 71 71 70 62 59 50 39 35 32 25 24 5 4

Figure 27: Coping Strategies

37

WATER, SANITATION, HYGIENE

Water availability in the villages:

Of the 131 villages, 57 % have insufficient drinking water, 38 % think that their water is not safe for drinking, 30 % have insufficient cooking water, and 32 % have insufficient cleaning water.

Township SUFFICIENT SAFE for DRINKING? SUFFICIENT SUFFICIENT CLEANING DRINKING COOKING WATER WATER WATER No Yes N.A. No Yes No Yes N.A. No Yes Dawei 10 1 8 3 5 6 1 3 7 Hlaingbwe 3 9 6 6 2 10 4 8 Hpa-An 1 1 1 1 Hpapun 1 5 2 4 6 1 5 Kawkareik 3 7 1 9 3 7 3 7 Kyainseikgyi 11 21 8 24 11 21 4 6 22 Kyaukkyi 1 1 1 1 Launglon 1 1 1 1 Myawaddy 6 3 1 7 1 5 4 6 3 Palaw 3 7 10 10 2 8 Taungoo 1 1 1 1 Thandaunggyi 8 11 11 8 5 14 2 10 7 Thayetchaung 2 5 3 4 2 5 4 1 2 Yebyu 7 4 2 9 7 4 7 4 TOTAL VILLAGES 56 75 1 50 80 41 90 13 44 74 Figure 28: Availability of drinking water, safe drinking water, cooking water and cleaning water in the villages

Sources of Water

80

68 70 66

60

50

38 40

30 27 21

Number Villages ofNumber 20

10

0 Natural spring/ Piped water Borehole/Pump Rain water River/Stream Gravity flow system No of Villages 66 38 27 21 68

Figure 29: Sources of Water

38

Borehole Condition

1000 886 900 800 700

600 527 500 400 No. of Boreholes ofNo. 300 200 100 61 66 0 Destroyed and not working Working Number of Borehole 527 886 Number of Villages 61 66

Figure 30: Condition of Borehole

Pump Condition

40 38

35

30

25

20

No. of Pumps ofNo. 15 12

10

5 2 2

0 Destroyed and not working Working Number of Pump 38 2 Number of Villages 12 2

Figure 31: Condition of Pumps

Additional information:

• 67 (51%) of the villages do not boil their water before drinking. The main reason for the practice is the lack of knowledge on the importance of boiling. • Only 3 out 131 villages have available water purification methods/ tablets.

39

• In Kyarinseikkyi, some villages have drinking water problem because mines of Antimony are close to their village and mine tailings have polluted their drinking water.

Sanitation and Hygiene

On the use of latrines : Open defecation is a common practice in all villages. 19 villages have no functioning latrines at all, while 112 have functioning latrines. Of the 112 villages with functioning latrines, not all the people have access to these latrines and most latrines are unsanitary and not fly-proof. In general, around 5-10 persons commonly use one latrine but a few villages declared that 15-30 persons commonly use a single latrine. In 84 villages, children do not use latrines for defecation. There is no separate latrine exclsively for women. In 70 villages, the respondents answered that there is no safe access for women at night. Further details:

• 45 villages have 25% functioning latrines

• 22 villages have 50% functioning latrines

• 24 villages have 75% functioning latrines

• Average of 17% in 68 villages wash with soap after using the latrines

• Average of 90% wash without soap after using the latrines

On sanitation:

• 32 villages have no bathing facilities

• 79 villages have stagnant water ( large puddles) at the site four hours after the rain

• 120 villages have no common waste dump in the site

• 120 villages have freely roaming livestock in the vicinity of their homes

•

40

Functioning Latrines

35 31

30

25

20 18 No. of Villages of No. 15 11 10 10 9 9 9 7 6 5 4 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 11 1

0 Hlaingb Kawkar Kyainse Kyaukk Launglo Myawa Taungo Thanda Thayetc Dawei Hpa-An Hpapun Palaw Yebyu we eik ikgyi yi n ddy o unggyi haung No 2 9 1 1 4 1 1 Yes 9 3 1 6 10 31 1 5 9 1 18 7 11

Figure 32: Availability of Latrines

No. of Persons per Latrine

60

50

40

30

No. of Villages ofNo. 55

20 38

29

10

3 5 0 1 5 persons per 10 persons per 15 persons per 20 persons per 30 persons per 0 latrine latrine latrine latrine latrine Number of Villages 29 55 38 3 5 1

Figure 33: Number of Persons Using a Latrine

41

Type of Latrines Used

Flyproof Unsanitary

100 99 94 92

80 75 72

66 61 59 60

51 50 45

38 38 37 34 35 32 30 25 20

8.3

2 0

Figure 34: Percentage of Villagers Using Flyproof or Unsanitary Latrines

42

120 Hygiene Practice 100 100 96 94 86 81 77 80 75 75 71 68 70 62 63 60 58 60 56 53 52 49 49

40 39 40 40

Average % Average 30 25 25 23 20

0 Tha Tha Hlai Kaw Kyai Kya Lau Mya Daw Hpa Hpa Pala Tau nda yetc Yeb ngb kare nsei ukk nglo wad ei -An pun w ngoo ungg hau yu we ik kgyi yi n dy yi ng Average percentage of Open Defecation 77 96 40 68 58 62 100 70 81 63 25 52 86 23 Average % of people using latrines 71 25 60 49 53 39 30 56 75 75 49 40 94

Figure 35: Percentage of Villages using latrines and openly defecate

LATRINES 50 45 40 35 30 No latrines 25 25% have functioning latrines 20 50% have functioning latrines 15 75% have functioning latrines 10 5 0 Use of latrines

Figure 36: Functioning Latrines

43

HEALTH AND NUTRITION

Only 15 villages have health facilities. These are mainly clinics run by government and NGOs. Only 3 doctors are available; the rest are community traditional birth attendants, healers, midwives, community and NGO health workers. Birth deliveries are mainly at home and majority are assisted by traditional birth attendants.

Malaria and diarrhea are prevalent, followed by dysentery, gastritis, respiratory ailments, tuberculosis, trauma and skin infection. Medicine is generally inadequate. 45% of the villages have not received any vaccination in 2012.

There are a total of 2,351 lactating women and 1,023 pregnant women in the villages. Around 407 under- 6 months old infants are dependent on infant milk products with Thandaunggyi, Kyainseikgyi (in Kayin) and Thayetchaung (Tanintharyi) having the highest reported cases. Obvious signs of malnutrition are reported in 71 villages, 24 of these villages are in Kyainseikgyi. There is no distribution of vitamin A in 68 villages and no deworming in 78 villages.

