Civil Society Mapping Mon State, Myanmar

Local Resource Centre (LRC) Working with CSOs and Change Agents March 2016

Completed: March 2016

Published by: Local Resource Centre (LRC), Yangon Myanmar, September 2016

© Local Resource Centre (LRC) 2016. Unless indicated otherwise, any part of this publication may bereproduced without permission for non-profit and development purposes on the condition that LRC is acknowledged. Please send LRC a copy of any materials inwhich the study has been used. For any reproduction with commercial ends,permission must first be obtained from LRC. The views expressed in this reportare representative of the individuals who participated in the study and the authors and may not necessarily reflect the views of LRC or those of the funding organisations.

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 2 Background and Context ...... 2 Acknowledgements ...... 2 Civil society mapping and assessment frameworks ...... 4 Models & Approaches ...... 4 Data frameworks ...... 5 Key definitions and types of organizations ...... 7 Study Methodology ...... 9 Approach ...... 9 Guiding principles ...... 9 Scope of the study ...... 9 Refinement of Scope with CSO stakeholders ...... 10 Analytical framework ...... 10 Implementation plan & steps ...... 11 Challenges & limitations ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Findings ...... 17 A. Literature Review ...... 17 B. Interviews and Focus Groups ...... 22 C. Observations and recommendations ...... 34 Bibliography ...... 38 End Notes ...... 40

Tables Table 1 Abbreviatons & acronyms ...... 3 Table 2 Definitions and types of organisation ...... 7 Table 3.Analytical framework dimensions...... 11 Table 4 Implementation plan & steps ...... 11 Table 5 Study Research Objectives ...... 13 Table 6 Townships and planned data collection method ...... 15 Table 7 Implementation steps and participants/actions ...... 15 Table 8 Components of CSOs...... 20

Figures Figure 1 Townships of respondents...... 22 Figure 2 Townships in which respondent CSOs operate...... 22 Figure 3 Top nine activities as selected by respondents ...... 23 Figure 4 breakdown Activities by sector/purpose ...... 23 Figure 5 Top activities based on respondents’ descriptions ...... 24 Figure 6. Registration status of respondents...... 25 Figure 7. The year respondent CSOs were established...... 25 Figure 8. Genders, ages, and ethnicities of respondent CSO leaders...... 26 Figure 9. Number of staff, board members, volunteers, and members of respondent CSOs...... 27 Figure 10. Languages that can be spoken at respondent CSO offices...... 29 Figure 11. Respondent CSO annual budgets...... 29 Figure 12. Sources of funding and resources for respondent CSOs...... 29 Figure 13 Respondent CSO office infrastructure...... 30 Figure 14 Networking methods used by respondents...... 33

1 Introduction Background and Context The primary goal of this mapping exercise is to gain deeper knowledge of civil society in Mon State, to help LRC determine opportunities for training, mentoring, coaching, and advocacy related activities to build civil society capacity, and the policy environment for civil society to operate. The key research questions are:

• What is the landscape of civil society organizations (CSOs) operating in Mon state? • What are the technical capacities of CSOs operating in Mon state? • What regional government policies and practices help or hinder CSOs in doing their work? • What is the scope of CSO beneficiaries (e.g. women, youth, and ethnic groups) and what may be barriers to participation for excluded groups? While the project mapped civil society as broadly defined, LRC are specifically interested in civil society initiatives related to advocacy and legal reform, human rights, and support for women and children. The study includes civil society recommendations based on these research question. However, the research is descriptive in nature and does not seek to explain the landscape of civil society. It is not exclusively action- oriented, in that it maps elements without the expressed interest in changing them, though LRC expect to be able to implement programs based on the results. The findings should also be useful for other humanitarian and/or development organisations who seek partnerships, collaborations, opportunities for expansion, and/or who want to avoid duplicating existing efforts. The results of this study can be used:

• As a template for other mapping work, which may be implemented in other regions of Myanmar. • To explore opportunities for new partnerships and discussions. • To strengthen research capacity of CSO leaders. • To strengthen relationships among CSOs. • To demonstrate the existence of a diverse and active civil society. The study was conducted between November 2015 and February 2016. It represents the responses and views of over 100 civil society representatives. However, this is just a sample of civil society in Mon State – a snapshot in time.

Acknowledgements LRC would like to thank all Trina Isakson, an international volunteer/consultant who led on the study design and implementation, supporting staff in the field. We would like to thank LRC staff who supported this project, including U Nyi Nyi Aung, Daw Aye Aye Tha, U Kyaw Zin Ko Ko, U Win Bo, U Kyaw Kyaw Zin, U Saw Myo Myint Hlaing, Daw Suu Kyi, Daw Zin Zin Soe, as well as Jo Povey and Ali Lane for their advice and support We would like to extend special gratitude to the community researchers, data analysts and translators, focus group participants, interview respondents, key informants, and others who were crucial to the success of this study.

2 TABLE 1ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS 3W Who’s doing What Where LGP Local Governance Programme AIMS Aid information management system LNGO Local non-governmental organization BBO Border-based organization LRC Local Resource Centre MIMU CSO Civil society organization Myanmar Information Management Unit CBO Community-based organization MNGO Myanmar non-governmental organization) CSI Civil Society Index NGO Non-governmental organization EAG Ethnic armed group (aka NSAG) NMSP New Mon State Party FBO Faith-based organization NSAG Non-State armed group HSDS Human Service Data Standard SRG Self-reliance group IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative UNDP United Nations Development Programme INGO International non-governmental VC Village clerk organization VTA Village tract administrator GONGO Government-organized non-government organization

MAP 1 MON TOWNSHIPS 1

3 Civil society mapping and assessment frameworks Models & Approaches There are an overwhelming number of dimensions that can be used to map and assess civil society and the organizations within it. In 2011, UNDP released three robust reports on the state of participatory civil society assessments , and they were used these as a starting point to build a framework for this project. 2 Civil society mapping and assessments can happen on multiple levels – sector level, network level, individual organizational level, and citizen level. While this project focused mostly on the sum of organizations, relevant learning can be drawn from other models of mapping and assessment. Civil Society Index 3 Civil Society Index (CSI), an internationally-respected civil society assessment process developed by CIVICUS, assesses the state of civil society as an ‘arena’ (not a sum of organizations), and has been implemented in many countries. The CSI scores countries on five (four in earlier iterations): (1) civic engagement, (2) organizational level, (3) practice of values, (4) perception of impact, and (5) external environment. As of the time of writing, Myanmar has not yet been assessed using CSI 4, though CIVICUS has supported related civil society research and policy papers.CIVICUS now also offers a CSI Rapid Assessment, for countries in rapidly changing geo-political environments. CIVICUS produced an Enabling Environment Index in 2013 using secondary statistical data; Myanmar is not ranked 5. CSI assessment processes includes a gathering of existing information from available appropriate sources, regional focus groups, population and organizational surveys, an external perception survey, in-depth case studies, and regional focus group discussions. The diversity of data collection methods are relevant to this project, as are its guiding principles and contextual framework. CSI metrics that are relevant to this project include those of CSO geographic diversity, CSO members/leadership diversity, CSO inter-relations, CSO resources, and state-civil society relations. CSI also includes list of CSO categories that is useful for ensuring the full range of CSO is explored. ARVIN Framework 6 The ARVIN Framework, developed by the World Bank, assesses civil society’s operating environment and the extent this environment impacts CSO’s “to engage in public debate and in systems of social accountability.” ARVIN has a strong focus on the legal/regulatory framework of a country as it relates to CSOs, though also includes socio-cultural-economic factors. The enabling elements that ARVIN assesses are:

