Nargis Periodic Review.Indd

Post-Nargis Periodic Review I i FOREWORD On 2 May 2008, Cyclone Nargis struck the coast of Myanmar. Over two days, the Cyclone moved across the Ayeyarwady Delta and southern Yangon Division resulting in a tragic loss of life and widespread destruction. This disaster affected Townships with a total population of more than seven million. Many of the people affected suffered devastating losses of family members, homes and livelihoods. This report presents a snapshot of the situation on the ground half a year after Cyclone Nargis with a focus on the current needs of the Cyclone-affected population. In September 2008, the Tripartite Core Group, which brings together the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Government of the Union of Myanmar and the United Nations undertook to conduct a series of reviews of the situation of the Cyclone-affected population over 12 months. The humanitarian relief and early recovery support to the affected population continues to help people overcome the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis, with extensive efforts by the Government of the Union of Myanmar, local communities, non-governmental organisations, the United Nations and private individuals. The Periodic Review process seeks to generate data that will be a useful tool for monitoring the ongoing relief efforts, identify the needs of the affected population and facilitate strategic decision making to continue support for the affected population. The findings of the first Periodic Review are contained in this report. It was produced from the analysis of comprehensive and credible needs assessments conducted between 29 October and 19 November 2008 in the Ayeyarwady and Yangon Divisions. The methodology of this Review built on the Village Tract Assessment conducted in June 2008. This report was prepared jointly by the members of the Tripartite Core Group with the support of the humanitarian and development community. The Tripartite Core Group appreciates the continued engagement and contributions of our partners to this important process. Above all, we give our sincere thanks to the people affected by Cyclone Nargis for their participation in the surveys that form the foundation of this first Periodic Review. On behalf of the Tripartite Core Group, H.E. Mr. Bansarn Bunnag H.E. U Kyaw Thu Mr. Bishow B. Parajuli Ambassador of Thailand Deputy Foreign Minister UN Resident/Humanitarian to the Union of Myanmar and Government of the Union of Myanmar Coordinator Senior ASEAN Member of the TCG Chairman of the TCG United Nations in Myanmar UN Representative in the TCG Post-Nargis Periodic Review I ii ACKN ow L ed G E M E NTS The Tripartite Core Group wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the many people who have made the first Periodic Review possible. The ASEAN Humanitarian Task Force for the Victims of Cyclone Nargis, the ministries of the Government of the Union of Myanmar and agencies of the United Nations have all contributed to the success of the Review. Our thanks to the Clusters for their participation. We also extend our thanks for the generous financial support of the donor community. The data and analysis that is presented in this report was compiled through the efforts of the Periodic Review Team. This report would not have been possible without the generous participation of the people affected by Cyclone Nargis. Post-Nargis Periodic Review I iii TA BL E of CO NT E NTS FOREWORD ............................................... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................... II TA BLE O F CONTENTS ............................................... II I LIST O F ABBREVI A TIONS A ND ACRONYMS ............................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMM A RY ............................................... 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................... 3 1.1 IMP A CT O F CYCLONE NA RGIS ............................................... 3 1.2 PERIODIC REVIEW PROCESS ............................................... 3 THE TRIP A RTITE CORE GROUP (TCG) ............................................... 4 1.3 OTHER POST -NA RGIS REPORTS ............................................... 5 1.4 METHODOLOGY O F THE REVIEW ............................................... 5 THE PLUG -IN ............................................... 7 WE A LTH INDEX ............................................... 7 1.5 DA T A INTERPRET A TION A ND US A GE ............................................... 7 WH A T IS A N INDIC ATOR ? ............................................... 7 WH A T IS SP A TI A L S A MPLING ? ............................................... 8 HOW DO I RE A D THE M A PS A ND HISTOGR A MS ? ............................................... 