Children exposed to multiple vulnerabilities because of health reasons include 300 children with disabilities, and 9 with HIV/AIDS.

44

Health Facilities

40

35 4

30

25

20 28 No. No. of Villages 15 4

10 1 2 1 1 7 12 5 9 7 11 9 6 6 4 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hlaingb Kawkar Kyainse Kyaukk Myawa Launglo Thayetc Hpa-An Hpapun Dawei Palaw Yebyu we eik ikgyi yi ddy n haung Yes 1 4 2 1 1 4 No 12 1 6 9 28 1 7 11 1 9 6 7 Number of Health 1 4 2 1 1 4 Facilities

Figure 37: Availability of health facilities

Health Facilities Township Community Clinic DKBA clinic General Hospital NGO clinic RHC Sub RHC Kawkareik 1 Kyainseikgyi 1 3 Myawaddy 1 1 Thandaunggyi 1 1 1 2 1

Palaw 1 Thayetchaung 1 Yebyu 3 1

45

Health Care Providers

120

102 100

80

60 57 50 44

40

21 20 14 7 5 3 2 1 2 1 1 0 Comm Traditi Army Suppor unity Midwif onal Traditi Health Midwif NGO t NONE AMW Health Doctor e Nurse Other PSI birth onal Worke e Staff Midwif Worke (Temp) attenda Healer r e r nt NoofVillages 7 2 1 57 3 44 5 21 2 14 1 1 102 50

Figure 38: Availability of Health Care Providers

46

Health Care Services 90

79 80 71 68 70 62

60 55 55

50 44

40 37 No. No. of Villages 30

20 17

10

0 Distributio Malaria Treatment Antenatal Dewormin n of Immunizat diagnosis Referral NA Health talk of minor care g insecticide ion and cases illness nets treatment NoofVillages 17 55 68 62 44 79 71 37 55

Figure 39: Health Services

Main Health Concerns that Occurred During the Last Two Weeks 90

80 77 70 70

60

50 44 41 42 41 40 35 32 30

No. of Villages ofNo. 20 10 10 10 2 3 0 Sexuall y Skin Diarrh Dysent Gastrit Malari Measle Respir Trans Traum Tuberc Flu Others infecti ea ery is a s atory mitted a ulosis ons Diseas e Number of Villages 70 41 2 35 77 10 10 42 3 32 41 44

Figure 40: Recent Main Health Concerns

47

Adequate Medication Available

30

26

25

20

15 No. No. of Villages

10 9 9 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 Hlaingbw Kawkarei Kyainseik Myawadd Thayetch Hpa-An Hpapun Kyaukkyi Dawei Launglon Palaw Yebyu e k gyi y aung NA 4 1 8 5 2 9 2 6 No 8 1 5 2 26 1 7 2 1 1 2 2 Yes 1 9 3 3

Figure 41: Availability of Medication

48

Nearest Health Facility

60

53

50 44

40

30 No. No. of Villages

20 17 16

10

0 Hospital NGO Clinic RHC Sub RHC No. of Villages 53 17 16 44

Figure 42: Nearest Health Facilities Available

Vaccination Offered in 2012

70

62 62 63 59 60 55

50 48

40 37

No. No. of Villages 30

20

10

0 no TT for vaccinations BCG DPT Measles OPV Penta pregnant offered women No. of Villages 59 62 48 62 55 37 63

Figure 43: Vaccination Offered in 2012

49

Assists in the Delivery Home Hospital NGO clinic RHC Sub RHC Community Health 37 2 1 Worker Doctor 1 1 4 1 Husband 3 Midwife 28 2 3 1 1 Midwife (Temp) 1 NGO Staff 9 2 Nurse 3 1 1 Traditional birth 117 1 2 attendant Traditional Healer 16 TOTAL 215 3 11 5 4

Figure 44: Health Assistance During Delivery of Babies

No. of under No. of 6 months No. of No. of No. of Villages Villages No. of depending Villages with Villages with Obvious State Township without Villages No on infant Vitamin A Received Sign of Vitamin A Deworming milk Distributed Deworming Malnutrition Distribution products Bago (East) Kyaukkyi 1 1 1 Bago (East) Taungoo 1 1 Kayin Hlaingbwe 6 1 11 7 5 7 Kayin Hpa -An 1 1 1 Kayin Hpapun 41 4 2 5 1 5 Kayin Kawkareik 8 3 6 4 4 2 Kayin Kyainseikgyi 77 20 12 18 14 24 Kayin Myawaddy 32 3 4 4 4 3 Kayin Thandaunggyi 118 7 12 8 11 8 Tanintharyi Dawei 2 9 4 7 8 Tanintharyi Launglon 1 1 1 Tanintharyi Palaw 38 3 7 9 1 7 Tanintharyi Thayetchaung 81 5 2 7 2 Tanintharyi Yebyu 5 10 1 9 2 3 TOTAL 407 60 68 78 50 71

Figure 45: Nutrition Information

50

EDUCATION Education facilities :

Nine villages have high schools, 26 villages have middle schools, 119 have primary schools, 39 have preschools and 28 villages have temporary learning facilities. Of the 119 primary schools, 57 are community supported, 58 are government schools and 3 are already affiliated school. Preschools are available only in 39 villages, 29 are community supported and 10 are government preschools.

Classroom -students ratio is 1: 28 for pre-school, 1:49 for primary school, 1:30 for middle school and 1: 30 for high school. Seventy six villages have insufficient school latrines. Fifty two villages have no drinking water at school. Sixty five per cent of the school buildings need major repair and 35 per cent need minor repair. Only 10 schools have washing facilities.

School fees: Pre- schools collect from 500 to 3,000 monthly and around; primary schools collect from 1,000 to 6,500; middle schools collect from 2,000 to as much as 8,000; high school fee is 20,000.

Services Government Community Affiliated Pre School 500 – 3,000 1000 -3000

15,000 - 20,000 annual Primary 1,000 – 3,000 1000 – 6,500 2,000

12,000 -50,000 annual 10,500 – 60,000 30,000 Middle 2,000 2,000 2,500, 8,000

32,000 - 65000 annual 10,500 – 60,000 annual 100 ,000 annual High School 20,000 Not known Figure 46: School Fees

Curriculum : 84 per cent use the government curriculum. School supplies are generally insufficient in 62 villages.