• Association: the freedom of citizens to associate • Resources: their ability to mobilize resources to fulfill the objectives of their organizations • Voice: their ability to formulate and express opinion • Information: their access to information • Negotiation: the existence of spaces and rules of engagement for negotiation, participation and public debate. Like the CSI, ARVIN has also not yet been applied to Myanmar. ARVIN metrics that are relevant to this project include those of the legal/regulatory framework impacting CSO work, CSO involvement in public policy activities, state-civil society relations, socio-cultural-economic barriers to participation, and information flow within CSO networks. Beyond the NGO: framework for documenting CSO contributions 7 Beyond the NGO: Civil society organizations with development impact presents qualitative case studies of CSOs that highlight development work done by those other than larger, established non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Aga Khan Development Network’s Civil Society Program outlines the framework for collecting the case studies. The individual sections are relevant to building a landscapeof CSOs during the research . • Background of country, region, organization: how/why formed, why formed, political/social context • Usual work of the organization: general types of work the organization has been involved with over time and any reasons for change • Development problem and why the organization focused on it • Description of the work undertaken by the organization: specific current work; programs, advocacy, other initiatives • Assessment on impact and success in addressing the problem CSO mapping: Civil Society Organizations Division in the Bureau for Resources and Strategic Partnerships 8 This UNDP division developed a broad framework for mapping CSOs based on their experience in partnership development for a pilot small grants programme. Better described as a work plan or critical path, the framework encompasses developing objectives, data collection instruments, data collection, data analysis, continuity/evaluation of exercise, and information sharing. While the framework is meant to plan for CSO partnerships with UNDP, it outlines a realistic critical path for CSO mapping. However, the framework focuses on key informant interviews, and does very little to outline the proposed outcomes of other data collection methods, like visits with CSO members or informal discussions with community leaders. Indicators listed in the Instrument section that are relevant to this project include legal status, project implementation experience/success, links to constituency, degree of networking, and training/experience of staff (or unpaid organizers). UNDP Myanmar Local Governance Mapping UNDP Myanmar’s Local Governance Programme (LGP) does not directly focus on civil society, but it represents a robust mapping exercise in Myanmar with a variety of methodologies that involve CSOs. Like this project, LGP conducted one of its first two pilots in Mon state in order to create a template methodology that was used in other areas of Myanmar. Of particular relevance is the overall methodology 9—the mapping exercise included multi-step, 360-degree input from government staff, elected officials, CSOs, media, citizens, and frontline service providers (e.g. teachers, health professionals, village tract administrators). The variety of methods included a citizen report card, community dialogues, key informant interviews, and workshops, and allowed data to be triangulated from many sources, leading to robust results. The methodology also emphasizes the use of direct questions to highlight objective experience (i.e. whether and in what way they are informed by the township administration about new projects) rather than subjective opinion/interpretation (i.e. “Do you think your township administration is transparent?”). The sampling methodology is also relevant to this project (both of citizen respondents and of townships/villages, given the lack of reliable sampling frameworks and population’s distribution data). Six townships (out of 10 total townships in the State) were selected based on diversity among the following factors: population (size, demographics, density); economic activity/level of development; accessibility; ethnic mix/minority populations; post-conflict; and security situation. One urban and one rural village tract was selected from each of these townships. For citizen respondents, enumerators used a transect method and alternated between male and female respondents. Data frameworks Data frameworks standardize the type of data collected and the format in which it is shared.

MIMU 3W 10 Myanmar Information Management Unit (MIMU), a project of UNDP, collects information on - Who’s doing What, Where (3W) in support of development and humanitarian goals. Organizations self-report their activities twice a year, and MIMU produces a variety of resources (spreadsheets, maps, interactive web

5 application) to share this data. Most of the data comes from INGOs and larger, established local NGOs (LNGOs), while the work of smaller CSOs and CBOs are generally not captured unless they are the implementing partners of INGOs or LNGOs. 3W focuses on initiatives (as opposed to ongoing non-project work) and shares the following fields within the downloadable spreadsheets in Excel:

• Organization • Implementing partner: If the lead organizer depends on another, usually local, CSO • Sector/cluster (e.g. education, health, agriculture) and subsector • Location: State/region, township, village tract/town, village/ward • Project title • Type of technical support to/through government (for those partnering with government) • Project start/end dates • Project status: planned, under implementation, completed • Date last updated While the fields collected are standard, they demonstrate the types of information any mapping project could collect and share back with MIMU in order to avoid multiple, disconnected CSO databases (with permission of CSOs). Of important note is MIMU’s use of Pcodes, numeric codes for states/divisions, townships/wards, village tracts, and villages, which is helpful when dealing in multiple languages and when no Standard English spelling exists. International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) 11 IATI collects and shares information from international development and humanitarian donors in a standardized format in order to give a better idea of who funds what. This information follows open data standards in order for the information to be available, accessible, and usable by many. The Myanmar government worked with an open data technology nonprofit organization to launched Mohinga 12 , a country- level aid information management system (AIMS) based on IATI and other information. The information collected and shared is similar to MIMU. However, while MIMU focuses one who does what where , IATI and Mohinga are interested in who funds what where . In that sense, the scope of information collected goes beyond the purpose of this project. However, the focus on open data, common data standards, and sharing the information widely can be considered for this project. Human Services Data Specification (HSDS) HSDS is“an exchange format for publishing machine readable data about health, human, and social services, their locations, and the organizations that provide them.” 13 Open Referral, the umbrella initiative behind HSDS, develops“data standards and open platforms that make it easy to share and find information about community resources.” HSDS specifies both the range of fields (required, recommended, and optional) used to describe human services, the format of the data within those fields, and the format of the data as a whole. The types of fields:

• Organization name • Alternate name (e.g. different languages) • Description • Eligibility/application process. (e.g. youth only, steps to access a service) • Service area • Office location(s) • Location(s) for each program/service • Open/closed on public holidays? • Last updated • Unique identifiers (for contact, organization, programs, etc.) • Contact name, position

6 • Contact phone, email • Funding source (type/source) • Languages (in which services are delivered) • Legal status/license (as an organization) This format does not include other CSO purposes beyond humanitarian services (e.g. environmental protection, arts and culture, non-service advocacy). Key definitions and types of organizations A variety of terms are used to describe the activities of civil society, which in and of itself is a term with “fuzzy borders.” 14 A variety of sources attempt to define these terms15 , and this report does not attempt to redo the work of other researchers and civil society experts. The definitions below are not normative—i.e. not what the author thinks these terms should mean—but instead simply describe how terms are used in this report.

TABLE 2 DEFINITIONS AND TYPES OF ORGANISATION Civil society Civil society encompasses all initiatives that are non-state, non-profit, non- violent, larger than the family unit, and pursue shared interests. Civil society researchers reference the existence of dark or uncivil civil society, which advocate for exclusion of specific groups or for other non-democratic or non-inclusive ends. Some researchers include elements of civil society connected to violence, which others do not. While measures like CSI include uncivil elements in order to acknowledge the realities of civil society in each country, explicitly and exclusively uncivil initiatives are not included in this project .

To compare, the CSI programme defines civil society as “The arena, outside of the family, the state, and the market – which is created by individual and collective actions, organisations and institutions to advance shared interests.” 16 Organization An initiative involving a group of individuals. In Myanmar, many civil society initiatives are led by an associated group of individuals that is not formally registered and do not have Western models of organizations with respect to structure, management, finances, and governance. This report uses the words ‘organization’ and ‘initiative’ interchangeably to represent any organized effort within civil society, formal or not. Civil society An umbrella term to describe groups operating in civil society. In Myanmar, this organization (CSO) term is sometimes used in place of LNGO and is distinct from CBOs (see below). For the purpose of this report we use the term CSO to encompass all Myanmar- led organizations —including CBOs, LNGOs, BBOs, FBOs, GONGOs and EAG initiatives (see below). Some would not include GONGO and EAG/NSAG initiatives under the umbrella of civil society because of their respective link to state and/or violence. Local non- A Myanmar-led civil society organization that often has a head office in Yangon governmental and does work at the national and/or regional level. Likely has paid staff and is organization (LNGO) well established. e.g. Local Resource Centre. Community-based A Myanmar-led civil society organization that is locally managed and often serves organization (CBO) its own members as a main beneficiary. Usually operates at the township/village level. Likely is not formally registered and may not have paid staff.e.g. funeral association, blood donation group Faith-based An INGO, LNGO or CBO that operates within a set of religious values, but usually organization (FBO) provides social services (e.g. education, food security) to those of any faith, sometimes with the hope of conversion.E.g. a group associated with a church or monastery running schools.