8 WH A T IS IN THE TEXT BOXES ? ............................................... 8 1.6 NEXT STEPS ............................................... 8 SECTION 2: FINDINGS ............................................... 9 2.1 HE A LTH ............................................... 10 2.2 NUTRITION ............................................... 18 2.3 FOOD ............................................... 20 2.4 WA TER SUPPLY , SA NITATION A ND HYGIENE (WASH) ........................................... 25 2.5 SHELTER ............................................... 35 2.6 EDUC A TION ............................................... 40 2.7 LIVELIHOODS ............................................... 46 2.7.1 CREDIT ............................................... 48 2.7.2 AGRICULTURE ............................................... 49 2.7.3 LIVESTOCK ............................................... 56 2.7.4 FISHERIES ............................................... 60 2.8 CROSS CUTTING ISSUES ............................................... 64 2.8.1 VULNER A BILITY A ND PROTECTION ............................................... 64 2.8.2 WE A LTH ............................................... 66 2.8.3 RECEIPT O F A ID ............................................... 67 2.9 CONCLUSIONS ............................................... 68 FIRST PRIORITIES ............................................... 68 1) NEEDS A RE DIVERSE ............................................... 69 2) DEPTH A ND COVER A GE O F A SSIST A NCE IS REQUIRED .......................................... 69 3) NEED F OR MORE INTEGR A TED PROGR A MMING ............................................... 69 SUMM A RY ............................................... 70 Post-Nargis Periodic Review I iv SECTION 3: ANNEXE S ............................................... 71 3.1 METHODOLOGY O F THE F IRST PERIODIC REVIEW ............................................... 71 3.1.1 QU A NTIT A TIVE METHODOLOGY ............................................... 71 3.1.2 QU A NTIT A TIVE A SSESSMENT TOOLS ............................................... 73 3.1.3 QU A LIT A TIVE METHODOLOGY ............................................... 96 3.1.4 QU A LIT A TIVE A SSESSMENT TOOLS ............................................... 98 3.1.5 QU A LIT A TIVE RESULTS ............................................... 99 CA SE 1) TH A WT A R KHIN ............................................... 99 CA SE 2) DA W MY A SEIN ............................................... 100 CA SE 3) DA W THET THET SWE ............................................... 100 CA SE 4) DA W MYINT THEIN ............................................... 102 CA SE 5) U KHIN MOE ............................................... 102 CA SE 6) U HL A SOE ............................................... 103 CA SE 7) U TOE KYI ............................................... 103 CA SE 8) U MA W TH A NE ............................................... 104 CA SE 9) DA W KYI OHN ............................................... 104 3.2 LIST O F TOWNSHIPS IN A SSESSMENT A RE A ............................................... 106 3.3 CONTRIBUTING A GENCIES ............................................... 107 Post-Nargis Periodic Review I v LIST O F FIGURE S FIGURE H1: PHC fa CILITIES A RE WITHIN 1 HOUR TR A VEL TIME ............................ 10 FIGURE H2: WA ITING TIME A T PHC fa CILITIES IS LESS TH A N 1 HOUR ............................ 11 FIGURE H3: HE A LTH WORKERS IN THE COMMUNITY ............................ 12 FIGURE H4: COVER A GE O F ME A SLES V A CCIN A TION ............................ 13 FIGURE H5: MEDICINE A V A IL A BLE A T PHC fa CILITIES A LL OR MOST O F THE TIME ............................ 14 FIGURE H6: PREV A LENCE O F DI A RRHOE A ............................ 15 FIGURE H7: PREV A LENCE O F F EVER ............................ 16 FIGURE H8: RECEIVED MEDIC A L A SSIST A NCE SINCE CYCLONE NA RGIS ............................ 17 FIGURE N1: GLOB A L A CUTE UNDER NUTRITION ............................ 18 FIGURE N2: IN A PPROPRI A TE TRE A TMENT O F DI A RRHOE A ............................ 19 FIGURE F1: PROPORTION O F HOUSEHOLDS WITH POOR F OOD CONSUMPTION ............................ 21 FIGURE F2: MODER A TE OR SEVERE F OOD INSECURITY ............................ 22 FIGURE F3: SEVERE F OOD INSECURITY ............................ 23 FIGURE F4: RECEIVED F OOD A SSIST A NCE SINCE CYCLONE NA RGIS ............................ 24 FIGURE W1: USE O F IMPROVED DRINKING W A TER SOURCES ............................ 25 FIGURE W2: DRINKING W A TER SOURCES ............................ 26 FIGURE W3: USE O F A N A DEQU A TE W A TER TRE A TMENT METHOD ............................ 27 FIGURE W4: METHODS O F W A TER TRE A TMENT ............................ 28 FIGURE W5: SA NITATION METHOD ...........................

Load more