Students: There are a total of 13,598 students, majority are in primary schools. Only 1 out of 4 under five are attending pre-schools. There are only 415 high school students in a population of 9,463 children under 18 years old (12-18 years old) or around 4 per cent of this age group are in high school. 2269 IDP children are not attending schools in 63 villages. In the population count, around 2,504 children are already working (child laborers). 2269 IDP children are not attending schools in 63 villages. Lack of interest, domestic chores, unable to pay for schools fees and transportation cost/ schools far from the villages and illness are the common reasons for children not attending schools. In 38 villages, the children need to work and in 15 villages, the movement of families from one site to another is one reason why the children cannot go to school. Majority of the students speak Kayin (Sgaw is most dominant, followed by Pwo). A small number can speak Bamar, Dawei, and Mon.

Teachers: There are 558 teachers and 239 are paid by the community. The teachers in in 81 villages can speak the local language (Kayin mainly). Most teachers receive low salary. Teacher’s absenteeism is one

51

reason for children not attending school. Base on the figures given, teacher-student ratio is: 1: 24 in High school; 1:29 in middle school; 1:15 in pre school, and 1:25 primary school.

Education Teacher Classroom

Villages Education Students Teachers Student Student Classrooms Ratio Ratio 9 High school (15 -16 years old) 415 17 1: 24 14 1:30 26 Middle school (10 -14 years old) 2523 88 1: 29 65 1:38 39 Pre school (3 -5 years old) 1271 82 1: 15 45 1:28 119 Primary (5 -9 years old) 9389 371 1: 25 192 1:49 9 NA TOTAL 13598 558 316

Figure 47: Total Number of Students, Teachers, Classrooms

Temporary Learning Facilities

12

10

8

6 11

No. of Villages ofNo. 4

2 3

1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Figure 48: Number and Location of Temporary Learning Facilities

52

TYPES OF SCHOOL:

Affiliated Schools, 8 Unknown, 3

Government Schools, 90 Community Schools, 92

Figure 49: Types of School

Villages with more than twenty out-of-school IDP children

Township Village Tract Village Out of school IDP Children Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat 408 Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Baw Kyo Lel 200 township) Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward 100 Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Lay Hpoe Hta 100 township) (East) Dawei Taung Thone Lone (Myitta Sub -township) Ka Htaung Ni 90 Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Naung Ta Khu 76 Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Yae Pu 76 township) Hpapun War Kaw Kyay (Kamamaung Sub -township) Ta Dar U 75 Palaw Nan Taung Nan Taung 61 Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward 60

53

Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Ngar Tet 50 Kyainseikgyi Lan Hpar (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Me Ta Law 50 Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub -township) Lawt Thaing 50 Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon 50 Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Shwe Yay 50 township) Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Htaw Ta Li 50 Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub -township) Ah Mo 50 Thandaunggyi Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub -township) Thauk Yae Khat 44 Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub -township) Hpar He Kwee 40 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi 35 Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) R Zar Ni Kone 32 Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein 30 (Middle) Palaw Sin Htoe Gyi (Palauk Sub -township) Inn Ma 26 Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar 25 Thandaunggyi Yae Thoe Gyi (Baw Ga Li sub -township) Yae Thoe Ka Lay 25 Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Ya Thayt 25 Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Khoke Khwar 20 Palaw Hta Min Ma Sar Ka Mar Aing 20 Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar 20 Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Naung Ta Man 20 Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Hu Than 20 Figure 50: List of Villages with 20+ out- of- school IDP children

54

Reasons for Children Not Attending Schools 90 78 80 68 70 64 58 60 55

50 38 40

30

20 15

No. of Villages 10 5 5 3 1 0 cannot child is child child pay moving not needed cannot transpo illness child security with teacher interest for pay rtation or works situatio family other is flood ed to domesti school cost/ handica for cash n is not to absent attend c fees school p or food safe another school chores is too site far Villages 78 68 64 58 55 38 15 5 5 3 1

Figure 51: Reasons for Children not Attending Schools

55

School Supplies

No Answer Not Sufficient Sufficient

16 15 15

9 9

7 7 7 6 6 5

3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1

Figure 52: Sufficiency of School Supplies

School Latrines

No Answer Not Sufficent Sufficient

25

13

7 7 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 33 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1

Figure 53: School Latrines

56

Drinking Water at School

No Answer Not Sufficient Sufficient

21

12 11 8 8 8 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

School Building Repair Information

Major repair needed, 74, 65%

Minor repair needed, 39, 35%

Major repair needed Minor repair needed

Figure 54: School Building Repair Information

57

Teaching Curriculum

Other, 4, 3%

No Answer, 17, 13%

Government, 110, 84%

Government No Answer Other

Figure 55: Teaching Curriculum

58

CHILD PROTECTION

Vulnerable Children

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 Families Child Unaccompa Total with Working Separated With With headed nied Children Orphans Missing Children Children HIV/Aids disability Households Children Missing Children Family 20 Households 148 Female 1145 53 12 63 166 1 111 Male 1359 87 18 71 156 8 189

Figure 56: Vulnerable Children

Child-headed households: In 26 villages

Township Village Tract Village Child headed Households Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub - Win Lone 40 township) Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi 20 Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward 20 Yebyu Zin Bar (Kaleinaung Sub -township) Zin Bar 10 Kyainseikgyi Lan Hpar (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Me Ta Law 7 Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Ngar Tet 5 Palaw Sin Htoe Gyi (Palauk Sub -township) Inn Ma 5 Hpapun Me Pa Li (Kamamaung Sub -township) Kyauk Twin 5 Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward 4

59

Thayetchaun Yae Pu Yae Pu 3 g Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon 3 Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein (Middle) 3 Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Lay Htaw Hta 3 Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Naung Ta Khu 3 Thandaunggyi Htee Thar Saw (Leik Tho Sub -township) Htee Thar Saw 2 (Lower) Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Hpa Aung 2 Palaw Nan Taung Nan Taung 2 Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Wa Zum Oke 2 Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Baw Kyo Lel 2 township) Yebyu Urban Kawt Hlaing 1 Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar 1 Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Hu Than 1 Palaw Hta Min Ma Sar Ka Mar Aing 1 Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) R Zar Ni Kone 1 Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub - Pa Law Hpar Htaw 1 township) Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni 1

The highest number of children with disabilities are seen in the following villages:

Township Village Tract Village Sex With disability Thandaunggyi Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub -township) Thauk Yae Khat M 8 Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward F 9 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi M 10 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi F 12 Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Me Ka Taw M 40

Children with HIV/ Aids are located in 3 villages

Township Village Tract Village Childre n with HIV Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward 7 (M) Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub -township) Rar Hpu (Thit) 1 (M) Thayetchaung Urban Laung Min Ba 1 (F)

The highest number of orphans are located in the ff:

Township Village Tract Village Sex Orphan s Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward M 75

60

Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward F 61 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi M 26 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi F 24 Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward M 18 Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward F 15

Separated Children:

Township Village Tract Village Name Sex/ Separat e Children Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward M 25 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi M 22 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub -township) Nga Poe Gyi F 20 Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward F 20 Myawaddy Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub - Ti Thea Lei (Maw M 15 township) Khee) Myawaddy Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub - Ti Thea Lei (Maw F 10 township) Khee) Kyainseikgyi Taung Waing (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Meit Ta Khet F 5 Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar F 5 Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar M 3 Kyainseikgyi Taung Waing (Kyaikdon Sub -township) Meit Ta Khet M 2 Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Ngar Tet M 2 Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni F 2 Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Kha Lel M 2 Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Ngar Tet F 1

Missing Children: mainly in Nga Poe, Leik Tho

Township Village Tract Village Sex Total Name Children Missing Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub - Nga Poe M 18 township) Gyi Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub - Nga Poe F 12 township) Gyi

Working Children: The highest number can be found in Thandaunggyi and Kyainseikgyi

Township Village Tract Village Sex Working Name Children Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub - Nga Poe M 215 township) Gyi

61

Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat M 208 Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub - Nga Poe F 200 township) Gyi Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat F 200

10 Local monasteries/ churches assisting vulnerable children

Township Village Tract Village Name of Sites Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub -township) Ngar Tet Naw Di Boe Yan Hpa -An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin Monastery Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Baw Kyo Lel Monastery Sub-township) Hpapun War Kaw Kyay (Kamamaung Sub - Ta Dar U Monastery township) Kawkareik Dauk Pa Lan Dauk Pa Lan Monastery Kawkareik Kawt Nwe Myo Haung Monastery Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Ya Thayt Monastery Thandaunggyi Htee Thar Saw (Leik Tho Sub - Htee Thar Saw (Lower) Monastery township) Myawaddy Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) KBC Church sub-township) Hpapun Me Pa Li (Kamamaung Sub - Kyauk Twin Church township) Figure 57: Monasteries assisting vulnerable children

ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING ASSISTANCE

COORDINATION


To be verified:

COORDINATING COORDINATING Township Village ORG’s Township Village ORG’s Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat DST Htee Hpay Thar Saw Myanmar Nar Thandaunggyi (Lower) Gayunar Kyainseikgyi Mone K.K.B.A Thauk Myanmar Htee Thandaunggyi Yae Khat Gayunar Phoe K.K.B.A Dauk Pa Save the Kyainseikgyi Wai (C.S.S.D.D) Kawkareik Lan Children Hto Thu K.K.B.A Mi Myawaddy Khee (C.S.S.D.D.) Kyaung Htar Hpo Myanmar Yebyu Hlaung Total Thandaunggyi Chee Gayunar Kawt Yebyu Hlaing Total Figure 58: Organizations doing Coordination

62

EDUCATION:

EDUCATION EDUCATION Township Village ORGs Township Village ORGs Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat DST Save the Thayetchaung Taung Zin Government Kawkareik Dauk Pa Lan Children Khoke Mi Kyaung Kyainseikgyi Khwar K.S.E.A.G Yebyu Hlaung Total Kawkareik Hti Hu Than KNU Yebyu Kawt Hlaing Total Pa Law Hpar Tha Byu Kyainseikgyi Htaw KNU Dawei Chaung UNICEF Kyainseikgyi Win Lone KNU Kayin Taung Noet Ta Pa Thayetchaung Pyauk UNICEF Kyainseikgyi Lar KNU Laung Min Ta Po Hpoe Thayetchaung Ba UNICEF Kyainseikgyi Htar KNU Htar Hpo Yar Thae Thandaunggyi Chee UNICEF Kar (Nan Pat Htee Thar Kyainseikgyi Chaung) KNU Thandaunggyi Saw (Lower) UNICEF Naung Ta Thauk Yae Kyainseikgyi Khu KNU Thandaunggyi Khat UNICEF Naung Ta UNICEF, Kyainseikgyi Man KNU Kawkareik Hti Saw Si Ni KNU Hnget Pyaw UNICEF, Kyainseikgyi Taw KNU Kyainseikgyi Me Ka Taw KNU Lay Htaw UNICEF, Kyainseikgyi Hta KNU Kyainseikgyi Shwe Doe KNU Khaw Thaw UNICEF, Thandaunggyi Khaw KNU Kyainseikgyi Me Ta Law KNU Ka Htaung Aung Chan UNICEF, Dawei Ni KNU Kyainseikgyi Thar KNU UNICEF, Kyainseikgyi Khaw Khat KSEAG Kyainseikgyi Bi Sa Khat KNU Htee Phoe UNICEF, Kyainseikgyi Wai KSEAG Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt KNU Myanmar Yadana Kyaukkyi Naung Bo Gayunar Ma Yan Project Yebyu Pay Ta Kha Red Cross Yebyu Chaung Hotel Saturday Figure 59: Organizations doing Education Kwee The Team (Yae Hlaingbwe Hpoo Pu)

63

FOOD SECURITY:

Township Village Tract Village FOOD SECURITY ORG’S Kyaukkyi Naung Bo Naung Bo Myanmar Gayunar Thandaunggyi Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub-township) Thauk Yae Khat Myanmar Gayunar

Figure 60: Organizations doing Food Security

HEALTH:

Township Village HEALTH ORG’NS Township Village HEALTH ORG’NS 3 D Fund+ WHO, Myanmar Dawei War Taw Government Thandaunggyi Lo Lar Way Gayunar Lay Htaw Pyar Sa Myanmar Kyainseikgyi Hta ARC Thandaunggyi Khan Gayunar Thayetchaung Yae Byat AZG Htee Thar Me Ka Taw Saw Myanmar Hlaingbwe Khee Bag Group Thandaunggyi (Lower) Gayunar Pa Law Hpar He Kyainseikgyi Hpar Htaw Best Hlaingbwe Kwee Save the Children Noet Ta Pa Hlaingbwe Htee Par Save the Children Kyainseikgyi Lar Best Oh Lar Ka Yar Thae Hlaingbwe Lo Save the Children Kar (Nan Mi Hpa Pat Kawkareik Nyar Save the Children Kyainseikgyi Chaung) Best Mi Kyaung Hnget Yebyu Hlaung Total Kyainseikgyi Pyaw Taw Best Kawt Khoke Yebyu Hlaing Total Kyainseikgyi Khwar Best+Government Hti Hu Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat DST Kawkareik Than UNICEF Kyainseikgyi Win Lone Government Kyainseikgyi Me Ka Taw UNICEF Naung Ta Dawei Ah Mo URC Kyainseikgyi Khu Government Ka Maw Naung Ta Dawei Haw URC Kyainseikgyi Man Government Kat Ta Yar Government, Dawei Sei URC Thayetchaung Yae Pu AZG, World Vision Sin Hpyu Khaw Thaw Dawei Taing URC Thandaunggyi Khaw KNU Dawei Ka Lit Gyi World Vision Htee Phoe Ka Htaung Kyainseikgyi Wai KNU Dawei Ni World Vision Lay Hpoe Ma Yan Yadana Project Hpapun Hta (East) KSEG Yebyu Chaung Hotel Yebyu Pay Ta Kha MARC Yae Sin Myanmar Figure 61: Organizations doing Health Assistance Taungoo kone Gayunar