7 Border-based An INGO, LNGO, or CBO based in Thailand along the Myanmar-Thai border in organization (BBO) service of refugees, economic migrants, and internally-displaced people, usually ethnic minorities. Often are advocates of peace-building or democratic reform and have strong, vocal ties with media and the international community. May have members and supporters beyond the border area into Myanmar states and divisions. e.g. The Border Consortium, Mon News Agency (recently relocated to Mawlamyine) Government- A Myanmar-led CSO with strong ties to the Government of Myanmar, often organized non- because the government itself formed the organization, or former government governmental officials make up the organization’s leadership.e.g. Myanmar Women’s Affairs organization (GONGO) Federation (MWAF), Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association (MMCWA) and Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS) Ethnic armed group Most EAGs operate in a pseudo-government role and offer social services (e.g. (EAG) or Non-state education) in the absence of government services in an area.e.g. New Mon State armed group (NSAG) Party (NMSP) Self-help group (SHG) A group of people with a shared interest or common barrier that helps one or self-reliance group another e.g. women, people living with HIV and AIDS (SRG) Civic committee A village/village tract-level committee that supports village life and is aligned with a village administrator e.g. fire brigade, youth committee, development committee International non- An internationally-led civil society organization. INGOs are outside of the scope governmental of this research e.g. Save the Children, Oxfam. organization (INGO) Externally-facilitated A local group (often a self-help or self-reliance group) that is initiated and group (EFG) supported by an external actor, often an INGO or LNGO.e.g. UNDP’s self-reliance groups (SRG)

8 Study Methodology Approach The desk research and field work was conducted from September 2015 to February 2016 involving primary stakeholders—CSOs in Mon state—in the planning, research, and validation stages. This aligns with the values of LRC regarding governance, participation, and accountability standards. This research is exploratory and descriptive in nature, so participatory methods are appropriate. The research blends qualitative and quantitative measures. Quantitative methods are used when collecting information on basic operating realities of CSOs (e.g. budget, number of members, etc.). Qualitative methods were used when collecting information that was less standardized (e.g. examples of communication with government, challenges faced in past 12 months). Unlike UNDP’s local governance mapping, the research is not intended to be a 360 ° review from citizens and government as well. Instead, the focus is on self-reported realities, ideas, and opinions of civil society leaders. Guiding principles The principles that guide the research design are drawn largely from the Civil Society Index guiding principles and conceptual framework. Action orientation : The primary purpose of the project is to generate information that is useful to the project sponsors in order to offer future programming, but also to CSOs in Mon state, and to other stakeholders (e.g. regional government). Across-country applicability/comparability : LRC hopes to expand this exercise to other areas of Myanmar. The analytical framework must be relevant to the Myanmar context and be broadly applicable across states and divisions. Participatory by design : While not the primary purpose, LRC expects the research process itself to be a learning opportunity for CSO partners. It is also important to acknowledge that CSOs in Mon State are the collective experts on CSOs in Mon State, and therefore are crucial participants in the research design. While project sponsor interests guide the analytical framework, specific indicators and measurements will be designed through participatory activities. Finally, as LRC supports and trains CSOs in accountability standards, participation is core to the work. Complexity is embraced : Civil society in Myanmar is complex and has “fuzzy boundaries”, perhaps more than many other countries because of the history/structure of the government and armed groups. Sometimes it may not be clearly apparent whether an organization fits the scope of the project. Therefore the default was to be inclusive. Understanding diversity : In Mon state, as in most Myanmar regions, many marginalized groups face barriers to participation in economic and civic life. Special attention must be paid to the inclusion of women, youth, ethnic and indigenous groups when conducting outreach. Whenever possible, disaggregated information should be collected. Accepting realities of a country in democratic transition : In some areas, CSOs may be under control or protection of local authorities. This type of influence and relationship must be considered. Also, some organizations may not want their work known by government authorities, and therefore should not be identified directly in any reports/lists. Anonymity must be respected. Scope of the study The key research areas, defined in the study brief, were:

• Describe the scope of CSOs operating in Mon state • Describe skills and skill gaps of CSOs • Determine regional government policies (legal-regulatory) and practices that help or hinder the work of CSOs • Describe connections to stakeholders including other CSOs, governments, individual citizens and intended beneficiaries • Describe the diversity of beneficiaries, membership, and leadership of CSOs and any barriers to participation There was a particular focus on civil society initiatives related to advocacy and legal reform, human rights, support for women and children, reflecting LRC’s remit (Vision, Mission and values). This research is focused exclusively on Myanmar CSOs active in Mon state . This may include BBOs, because while they may be based in Thailand, there may be members active in Mon state. INGOs, international agencies (e.g. UNDP) and any related EFGs are beyond the scope of this report. Because of resource limitations, the village tracts, villages, and CSOs reached are not exhaustive of Mon state; however, some generalizations can be drawn in support of the research objectives. Refinement of scope with CSO stakeholders A project inception meeting was held with CSO leaders in Mawlamyine in October 2015. The scope and key questions were shared. Participants were asked about the types of information they would like to learn from the study. The feedback reinforced the intention to focus research on training needs/capacity /skills . The information and skills desired included everything from information about CSO registration, contact information, citizen needs, management and leadership, and technological help. They also recommended even greater emphasis on government advocacy and relationships , with a desire for improved communication with government, a need to build trust and understanding with the government, a want of government transparency, and a desire for more support from the government, with government recognizing their responsibility, to acknowledge their authority and to allow CSOs to work freely. A few made a request to investigate nonhuman assets (e.g. funding sources, funding opportunities, technology, and understanding about resources needed for CSO sustainability).Finally, they wanted more emphasis on the final sections - CSOs recommendations for action based on the study findings. Other individual comments included: an interest to build respect and trust with the public, for transparency (government, CSOs, INGOs, donors), for every town to have CSO network representatives, and for CSOs to gain experience by delivering (not receiving) training. Analytical framework Dimensions, inputs & outputs To create an analytical framework, dimensions were adopted from the civil society mapping and data frameworks mentioned above, taking into account the defined scope and sector interests, CSO stakeholders views (see below), and the resource limitations of the study. This framework formed the basis for data collection instruments that were created locally, using participatory methods.

10 TABLE 3.ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK DIMENSIONS Dimension Individual organization information Civil society description (intended research (research inputs) outputs) Structure Organizational information (contact person, CSO contact list/database position, address, size, etc.) Location/place of impact Geographic distribution; locations served/underserved Focus of work/main activities/projects Sectors, categories present/absent or active/inactive Beneficiaries served/unserved Beneficiaries Beneficiaries/membership Under/overrepresentation of specific groups Barriers (gender, ethnicity, religion, youth, etc.) Barriers Capacity Human resource capacity; learning interests; Training development opportunities training needs Existence/absence of CSO support organizations Leadership Under/overrepresentation of specific groups (gender, ethnicity, religion, youth, etc.) Non-human assets: financial/physical Financial and organizational strength and resources, funding sources, registration status sustainability Environment Impact of government policies and practices Advocacy opportunities on CSO activities Connections Collaboration/communication with other Existence/absence of CSO CSOs networks/coalitions/umbrella organizations Stakeholder engagement Relationships building opportunities with non-CSO stakeholders

Implementation plan& steps The following diagram illustrates the implementation steps in the plan. While the steps are set out ‘logically’, in reality, aspects of one stage may occur at the same time as another stage. For example, key informant interviews served two purposes: data collection and data validation.