64

NON-FOOD ITEMS:

NFI’s State Township Village Tract Village organizations Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Pa Dat Chaung Taung Zin World Vision Kayin Taung Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Kayin Taung Pyauk Pyauk World Vision Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub- Tanintharyi Dawei township) Ah Mo URC Save the Kayin Kawkareik Ta Ri Ta Khaung Mi Hpa Nyar Children Htee Thar Saw (Leik Htee Thar Myanmar Kayin Thandaunggyi Tho Sub-township) Saw (Lower) Gayunar Tanintharyi Yebyu Thea Chaung Pay Ta Kha MARC Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub- Pa Law Hpar Kayin Kyainseikgyi township) Htaw CSSDD Figure 62: Organizations providing Non-Food Items

NUTRITION

State Township Village Tract Village Nutrition Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub - Ka Lit Gyi World township) Vision Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) Pa Law Hpar Htaw VA (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Figure 63: Organizations providing Nutrition assistance

SHELTER

State Township Village Tract Village Shelter Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub - Ka Lit Gyi UNHCR township) Figure 64: Organizations in Shelter Assistance

WATER

State Township Village Tract Village WASH Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub - Ka Lit Gyi World township) Vision Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) Pa Law Hpar Htaw Myanmar (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Gayunar Bago (East) Kyaukkyi Naung Bo Naung Bo Myanmar Gayunar

65

Bago (East) Taungoo Kyauk Taing Yae Sin kone Governme nt Kayin Hlaingbwe Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Htee Hpar Ret C.S.S.D.D Sub-township) Kayin Hlaingbwe Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Htee Hpoe Khee BAJ Sub-township) Kayin Hlaingbwe Me Tha Mu (Shan Ywar Thit Me Ka Taw Khee ADRA Sub-township) Figure 65: Organizations in WASH

NEEDS PRIORITIZED:

Needs Prioritized 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Community Needs 10 0 IDP Needs

Figure 66: Needs Prioritized

COMMUNITY NEEDS:

The respondents were asked to name the top three priorities of their communities. Top 3 needs in the order of priority are education, health and water . Listed below are the responses categorized and the numbers of villages in need:

1. EDUCATION: 95 VILLAGES (Schools and teachers - 73; School repair – 2; Teachers – 4 ; teacher salary – 1; Pre-schools – 10 ; Supplies and textbooks– 3 ) 2. HEALTH: 92 VILLAGES ( Health/ medical knowledge – 40; Health centers -36; Health center repair – 1; Health worker/ midwife – 8; Medicine – 6; Vaccination-1)

66

3. WATER: 74 VILLAGES (Water – 38; Borehole – 16 ; Borehole repair – 1; Water during summer – 2; Purified water –3 ; Water pump - 1; Water and sanitation - 3 ; Water Pipe system – 6 ; Repair water pipe system – 4 ) 4. INCOME, LAND, LIVELIHOOD, FOOD: 48 VILLAGES ( Increase income, livelihood, livelihood safety and security – 13 villages; Livelihood security and safety – 2 villages; Job opportunity – 9 villages; Business – 2; FOOD – 17 villages; Money – 1; LAND – 4) 5. ELECTRICITY: 32 VILLAGES (including generator and solar panels) 6. PROTECTION AND SAFETY: 30 VILLAGES ( Safe livelihood – 23; ‘Protection’ – 1; Safety – 2 villages; Safety and development – 1 village; Safe house – 1 village; Safe school- 1 village ; Mine clearance – 1 village) 7. ROADS AND BRIDGES: 25 VILLAGES ( Road repair/ road – 18 villages; Bridges and repair – 7 villages 8. SANITATION: Fly-proof latrines – 17 VILLAGES 9. SHELTER AND- NON FOOD ITEMS: 5 villages (House – 3 villages; Non-food item- 1; Jerry can per house – 1; 10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /OTHERS: 4 villages (Community development – 2 villages; Library – 1 village; Monastery – 1 village)

IDP NEEDS PRIORITIZED

The IDPs were also asked about their priority needs. Foremost is their need for land and income- generating livelihood .

1. INCOME, LAND, LIVELIHOOD, FOOD: 58 (9 farm land, jobs and other income opportunities) 2. EDUCATION: 41 (schools, teachers, text books, preschools for children) 3. HEALTH: 36 (health care, medicine) 4. SHELTER AND- NON FOOD ITEMS: 7 shelter + 33 NFI’s 5. SANITATION: Fly-proof latrines – 19 6. WATER: 14 (source of safe drinking water) 7. PROTECTION AND SAFETY: 8 8. ELECTRICITY: 7 9. ROADS AND BRIDGES: 6 10. LANDMINE – 1

67

IV. FRAMEWORK: PEACE BUILDING AND DURABLE SOLUTIONS TO IDPS

There are indications that the IDPs are slowly returning to their places of origin. However, conditions for sustainable return must be in place. Interventions in behalf of the IDPs in southeast Myanmar should focus on durable solutions to their displacement . This means that IDPs no longer have specific assistance and protection needs that are directly linked to their displacements and can enjoy their human rights without discrimination on account of their displacements. As in peace building, achieving the conditions for durable solutions is a gradual, long and complex process.

A solution to internal displacement can be achieved through either of these three modalities 20 :

a. sustainable return to their place of origin; b. sustainable local settlement in the area where IDPs have taken refuge; or c. sustainable settlement elsewhere the country.

The choice of all IDPs to locally integrate or settle elsewhere in the country, in the absence of the option to return, must not be regarded as a renunciation of his/ her right to return should that choice later become feasible 21 .

Durable solutions also means achievement of the following rights without discrimination 22 :

a. long - term safety, security and freedom of movement; b. an adequate standard of living, including at a minimum access to adequate food, water, housing, health care and basic education; c. access to employment and livelihoods; d. access to effective mechanisms that restore IDP’s housing, land and property or provide then with compensation; e. access to, and replacement of, personal and other documentation especially in relation to their rights as citizens; f. voluntary reunification with family members separated during displacement; g. participation in public affairs at all levels on equal basis with residents; and h. effective remedies for displacement-related violations, per information gathered.