TABLE 4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN & STEPS

1. Preparation 2. Inception meetings 3. Data collection instrument with stakeholders design & local researcher training

7. Final report and 4. Data collection dissemination Participatory focus groups and interviews with community leaders 6. Data validation 5. Data processing Key informant Interviews

11 Preparation Desk review. Review existing sources of information on the context of civil society in Mon state and the scope of CSOs operating in Mon state. Draft the scope, work plan, and methodology. Review frameworks for civil society mapping and assessment. Confirm Scope and draft analytical framework with LRC. Identify townships and data collection methods. Inception meetings Buildrelationships and refine study goals . Share initial research purpose and process with groups such as MNGO coordination committee, INGO Forum, Mawlamyine CSO leaders, and LRC staff for feedback and input on goals and activities. Determine opportunities for and limitations of different communication, training, and research methods. Incorporate input into analytical framework and methodology. Confirm field resources. Review plan and work-to-date with LRC regional office.Determine LRC assets (skills, available time, relationships in Mawlamyine and other townships, meeting space and workshop materials, facilitation/research skills, translators, etc.). Data collection instrument design and researcher training Design community researcher training. Work with LRC to identify potential community researchers and township liaisons (e.g. CSO leaders, Change Agents, ideally from each township, representing different ages, genders, and ethnicities). Community researcher training and instrument design. Facilitate one-day training with a focus on conducting effective and ethical interviews. Training to cover informed consent, bias, validity, accuracy, privacy, and creating comfortable interview environment. Develop questions and test instruments . Work with community researchers to review research goals and to develop questions for the questionnaire based on study objectives (see Table 5).Test instrument on other research training participants and revise as necessary. The questionnaires had three general parts that cover all dimensions of the analytical framework:

• The first section focused on information intended for a CSO database (e.g. contact information, main activities, geography). • The second is on organization-specific: closed questions intended for quantitative analysis (e.g. diversity breakdown of leadership/membership, types of physical assets, communication methods). • The third is includes mostly open-ended questions intended for qualitative analysis (e.g. training needs, relationship with government). Identify participants for interviews and focus groups . Work with community researchers and LRCfield staff to identify CSO leaders to interview in their townships. Design focus groups. Plan logistics/invitations for townships not completed through community researchers. Translation . The final questionnaires were translated from English to Myanmar by one LRC staff member, and then translated orally back to English by a different staff member to try to ensure the translation was accurate.

12 TABLE 5 STUDY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Dimension Sub-dimension Objective for interview questions Structure Organizational information Determine organisation name in Myanmar/English (Contact person, position Determine main contact persons, position and contact address, size, etc.) information. Determine office address (if exists) Determine size of organization (number of members, number of staff or volunteers, budget) Location/place of impact Determine geographic scope (focused on specific area, or Geographic distribution; general area? Which villages/townships?) locations served/underserved Determine where most of beneficiaries come from (if providing services to people). Focus of work/main Determine the general purpose of the CSO activities/projects Determine the main activities of the CSO Determine if the CSO is registered or not (or in progress) Determine if the CSO is active or not Determine if they focus on main interest areas of project sponsors: human rights, advocacy/legal reform, women/children and violence, employment, value chain. Determine the main CSOs in the township that focus on: human rights, advocacy/legal reform, women/children and violence, employment, value chain. Beneficiaries Beneficiaries/membership Determine who or what beneficiaries are. Under/overrepresentation of Determine the number of members or beneficiaries (if specific groups (gender, relevant) broken down by age, gender. ethnicity, religion, youth, etc.) Determine barriers to more people accessing services. CommunicationBarriers Determine if/how the CSO responds to beneficiary feedback. Capacity Human resource capacity; Determine the types of training the organization has learning interests, Training benefited from and who delivered the training. development opportunities Determine the types of training the organization could benefit Existence/absence of CSO from. support organizations Determine which languages the CSO can operate in. Leadership: representation of Determine the approximate age, gender, and ethnicity of the specific groups CSO’s leadership. Non-human assets: Determine the level of infrastructure the organizations has financial/physical resources, (e.g. office, technology, meeting space). funding sources, registration Determine the operating budget of the CSO Determine the types and sources of funding the organizations. Environment Impact of government policies Determine which regional government policies and practices and practices on CSO impact CSO work and how. activities Determine which CSO practices are helpful for building Advocacy opportunities relationships with government. Connections Collaboration/communication Determine if the CSO is a member of any networks, coalitions, with other CSOs or umbrella organizations. Determine if/how/how often the CSO communicates with CSO networks or coalitions. Determine past examples/future plans of collaboration with other CSOs. Determine which other CSOs are the most important/influential for the respondent.

13 Data collection Community researchers conduct key informant interviews. Distribute interview packages, including consent forms, interview questionnaires, and record keeping forms (for accounting and quality control). Use questionnaires to interview predetermined number of CSOs. Conduct township focus groups. Facilitate focus group with participatory activities, including pair interviews using a short version of the questionnaire. Key informant interviews. Semi-structured interview guides are used with additional CSO/NGO leaders in Mawlamyine to gather additional information about the local context. Review incoming data for completeness, accuracy. Collect questionnaires. Work with LRC staff and others to review for completeness/accuracy. Follow up as necessary. Update other data sources. Compile/update other sources of CSO data (e.g. 2013 CSO network booklet) to support an updated version of a CSO database. Data processing Data analysis training . Conduct a day of training on qualitative data analysis with English speaking researchers from LRC, local CSOs, and Mawlamyine University. Data processing and analysis. Input quantitative and short answer questions into Excel, translate into English. For qualitative responses, translate key messages onto paper and use qualitative data analysis to distill themes. Prepare initial results overview to share for validation: CSO list, CSO landscape (types, sizes, geography, diversity, etc.), CSO networks/collaborations, CSO training interests, CSO advocacy interests, other comments. Data validation Participatory data validation . Bring stakeholders back together in Mawlamyine to share initial findings and find out whether the results make sense (community researchers, CSO Network members, Change Agents, etc.). Brainstorm ideas for LRC/stakeholder action, and for disseminating findings to both CSO and other interested parties (INGOs, government). Reflect on working together/community researcher approach. Write draft report . Incorporate feedback from data validation phase. Share initial report with key stakeholders for feedback. Final report and dissemination Write final report. Two versions: 1) With full methodology for other research, and 2) shorter version, with focus on results and recommendations, intended for distribution to CSOs and CAs, translated to Myanmar, Mon, Karen languages. Disseminate report . Dissemination in line with agreed dissemination plan. Township data collection method No database of Mon CSOs The study relied heavily on existing LRC networks and contacts to conduct this research. This meant that data was largely gathered from CSOs that were already connected to the broader civil society community. At the time of the research, there was no comprehensive database of CSOs in Mon state, so a random sample could not be taken from an existing source We adopted a community interview and focus group approach. CSO leaders (generally members of the Mon state CSO Network) from townships near to Mawlamyine participated in the data collection instrument design, testing the questionnaire and conducted interviews in their respective townships. For more distant townships, we conducted participatory focus groups in the field.