Efforts towards durable solutions involve linking short-term humanitarian actions to peace building and long-term development. Specific and distinct needs of the IDPs should also be considered and mainstreamed in development plans and peace processes. It cannot be over-emphasized here that the

20 Global Protection Cluster Working Group, Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, 2010 21 Ibid 22 ibid

68

voices of IDPs should be heard and their participation ensured if these processes are to be truly inclusive. Any support given should help stabilize local and national capacities as quickly as possible to encourage a quicker and sustainable transition to longer term recovery. This should take into consideration assistance to groups already working with IDPs on the ground.

The most important assumption to remember in seeking durable solutions to IDPs is the principle of national government’s responsibility for addressing internal displacements., This prerequisite includes the primary duty of the competent authorities to establish conditions and provide the means to promote the IDPs to return voluntarily in safety and with dignity 23 .

Durable solutions for IDPs are determined by the presence of peace and the process of peace building. Peace building is key and peace processes are necessary to overcome obstacles to durable solutions. The ceasefires should aim to guarantee inclusive and safe dialogue with important actors and should address the core grievances of the ethnic groups. Peace building requires conflict and context sensitive assessments and interventions; trust building; inclusive process of identifying needs and priorities; and support for local capacities and shared ownership. ‘Do no harm’ principle also must ensure that host populations and communities whose needs may be similar to those of the IDPs must not be neglected when IDPs are attended to.

The other alternative would be unbearable. The breakdown of ceasefires would likely reverse the ceasefire areas into war zones and trigger another round of displacement.

V. INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To contribute in building conditions for durable solutions to displacement, UNICEF should support and participate actively in peace-building activities that can have positive impact for the people living in conflict-affected areas and for strengthening peace in general. 2. As peacebuilding is the key in humanitarian/ development assistance in conflict-affected areas, assistance should be context and conflict- sensitive and should use trust-building/ confidence- building measures. Sufficient preparation, consultation and buy-in from the government and non-state armed groups should be secured when supporting projects in areas with strong presence of NSAGs. Caution should be considered to avoid interpretation that assistance is used to expand government’s administrative control in conflict-affected areas. 3. UNICEF’ assistance to IDP communities can be delivered through the following modalities: a. Government township –level authorities in areas where there are existing government services; b. Existing service-delivery structures of the NSA’s, NGOs, CBOs, faith-based organizations operating in areas unreached by government services; c. Individual volunteers from the affected communities;

23 Global Protection Cluster Working Group, Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, 2010

69

d. Collaboration of the above-mentioned actors. Shared ownership of this process generates mutual trust. 4. Information collected in this rapid assessment exercise should be shared to relevant agencies and organizations to avoid unnecessary duplication and waste of resources, ‘assessment fatigue’ on the part of the targeted communities, and to improve coordination. (note: Initially, this initiative was coordinated with OCHA, UNHCR and TBC. The list of IDP settlements assessed was shared with UNHCR and TBC to avoid duplication, and also submitted to MIMU for the purpose of mapping). 5. Coordination and collaboration with other humanitarian organizations and development agencies is important so that UNICEF’s assistance are complemented/ supplemented to enhance the comparative advantage of involved agencies, avoid overwhelming local capacities, avoid dis- organizing support due to lack of coordination, especially when many agencies are now scaling up their interventions in conflict-affected areas. Strengthening coordination with UNHCR is important in supporting durable solutions to displacement in the south east. UNICEF should be actively involved as a major player in coordination mechanisms in the southeast relevant to UNICEF’s work in the conflict-affected areas. 6. In providing assistance to IDP and conflict-affected villages, internal coordination among various UNICEF sections should also be improved. An active sharing of context-specific information within UNICEF is important to mitigate and manage possible risks and maximize the opportunities on the ground. 7. State and township authorities should be made aware of the presence and concerns of IDP villages in their areas of responsibilities. They should be encouraged to include the concerns of the IDPs in government’s plans, to ensure that their plans are well understood by the IDPs and NSAGs, as well as to ensure involvement/ participation of the local community stakeholders and NSAGs in the process. 8. Because of the limitations of this report, additional and more accurate information gathering will be necessary, depending on the required information needed to start service delivery. For example, more detailed data for schools which are community- supported should be collected for better understanding and assistance. Identifying and assessing local capacities may also be necessary. Collection of information on protection issues is more sensitive in nature and requires well trained personnel and careful approaches. 9. The southeast IDP database in MS Access will be uploaded in UNICEF’s shared folder so that all sections can access the information for whatever purpose. The customized database should be updated when new information on new villages are collected. A short training for the users of this data base is recommended to ensure maximum benefits in the features offered by the software developed. 10. In health, it is suggested to recruit and train volunteer health workers for community case management who can handle malaria, diarrhea and dysentery and other health supported activities such as age and gender-aggregated data collection, vitamin A distribution, etc. This report recommends the recruitment and upgrading of skills of AMWs and skilled birth attendants address the issues of safe deliveries, child mortality and malnutrition. These trained agents can also strengthen the referral system, to facilitate routine immunization services by supporting

70

government MW, as well as to negotiate with health staff from NSA (with the help of government health staff) who will conduct immunization in pocket areas.

Note: further recommendations will be discussed with UNICEF section chiefs.

71

ANNEX A. LIST OF VILLAGES ASSESSED State / Region Township Vilage Tract Village Bago (East) Kyaukkyi Naung Bo Naung Bo Bago (East) Taungoo Kyauk Taing Yae Sin kone Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Sub - Kayin Hlaingbwe township) Htee Hpar Ret Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Sub - Kayin Hlaingbwe township) Htee Hpoe Khee Me Tha Mu (Shan Ywar Thit Sub - Kayin Hlaingbwe township) Me Ka Taw Khee Me Tha Mu (Shan Ywar Thit Sub - Kayin Hlaingbwe township) Me Tha Mu Kayin Hlaingbwe Nwet Pyin Nyar Pa Law Nyar Thi Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Hpar He Kwee Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Htee Par Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Kwee The Hpoo Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Oh Lar Ka Lo Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta Dawt Ka Kyar Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta War Hae Hta Yae Ta Khun (Shan Ywar Thit Sub - Kayin Hlaingbwe township) Htee Hta Pa Lu Kayin Hpa-An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Kayin Hpapun township) Baw Kyo Lel Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Kayin Hpapun township) Lay Hpoe Hta (East) Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Kayin Hpapun township) Shwe Yay Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub - Kayin Hpapun township) Yae Pu Kayin Hpapun Me Pa Li (Kamamaung Sub-township) Kyauk Twin War Kaw Kyay (Kamamaung Sub - Kayin Hpapun township) Ta Dar U Kayin Kawkareik Dauk Pa Lan Dauk Pa Lan Kayin Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Hu Than Kayin Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni Kayin Kawkareik Kawt Nwe Myo Haung Kayin Kawkareik Naung Kaing Saw Yu (Ah Yu) Kayin Kawkareik Naung Kaing Thi War Kayin Kawkareik Set Ka Wet Aung Hlaing Kayin Kawkareik Ta Ri Ta Khaung Mi Hpa Nyar Kayin Kawkareik Tha Pyu (Ka Maw Pi) Ku Lar Chaw Kayin Kawkareik Tha Pyu (Ka Maw Pi) Thay Khi

72

Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub - Kayin Kyainseikgyi township) Pa Law Hpar Htaw Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub - Kayin Kyainseikgyi township) Win Lone Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein (Middle) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein (Upper) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Bar Lu Lar Hay Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Kha Lel Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Pa Law Lar Hay Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Hpay Nar Mone Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Htee Phoe Wai Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Khaw Khat Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Se Yoe (Kalar Pa Soke) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Khoke Khwar Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Me Ka Taw Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Shwe Doe Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar Yar Thae Kar (Nan Pat Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Chaung) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Lan Hpar (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Me Ta Law Kayin Kyainseikgyi Nat Chaung Ah Lel Nat Chaung Hpyar Kayin Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Naung Ta Khu Kayin Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Naung Ta Man Kayin Kyainseikgyi Seik Ka Lay Hnget Pyaw Taw Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ta Khun Taing Hti Man Hto Kayin Kyainseikgyi Taung Waing (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Meit Ta Khet Kayin Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Hpa Aung Kayin Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Hpar Naw Mee Thin Gan Pin Seik (Kyaikdon Sub - Kayin Kyainseikgyi township) Oke Khoe Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Aung Chan Thar Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Bi Sa Khat Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Lay Htaw Hta Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Ya Thayt Kayin Myawaddy Hpa Lu Htee Mae War Khee Kayin Myawaddy Hpa Lu Ya Thae Ya Kayin Myawaddy Hpar Ka Lu Hto Thu Khee Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub - Kayin Myawaddy township) Ah Lel Do Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub - Kayin Myawaddy township) Chaung Sone

73

Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub - Kayin Myawaddy township) Taw Oke Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub - Kayin Myawaddy township) Thay Baw Boe Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub - Kayin Myawaddy township) Pa Law Hta Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub - Kayin Myawaddy township) Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) Thandaunggy Kayin i Dar War Law Chee Lo Lar Way Thandaunggy Kayin i Dar Yoe (Leik Tho Sub-township) Htar Hpo Chee Thandaunggy Kayin i Ho Thaw Pa Lo (Leik Tho Sub-township) Ho Thaw Pa Lo Thandaunggy Kayin i Ho Thaw Pa Lo (Leik Tho Sub-township) Khaw Thaw Khaw Thandaunggy Kayin i Htee Thar Saw (Leik Tho Sub-township) Htee Thar Saw (Lower) Thandaunggy Kayin i Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub-township) Thauk Yae Khat Thandaunggy Kayin i Kyauk Pon (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Baw Ga Li Ka Lay Thandaunggy Kayin i Kyauk Pon (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Kyauk Pon Thandaunggy Kayin i Lel Kho Doe Kar Ka Mu Do Thandaunggy Kayin i Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi Thandaunggy Kayin i Pyaung Tho (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Khu Pyaung Thandaunggy Kayin i Sa Par Kyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Doe Do Thandaunggy Kayin i Sa Par Kyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Me Kyaw Thandaunggy Kayin i Urban Lun Bu Thandaunggy Kayin i Urban No (1) Ward Thandaunggy Kayin i Urban No (2) Ward Thandaunggy Kayin i Yae Thoe Gyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Yae Thoe Gyi Thandaunggy Kayin i Yae Thoe Gyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Yae Thoe Ka Lay Thandaunggy Kayin i Ywar Gyi Pyar Sa Khan Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Lit Gyi

74

Gaung Say Chaung Tanintharyi Dawei Myay Khan Baw (Myitta Sub-township) (Kyay Thar Inn) Tanintharyi Dawei Myay Khan Baw (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Meik Tanintharyi Dawei Myay Khan Baw (Myitta Sub-township) Tha Byu Chaung Tanintharyi Dawei Pyar Thar Chaung Kyauk Twin Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ah Mo Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Maw Haw Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Kat Ta Yar Sei Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Sin Hpyu Taing Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) War Taw Tanintharyi Dawei Taung Thone Lone (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Htaung Ni Tanintharyi Launglon Auk Yae Hpyu Kyauk Hpyu Tanintharyi Palaw Hta Min Ma Sar Ka Mar Aing Tanintharyi Palaw Nan Taung Nan Taung Tanintharyi Palaw Pa La Pa La Oke Htar Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Htaw Ta Li Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Mar Gon Mar Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) R Zar Ni Kone Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Wa Zum Oke Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Yae Pu Tanintharyi Palaw Sin Htoe Gyi (Palauk Sub-township) Inn Ma Thayetchaun Tanintharyi g Kayin Taung Pyauk Kayin Taung Pyauk Thayetchaun Tanintharyi g Pa Dat Chaung Taung Zin Thayetchaun Tanintharyi g Pe Det Ta Khun Taing Thayetchaun Tanintharyi g Urban Laung Min Ba Thayetchaun Tanintharyi g Urban Nyein Chan Yae (1) Thayetchaun Tanintharyi g Yae Pu Yae Byat Thayetchaun Tanintharyi g Yae Pu Yae Pu Tanintharyi Yebyu Kyauk Shat (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Yae Pone Tanintharyi Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Kywe Tha Lin Tanintharyi Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Lawt Thaing Mi Kyaung Hlaung (Kaleinaung Sub - Tanintharyi Yebyu township) Mi Kyaung Hlaung Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Ma Yan Chaung Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Rar Hpu (Thit) Tanintharyi Yebyu Thea Chaung Pay Ta Kha

75

Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Kawt Hlaing Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Mile (60) Ywar Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon Tanintharyi Yebyu Zin Bar (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Zin Bar

76

ANNEX B: NEW RESETTLED VILLAGES StateRegionName TownshipName VTName VName Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Kawt Hlaing Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Mile (60) Ywar Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Urban Laung Min Ba Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Urban Nyein Chan Yae (1) Kayin Thandaunggyi Urban Lun Bu Kayin Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward Kayin Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward Tanintharyi Palaw Pa La Pa La Oke Htar Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Htaw Ta Li Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) R Zar Ni Kone Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Wa Zum Oke Kayin Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Kayin Kyainseikgyi Sub-township) Pa Law Hpar Htaw Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Bar Lu Lar Hay Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Pa Law Lar Hay Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub - Kayin Kyainseikgyi township) Htee Phoe Wai Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub - Kayin Kyainseikgyi township) Khaw Khat Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub - Se Yoe (Kalar Pa Kayin Kyainseikgyi township) Soke) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar Yar Thae Kar (Nan Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Pat Chaung) Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Aung Chan Thar Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Lay Htaw Hta Kayin Hpa-An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Hpar He Kwee Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Kwee The Hpoo Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta Dawt Ka Kyar Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta War Hae Hta Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ah Mo Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Maw Haw Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Kat Ta Yar Sei Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) War Taw