14 CSO interviews Questionnaires for the interviews were developed, guided by the dimensions and sub-dimension outlined in this paper, the questions themselves were brainstormed and tested in the days after the community researcher training. Participatory focus groups Participatory half-day focus groups were co-facilitated with LRC staff and volunteers to ensure coverage in Mon, Myanmar, Karen, and English. The groups had two parts that covered all dimensions of the analytical framework. The first was a mutual interview—participants used the close questions sections of the questionnaire to interview each other. The second part focused on group participatory activities to elicit information about training needs, government relationships, etc. Community leader interviews Community leader interviews were conducted with well-connected individuals with a good overview of Mon civil society. The purpose of these interviews was originally to learn more about the general civil society environment, but was adapted to also validate the focus group and CSO leader interview data.

TABLE 6 TOWNSHIPS AND PLANNED DATA COLLECTION METHOD

Community researcher interviews Participatory focus groups Chaungzone Paung Bilin Kyaikmayaw Thanbyuzayat Kyaikhto Mawlamyine Thaton* Ye Mudon

*interviews were conducted by community researchers between January 8 and 16, 2016. Due to logistic issues no interviews were conducted in Thaton . Data analysis Data analysis involved a mix of 6 different people over these 5 days in January 2015 (group consisted of 1 LRC staff member from Yangon, 2 from MWO, 1 from MNEC, and 2 university students). Training on coding and theming was conducted. Another volunteer helped input qualitative data from the 88 interviews and another translated the data from the focus group activities. Stakeholder Engagement In the end, the data collection process involved contributions from over 100 people .

TABLE 7 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS AND PARTICIPANTS /ACTIONS

15 Mon State Desk review • LRC national / regional staff • Mon State CSO leaders Inception meetings • MNGO /INGO coordination Data collection instrument design groups and research training • 18 community researchers trained

10 townships • 3 focus groups with 35 CSO Participatory focus groups leaders from 24 CSOs • 64 interviews by 14 community Individual interviews researchers with CSO leaders from 6 townships

Mawlamyine • 6 citizens trained in qualitative Key informant interviews data analysis • 9 conversations with civil Data analysis society leaders

CSO mapping report

16 Findings Literature review CSOs in Myanmar context The findings from this research fit within the broader context of civil society in Myanmar. This section presents an overview and history of civil society in Myanmar based on a literature review of other recent research and commentary. Civil society in Myanmar is largely “ordinary people trying to improve things for their community.” 17 Its roots are based in service-providing religious groups, and impacted by civil war and weak government. 18 Common types of long-standing civil society organizations include monastery education and funeral associations. Until recently, the space civil society occupied depended on local relationships with government and local authorities, 19 but due to changes in freedom of association legislation and relationship building by President Thein Sein beginning in 2010, civil society is increasingly focusing on advocacy and human rights in the public sphere.Some believe that civil society has the opportunity to occupy much more space than it currently does, though others express concern that “too much hope and unrealistic expectations” are being placed on civil society. 20 Civil society, like society at large, is often segmented along religious and ethnic lines. 21 The number of CSOs has only been estimated to this point, as until recently very few CSOs were formally registered with Myanmar government due to limitations on the types of CSOs that would be approved. There has been very little analytical research on Myanmar civil society 22 and no official data 23 . However, CBOs are found in almost every township (especially FBOs), and CSOs and LNGOs exist in every state and division, though concentrated in state capitals and Yangon. The largest and most influential CSOs are urban and have strength in their access to technology, media, and donors. 24 Civil society in Myanmar pre-dated colonial rule, continued under military rule, and began expanding rapidly in the 1990s 25 . However, the international community was slow to acknowledge its presence 26 , as many local initiatives don’t “fit standard Western criteria or definitions of what civil society looks like, and … [are] self- sufficient and not looking for international financial and other support.” 27 The international community only began to use the word civil society in the Myanmar context during the influx of INGOs into Myanmar in the mid-1990s.28 Civil society is defined very broadly in Myanmar as is required by its unique structure: “Narrow definitions of civil society are not useful in the Burmese context, as they exclude important local actors and prevent a better understanding of social organizing and social change in the country.” 29 In particular, religion is strongly tied to civil society and activism—for example, monks were at the forefront of the independence movement earlier in the 20 th century and the Saffron revolution in 2007. In this way, religious leaders are tied to activism, democracy and human rights in ways not often seen in many Western countries. History of civil society in Myanmar Colonial period to 1947 Over a period of three Anglo Burmese wars between 1824 and 1885, the entire region eventually fell under British rule. The British banned political activities; however, civil society flourished under the auspices of religious organizations that often had independence agenda. 30 During the colonial period, Hlaing 31 lists eight active types of civil society organizations, which represent both British influence and general societal change: “student unions, trade unions, religious organisations, political parties and organisations, ethnic associations, social welfare organisations, professional associations, community-neighborhood-organisations and native place organisations.”

17 Military rule to 2010 During military rule, civil society remained active, in ways that Myanmar civil society had been and continues to be to this day: “people organizing themselves for a common purpose beyond the family life and outside of the state structure” outside of any “official registration or formal membership.” 32 During this period of time, civil society continued to be largely faith-based and focused on service provision. 33 Some FBO activities were able to subvert political activity restrictions by embedding democratic components into their projects. 34 Activist organizations were shut down, though many continued operating underground. 35 However, public activities were limited largely to religious bodies. Any activities that could be seen as challenging the military government’s authority could be perceived as a political challenge. Ethnic minority regions not under government control also had active civil society during the period, especially among Buddhist and Christian groups. 36, 37 Christian groups in particular maintained connections to the international community (though were largely disconnected from the majority Burman civil society). 38 Civil society in ethnic minority areas flourish further after a variety of cease fires in the 1990s between the government and ethnic armed groups, increasing service provision in areas outside government control 39,40 , though remaining low profile. 41 During military rule, many BBOs (often in Thailand) existed to carry out activist activities such as reporting human rights abuses that were impossible within the borders of Myanmar. 42 The government made its own attempt at civil society during this period by setting up GONGOs, such as the Myanmar Red Cross and a series of professional association, with leadership and membership dominated with government appointed members. 43 After the student protests of August of 1988, the government passed the 1988 Association Act, which severely constricted civil society by requiring registration with Ministry of Home Affairs. Religious organizations continued their work, as their registration falls under the control of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. After Cyclone Nargis in 2008, citizen action was strong in the wake of weak government aid and the government’s clampdown on foreign interventions. “A wide range of local initiatives, including ethnic faith- based organisations, played a key role in the emergency response.”44 Some political parties that ran in the 2010 elections (especially ethnic parties) were formed out of civil society groups. 45 Democratic transition to 2015 A variety of democratic reforms and freedoms have slowly emerged since 2010, and “political ‘space’ has continued to open around the country”. 46 , 47 Civil society continues to provide nonpolitical direct services as during the military junta, but is also “starting to demand space from the armed groups and the government.” 48 There may be even more space for CSOs to do work than currently used. 49 Relationships with the government have improved, but are still strained in some cases and vary region-to- region, and even village-to-village. Many NGOs (local and international) now enter into agreements with government ministries and departments, and CSOs are increasingly conducting advocacy in previously taboo areas such as large natural resource infrastructure projects (e.g. dams, mining) and major human rights issues,50, 51 and winning. 52 Civil society is “increasingly becoming vocal and is recognized as a key player by the government.”53 In some regions, however,“authorities continue to view civil society activity with suspicion” 54 and CSOs must continue to maintain relationships with local authorizes in order to do their work. Sometimes this relationship is one of control on the part of the local authorities, in other cases the relationship is more protective from higher level authorities. 55 Rather than rocking any political boats, many CSOs adopt nonpolitical aims or purposefully misrepresent their work in order to create room to conduct their activities. ‘Peacebuilding’ and ‘advocacy’ organizations in particular may not use those specific words to describe their work.

18 Civil society has also recently increased its relationship with media of all forms. CSOs are holding press conferences and working with the media to raise public awareness. Independent media is growing. And with the proliferation of smartphones over the past 2 years, the use of digital and social media has exploded, especially in urban areas; CSOs are taking their advocacy and organizing online, especially via Facebook. 56 Three government actions opened up the space for civil society during the democratic transition:

• The first was President Thein Sein’s increased acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Myanmar civil society. He acted on advice to regularly meet with civil society leaders 57 and publicly announced intent to work with civil society, including non-registered groups, on poverty alleviation. 58 • The second was reforms to the Association Act. The new law, passed in June 2014, clarifies voluntary registration procedures (including for INGOs) and assurance that organizations that choose not to register do not face punishment. 59, 60 While successfully achieving registration makes it easy to do civil society work, the process continues to be cumbersome and hard to navigate. 61 • The third is reform to freedom of press. In the early 2010s media space began dramatically, including an end to official prepublication censorship in 2012. 62 However, media censorship unofficially still exists in practice via intimidation and lawsuits. 63 These changes have led to more activist, peacebuilding, human rights, and BBOs to operate more freely within Myanmar. 64 Though this change has led to tensions between within-Myanmar and internationally-based Myanmar-focused organizations over control of the narrative 65 and some continue to remain under the radar rather than build strategic relationships with government authorities. 66 Much of civil society remains clearly defined as separate from government; however, the lines are sometimes blurry as civil society actors have relationships with those getting elected to offices, as political parties wade into socio-economic humanitarian work, and as newly appointed local authorities reach out to CSOs for help in areas they have been hired to work in but don’t have experience. 67 Components of civil society in Myanmar While this report uses CSOs as an umbrella term for all kinds of civil society organizations (see Table 2), there are many different, non-exclusive, types of organizations and initiatives operating in the civil society space. For the purpose of this report the term CSO to encompass all Myanmar-led organizations—including CBOs, LNGOs, BBOs, FBOs, GONGOs and EAG initiatives. (Note: some would not include GONGO and EAG/NSAG initiatives under the umbrella of civil society because of their respective link to state/ethnic conflict). The number of LNGOs in Myanmar is difficult to assess, but previous research, and various NGO databases suggest the number is in the hundreds or low thousands. CBOs, however, operating at local village area levels, are estimated in the hundreds of thousands. 68 Organized civil society in the form of formal organizations with budgets and staff “is still a very small part of the whole range of civil society groupings” 69 and CBOs generally operate with little to no formal resources at the village level.In addition, many initiatives may not be counted in international estimates of civil society because they don’t fit into “western” models of organizational structure and governance. Based on existing databases and lists (e.g. CBI, LRC, MIMU), the most common organizations operate in the areas of education (often connected to FBO/monastery education), health, livelihood/agriculture, and environment. However, because of the nature of some organizations to downplay their purposes, human rights CSOs are likely under-acknowledged . CBOs, on the other hand, focus more on “ basic social services, such as education assistance, small scale loans or funeral services ” and are more charitable in nature.70 More CBOs have been created recently in order to implement INGO and LNGO project .71 FBOs, having often existed throughout military rule, are the “bedrock of civil society” in Myanmar. 72 Civil society can be broken down in a variety of ways in Myanmar (as in any country).

19 TABLE 8 COMPONENTS OF CSO S Geography and • CBOs (village level, informal) leadership • LNGOs (regional level, more formal/formal). (within each of these are BBOs, FBOs, GONGOs, EAG groups) Beneficiaries/targe • Advocacy and public awareness ts • Direct support to others • Direct support of members • Mutual helping / self-help groups • Protection of environment (indirect support of people) • Benefit to general public Themes/sectors • Health • Education ≡ HIV ≡ Monastic education ≡ Blood groups ≡ Special education needs ≡ O2 delivery ≡ Employment training • Women’s rights/protection ≡ Nontraditional education • Child rights/protection • Environmental protection • Homes for aged poor, orphans • Arts and culture • Peacebuilding • Independent media • Human rights • Development ≡ LGBT ≡ Water, sanitation, hygiene ≡ Land grabbing/ownership • Business/professions • Funeral associations ≡ Entrepreneurship • Livelihood ≡ Access to market/supply chain • Agriculture ≡ Professional associations • Economic ≡ Micro loans/microcredit ≡ Mutual savings

Relationships with INGOs INGOs are increasingly prevalent in Myanmar, sometimes acting as funders of local implementing partners, sometimes by partnering with local organizations, and sometimes implementing activities by hiring local staff. In the types of development and humanitarian aid assistance common to INGOs, work has begun to creep into areas traditionally served by Myanmar NGOs, notably direct service. This has begun to cause some suspicion or resentment/ and is viewed as threatening. 73 Suspicion or threat appears to have increased as INGOs partner with government agencies, as CSOs may be suspicious or have antagonistic relationships with government, and those feeling carry over to INGO partners. 74 As INGOs seek local partners, especially under the interests of “local capacity building”, some local CSOs speak of spending “more time in meetings and training than in implementing their work.” 75 Because of Donor/INGO requirements such as English-based reports, financial reporting, and registration, many CSOs are excluded from funding and partnership opportunities. 76 In limited cases, CSOs can access small grants without meeting formal requirements. 77 While local CSOs may not be driven by international donor agendas, 78 “most sense a lack of equal power in the partnership.” 79 Challenges One major challenge is the disparity between CSOs in urban areas (especially Yangon) and the rest of the country. Yangon based CSOs benefit from efforts to coordinate (LNGO coordination meetings); access to resources and information (relationships with other CSOs and with INGOs); urban governments that increasingly see the legitimate role of CSOs; prevalent access to internet in the workplace; 80,81,82

20 Many CSOs and CBOs outside of major centres face regional authorities who have not yet embraced some of the freedoms offered by the central government; 83,84,85 challenges in recruiting/retaining skilled staff, meeting INGO/donor requests 86 , and suspicion from landlords and venue owners. 87 Organizations in regional areas are also more likely to operate in isolation, resulting in less trust, information sharing, and collaboration. 88

They may ultimately result in a two-tier civil society: the Yangon-based organisations that would be able to move quickly and tackle sensitive issues; and the rest, struggling with old bureaucratic impediments.89 Civil society in many ways mirrors the general society, in that control and power is held by elites, 90 often by those with ties to political parties. 91 In this way civil society can lack democratic principles and become exceedingly top down. 92 While CSO registration reformation happened in 2014, many organizations are not yet registered. The amount of time and effort to register (at a local and national level) and the perceived risks are seen to outweigh any potential rewards. In order for international donors to support unregistered CSOs and CBOs, INGOs and some LNGOs are acting as intermediate grantees (accountable bodies. A lack of registration often means not being able to receive INGO/Donor funding. In 2009, about 3 percent of CBOs were registered. 93 Even after organizations are registered, permission for activities are often still required 94 and geographic restrictions on activities may be strict. Even when seeking registration, organizations may be turned down for unclear reasons. 95 There is currently no data on how many have registered under the new registration laws, though anecdotal evidence suggests it is more common to seek registration if national NGO, based in Yangon. Mistrust is a major issue in Myanmar civil society. Many groups still operate under the radar and desire for anonymity makes partnerships hard to forge, and many are discouraged from raising issues related to human or environmental rights. 96 Organizations may opt not to be included in CSO directories. 97 Ethnic Mon civil society A network of ethnic Mon organizations were historically connected to NMSP, the main EAG in Mon State, but now work mostly autonomously. 98 Prominent organizations include the Mon National Education Committee(MNEC), Mon Women Organization (MWO), Mon Youth Progressive Organization (MYPO), Mon Youth Educator Organization (MYEO), and Remonhya Peace Foundation. NMSP is fairly unique among EAGs in Myanmar in that it is supportive of the operation of CSOs and has been historically aligned and affiliated with a variety of CSOs.99 Other examples of ethnic Mon CSOs not affiliated with NMSP include Mon Cetana Development Foundation and Mon-region Social Development Network (MSDN).