77

ANNEX C: REPORTED IDP VILLAGES (not yet assessed): Based on the knowledge of the respondents , 38 other villages have IDPs. These are:

Township Village Name Dawei Ah Mo Dawei Gaung Say Chaung (Kyay Thar Inn) Dawei Ka Htaung Ni Dawei Ka Lit Gyi Dawei Ka Maw Haw Dawei Ka Meik Dawei Kat Ta Yar Sei Dawe War Taw Hlaingbwe Htee Hta Pa Lu Hlaingbwe Ta Wun Hpan Ya Hpa -An Nat Kone Hpa -An Toke Gyi Hpapun Ko Lu Pyo Hpapun Po Mar Te Htantabin Kayin Ni Kone Htantabin Lay Thit Kawkareik Bawt Daing Kawkareik Hlaing Tan Kawkareik Kyauk Tan Kawkareik Tha Pyu Kawkareik Thein Pa Lein Kawkareik Thi War Kyainseikgyi Hpay Nar Mone Kyainseikgyi Hti Khine Kyainseikgyi Kyaik Ywar Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Man Kyainseikgyi Se Yoe (Kalar Pa Soke) Kyainseikgyi Toet See Pu Kyunsu Kan Maw Kyunsu War Aw Palaw Pyi Char Tanintharyi Kyauk Mee Kyaung Thandaunggyi Hta Ye Pa Lo Thandaunggyi Pyar Sa Khan Thandaunggyi Than Taung Ka Lay Thayetchaung Lel Pyin Gyi Ye Kawt Pun

78

Township Village Name Yebyu Pay Ta Kha ANNEX D: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

Please enter information in the light gray fields or mark tick boxes where it applies (double click on tick box).

1. Surveying General Information Monitoring Team Assessment Date

Responsible Name : (dd/mm/yyyy) : Responsible Organizations : Phone 1 :

E-mail : Phone 2 :

Type and Number of survey respondents:

IDP women teacher children

IDP men Health worker other

Community leader Elder

2. Geographic Information

State : Township :

Village Tract/Town : Village/Ward Name :

P-code : Site Name :

Latitude : Longitude : (dd.ddddd) or (dd mm ss) (dd.ddddd) or (dd mm ss) Site Type : 1. Hiding site 2. Relocation Site 3. Ethnic Ceasefire area 4. With Host Families

No. of HH in the open shelter No. of HH in temporary shelter

No. of HH in solid shelter No. of HH in community/church buildings

No. of HH in others (specify) ______

3. Population Data Are IDP * present? (IDPs= Individuals outside their village of residence)
If the answer is No, there is no need to fill the rest of the form. 1. Yes 2. No 1. A place where displacement of people happened before (previous displacement happened); 2. a place where people are now being asked to leave (active displacement is happening) Which of the following statements would best describe this location? (tick all that 3. A place of return for displaced people (place of origin for IDPs living in the village) apply) 4. A place of refuge for people outside this community (village has IDPs in host community) 5. A place where the government asked the displaced people to stay (relocation site)

If there are people who have newly arrived 1. Camps in Thailand (refugee) in this community (since January 2012), 2. elsewhere in Thailand (potential refugee) where they did live before? (Tick all that 3. Elsewhere in Myanmar ( IDP ) apply) 4. Myanmar people who moved here to work (economic migrants). Total number of households and HH: Individuals: individuals No. of Refugee returnees (HH/ Individuals) HH: Individuals:

No. of IDP (HH/ Individuals) HH: Individuals:

No. of Economic Migrants (HH/ Individuals) HH: Individuals:

79

No. of Residents (HH/Individuals) HH: Individuals: Village:

If this is not a place of origin for the IDPs,

where was their place of origin? (fill in the township

village and township names)

The IDP population is 1. Increasing 2. Decreasing 3. Stable

1. 1 month 6. More than 1 year 2. 3 months How long is the majority of IDPs displaced? 7. More than 3 years . 3. 6 months 8. More than 5 years 4. 9 months 9. More than 10 years 5. 1 year

1. friends and relatives live here (access to community/ social support ) Reasons for staying in this community (tick 2. we feel safe here (physical safety ) all that apply) 3. we earn our income here (access to economic/ livelihood opportunity )

4. close to schools and medical services (access to education, health services) 5. Other reasons (specify):______1. risk of landmines 2. original land occupied by others ; loss of land Reasons why some IDPs cannot/ do not 3. No livelihood opportunity in the village return to their original village (tick all that 4. no access to social services (education, health) apply) 5. fear from physical harm 6 . No road access/ Too far 7. Other reasons (specify):______1. In this current settlement Where do the IDPs and Refugee Returnees 2. In their original village (not this village) want to settle permanently? 3. Elsewhere inside Myanmar 4. Elsewhere outside Myanmar How many of the people have identity documentation? (Tick one) 1. Almost 100% 2. 50% or more 3. Less than 50% 4. None 1. Citizenship Scrutiny Card (CSCs) - Pink 2. National Registration Card (3-folded card, green or pink) 3. Naturalized Scrutiny Citizenship Card 4. Associated Scrutiny Citizenship Card What type of identity documents do these 5. Temporary Registration Card (TRC) people in this village have? (tick all that all apply) 6. Family List 7. Birth Registration Certificate Issued in Myanmar 8. Refugee Registration document from Thailand 9. Birth Registration Certificate Issued in Thailand 10. Other What are the top 3 languages spoken by 1. 2. 3. the IDPs? Do you know of other villages where there are IDPs? 1.  Yes 2.  No

If Yes, write the village names /Townships of other locations of IDPs. /

Population (count)

Total Male Under 18 (M/F) / Under 5 (M/F) / Lactating women

Total Female Under 12 (M/F) / Under 1 (M/F) / Pregnant women

3.1 Vulnerable Groups

80

Unaccompanied Children with disabled persons Female headed elders (above / / / (M / F) households 60) (M / F) disability (M/F) Unaccompanied Child headed Working Children Chronically ill / minors (under 18) / / Households (M / F) persons (M / F) (M / F) (M / F) Orphan children Persons with Children with / / (M/ F) HIV/AIDS (M/ F) HIV/ Aids

81