21 Interviews and focus groups Respondents& locations Using the study data collection methods, there were 88 respondents. Focus groups were held in Kyaikhto, Bilin, and Ye. Other townships had interviews conducted by community researchers. The samples for the interviews and focus groups were selected by CSO leaders in each township, based on a suggestion of breadth of CSO types.It is important to note that these results are a snapshot of the CSO leaders who participated in the research, and the data can only reflect this sample.

FIGURE 1TOWNSHIPS OF RESPONDENTS .100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Kyaikhto Bilin Thaton* Paung Mawlamyine Chaungzone Kyaikmayaw Mudon Thanbuzayat Ye

Most CSOs (78/ 88) were only active in one township each. Of the CSOs active in more than one township, all but one were based in Mawlamyine. For CSOs operating in more than one, the most common additional townships to work in were Paung (8) followed by Chaungzone, Mudon, and Thanbuzyat and Ye (5 each).

FIGURE 2TOWNSHIPS IN WHICH RESPONDENT CSO S OPERATE .101

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Kyaikhto Bilin Thaton* Paung Mawlamyine Chaungzone Kyaikmayaw Mudon Thanbuzayat Ye

Sectors CSOs were given a list of 30 pre-defined sectors and activities and asked to check which of them their organizations were involved in. Of the 87 who responded, 54 checked five or more, 41 checked 10 or more, and 10 checked 20 or more. Thirty-four checked fewer than five. The most popular activities are health (67% of respondents) and funeral association (64%), followed by collecting money or supplies for other groups (56%), support for children (54%), and education (53%).

22 FIGURE 3TOP NINE ACTIVITIES AS SELECTED BY RESPONDENTS Health 67% Funeral association 64% Collecting money or supplies for other groups 56% Support for children (other than support for children who experience violence) 54% Education 53% Rural development 43% Helping people find employment / job training 40% Environmental protection 40% Emergency response 39%

FIGURE 4BREAKDOWN ACTIVITIES BY SECTOR /PURPOSE Health and welfare Health 67% Emergency response 39% Blood/O2 37% Care for old people 37% Care for poor people 36% Women and children Other support for children 54% Education 53% Other support for women 36% Help for women and children who experience violence 34% Youth network 33% Economic Helping people find employment / job training 40% Help for entrepreneurs / small business 18% Microfinance / mutual savings 17% Advocacy and human rights Human rights 34% Help for migrants 32% Promotion/protection of ethnic culture 28% Peacebuilding 25% Land rights 24% Legal reform / advocacy 21% LGBTQ / MSM 11% Arts and culture Arts and culture 29% Promotion/protection of ethnic culture 28% Independent media 9% Environment Environmental protection 40% For natural resource development transparency 20% Other/ community building Funeral association 64% Collecting money or supplies for other groups 56% Rural development 43% Capacity building for other CSOs 37% Self-help group 26%

These numbers represent different types of activities that CSO leaders selected from a list, and didn’t require evidence or further description. However, another way to analyze what CSOs are doing is using the

23 descriptions of the activities they conducted over the previous 12 months and coding this data based on the types of activities the respondents describe. A bit of a different picture is seen when analyzing this data. 102 Health (40%), funeral activities (28%), and collecting/making donations (17%) are again among the top five activities. However, education jumps up the second more popular activity (33%).

FIGURE 5TOP ACTIVITIES BASED ON RESPONDENTS ’ DESCRIPTIONS Health 40% Education 33% Funeral 28% Collecting/making donations 17% Human rights 14% Blood/oxygen 14% Emergency transportation/support 11% Support for children and youth (other than anti-violence) 10% Rural development 10% Disaster prevention/response 10% Support for elders 10% Environment/extractive industries 9% Arts and culture 9% Give training 8% Ethnic culture promotion and protection 8% Election/politics 7% Support for women (other than gender-based violence) 7% Job training 7% Support for poor people 7% Microfinance 7% Anti-violence 6% Peacebuilding 5%

These percentages are different from the checkboxes in the other section of the survey. Organizations were likely to check multiple boxes (median = 11 activities) and the selected activities didn’t always correspond to their descriptions. Possible reasons could be:

• CSOs are active in multiple areas, but they neglected to include the activities in the description • CSOs incorporated principles (e.g. peacebuilding) into other activities but didn’t explicitly describe them • CSOs have plans for these activities/historically done these activities, but not in the past 12 months • CSOs feel strongly about these issues, but aren’t actually active When individual townships are analyzed, there is a greater variation in types of activity listed:

• Activities associated with advocacy or activism are more concentrated in the south: peacebuilding (Ye and Thanbuzayat), human rights (Chaungzone, Kyaikmayaw, Mudon, Thanbuzayat, Ye), and environment (Thanbuzayat, Ye, and also Kyaikhto in the north). Human rights were comparatively uncommon in Kyaikhto and Mawlamyine. • Health-related activities are commonly listed everywhere except Chaungzone, where only 2 of 13 organizations active referenced health. • Funeral activities are concentrated in Paung, Mawlamyine, Chaungzone and Kyaikmayaw. • Kyaikhto is quite unique compared to other townships. While health and education are common as in other townships, Kyaikhto CSOs are is uniquely active in microfinance, rural development, job training and support for elders when compared to other townships. • Election and political activities were concentrated in Thanbuzayat.

24 • Activities supporting children and youth (other than anti-violence) is most common in Mudon. • Ethnic culture promotion and protection is most common in Chaungzone, Thanbuzayat, and Ye. • Anti-violence work is most common in Chaungzone. • Activities that explicitly directly supported poor people were rare. • Blood and oxygen services are most common in Mawlamyine and Chaungzone Having a low level of one type of activity in a township could mean that: 1) the sample size was so small that the low level is due to chance only 2) the activities reflect the organizations that were chosen by the organizer/interviewers in that township or 3) there actually is a low level of activity in that township. At a minimum, high levels may indicate potential overlap or concentrated expertise, and low levels may present opportunities for more outreach to CSOs by the CSO network or other civil society leaders in that township. Registration status Registration takes place at the level of government where CSOs are active (e.g. union, state, township). In Mon State, at the time of writing, more CSOs are not registered (52% of 87 respondents) than registered (31%) or registration-in-progress (16%) combined.

FIGURE 6. REGISTRATION STATUS OF RESPONDENTS .

16% 31% Registered Not registered Registration in progress

52%

Date established Of those that provided a date of establishment (n=80), the median year of establishment is 2012. The vast majority of CSOs were established after 2010 (61%), with 34% established in 2014 or 2015. For CSOs that are registered, it’s unclear if the dates represent actual establishment, or year of registration. Only 6% were established before 2000, operating in areas of funeral services, education support, and support for women.

FIGURE 7. THE YEAR RESPONDENT CSO S WERE ESTABLISHED .

25 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Diversity in leaders CSOs were asked about the gender, age and ethnicity of their leader (or group of leaders if the organization is led by more than one individual). The results were:

• 10 organizations referenced more than 1 leader • The leadership of CSOs in Mon State are overwhelmingly male, 45 or over, and Bamar or Mon. • 41% percent of CSOs reference having an ethnic Mon leader. • Just under half of CSOs have a woman in a leadership role (47%). • In terms of age, 15% reference having a leader under 30 years old. In comparison to the general population 15 years of age and over in Mon State, 34% are under 30, 29% are between 30 and 44, and 37% are 45 or over. Fifty-two percent of the population is female. 103 . Released census results at the time of writing do not include ethnicity so comparisons to the general population are not possible. Because the survey was not administered in Thaton, Karin and Pa-O are likely underrepresented in this study

FIGURE 8. GENDERS , AGES , AND ETHNICITIES OF RESPONDENT CSO LEADERS .104

26 Gender(s) of leadership Age(s) of leadership 90% 80% 77% 70% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 47% 40% 40% 33% 30% 30% 20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 0% 0% Women Men Under 30 30 to 44 45 over

Ethnicity(ies) of leadership 70% 60% 60% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 7% 7% 0% Bamar Mon Karin Other

Human resource Overall, a “median” CSO from this sample has a board of 5 directors, no paid staff, just under 20 volunteers, and 40 members. • Most organizations that responded referenced having a board of directors, with 45% having between 1 and 10 directors. Thirty-three percent indicated they did not have a board of directors. • The vast majority of CSOs (70%) reported having no paid staff. • Volunteers are common among all CSOs—no CSOs reported having no volunteers. • Most CSOs (64%) had between one and 20 volunteers. • Most of CSOs reported having a membership base (95%). • 50% of respondents had between one and 50 members, 27% reported having over 100 members.

FIGURE 9. NUMBER OF STAFF , BOARD MEMBERS , VOLUNTEERS , AND MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT CSO S.

27 Number of staff 80% 70%

60%

40% 21% 20% 6% 2% 1% 0% 0 1 to 10 11 to 20 Over 20 "Yes" only

Number of board members 40% 33% 30% 27% 18% 20% 11% 6% 10% 4% 1% 0% 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 over 20 "Yes" only

Number of volunteers 40% 33% 31% 30%

20% 14% 12% 11% 6% 10% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 100 over 100 "Yes" only

Number of members 30% 27% 25% 23% 22% 20% 13% 15% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0 1 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 500 Over 500 "Yes" only

Language capabilities CSOs were asked about the language(s) they were able to speak in their work if needed:

• The vast majority of CSOs (95%) can speak Burmese • 36% can speak Mon • 6% can speak English. The organizations that did not list being able to speak Burmese may have done so because of a misunderstanding, this is unclear. Pa-O was not captured.

28 FIGURE 10. LANGUAGES THAT CAN BE SPOKEN AT RESPONDENT CSO OFFICES .

100% 95% 80% 60% 36% 40%

20% 7% 6% 0% Burmese Mon Kayin English

Budgets & funding sources The median budget for respondents was 4,000,000 MMK per year (approx. $3,300).

• Almost a third of respondents have a budget of between MMK 1,000,000 and 4,999,999 per year (approx. $824-$3,300). • 3% of respondents listed a budget of zero. • 8% listed a budget of MMK 50,000,000 per year or over (approx. $41,200).

FIGURE 11. RESPONDENT CSO ANNUAL BUDGETS .

Budget ('000s MMK)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

0 3% 1 to 499 12% 500 to 999 10% 1,000 to 4,999 32% 5,000 to 9,999 22% 10,000 to 49,999 17% 50,000 and over 8%

Most CSO respondents rely on Myanmar citizen donations, in-kind contributions, and other payments to fund their activities:

• 47% through donations from Myanmar citizens • 43% through volunteer contributions of time (i.e. in lieu of salaries). or CSOs, in general, are not relying on large institutions (international agencies, government, organizations, or Myanmar government). More commonly they receive funding from other, larger, Myanmar CSOs (21%). Most examples of “other” include membership fees, though some CSOs get monthly contributions from community households, and some are financed through financial contributions of committee members.

FIGURE 12. SOURCES OF FUNDING AND RESOURCES FOR RESPONDENT CSO S.

29 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Donations from Myanmar citizens 47%

Volunteer time 43%

Grants from CSOs 21%

In-kind donation of supplies 20%

Earned revenue 19%

INGOs 17%

Donor agencies (e.g. UN/EU) 11%

Myanmar government 5%

Other 31%

Infrastructure The most common physical asset is an office (65%), only 24% describe having internet. Many also have a resource library (33%) or meeting room (29%). Under “other”, respondents listed vehicles, sewing machines, and even a pig farm and hostel. Of particular interest is the use of email. While the survey didn’t capture how many CSOs use email for their work (beyond for networking purposes, described in a later section), we did ask for contact information for two people from each CSO. For 176 possible contacts (two for each of 88 participants), only 26 email addresses were given (compared to 155 phone numbers provided).

FIGURE 13RESPONDENT CSO OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

CSO Office 65%

Resource Library 33%

Computer 31%

Meeting Room 29%

Internet 24%

Other 36%

Key challenges Respondents who completed the long form survey (from Mawlamyine, Mudon, Thanbuzayat, Mudon, Chaungzone and Paung) were asked a variety of open answer questions about their training interests, challenges, and strengths. Ye, Bilin, and Kyaikhto focus group participants completed activities on strengths and training interests.The two most overwhelmingly common challenges described in responses were related to budget and government relations :

• have no budget, have no money to pay volunteers or build office, use own pocket money, have fundraising challenges (especially in Mawlamyine, Chaungzone, and Kyaikmayaw) • low cooperation with respective departments, ward administration, low support, communication gaps, accountability issues (especially in Mawlamyine and Kyaikmayaw)

Other common challenges cited include:

30 • Purchase and maintenance of vehicles and equipment for activities (especially in Mawlamyine) • Difficulties serving beneficiaries (e.g. due to beneficiary work schedules, poverty, or risk of arrest to beneficiaries because of drug use, sex work) (especially in Chaungzone) • Not enough skills/knowledge to do CSO work (especially in Chaungzone) • Poor relationships with community (poor public perception of CSO work, public not impressed, think CSO works for self-benefit, think CSO is tied to political party) (especially in Mudon) • No office space for meetings or to support members (especially in Chaungzone) A number of CSOs in Mawlamyine indicated they had no challenges. Capacity & training needs When asked what type of training CSOs wanted, the clear two themes were related to:

• leadership capacity building (e.g. organizational development, leadership, management) and • financial management/accounting and fundraising. Other topics identified included: disaster management, human rights, gender issues, English speaking, computers, networking, report writing, project cycle management, gender, first aid and ambulance use. Key informants who provide funding expressed a need for better proposal writing, report writing, and project cycle management, though this is for a narrow set of CSOs who seek or receive INGO funding. When asked about training CSOs had attended in the past 12 months and from whom, over 40 providers were listed. The mostly common were Mon Cetana Development Foundation (especially Mudon), UNDP (especially in Chaungzone), Allience (especially Mawlamyine) and LRC. Most common topics were related to the election (election observation, voter education), leadership, human rights, and peace building. Training was found to be a very common activity for CSO leaders, especially those with connections to national organizations or the international community. Leaders often travelled to Yangon, Nay Pi Daw, and Mandalay and even further afield to Lashio or Bangkok to take part in multi-day training. Costs of training (e.g. transportation, accommodation) were usually born by the organizer, and participants apply to attend. However, some complain that between training and meetings, there is very little time to actually do the day to day work of their CSOs. With the amount of training available, often on the same topics related to capacity building, and increasingly transparency and accountability, some question whether the training is “sticking.” It was also noted that trainers and facilitators don’t necessarily have successful practical experience with the content. Participantsmay be excited by or interested in the content, but don’t have the ability or willingness to implement changes when they return to the organisation. Relationship with government Respondents who completed the long form survey were asked a variety of open answer questions about their relationships with government – meeting with government, making requests, responses from government, policies that are barriers to CSO work, and opportunities for improving relationships. The interview questions referenced asked of relationships with “local government” which usually references the appointed township, village tract, or village level administrators, depending on the geographic scope of the CSO. Ye, Bilin, and Kyaikhto focus group participants worked in groups to brainstorm ideas for good government activity, policy, and relationships. If a specific township is mentioned in this section, it is because that township had a disproportionate number of responses on a specific theme. Otherwise there were no outliers. About half of responses described having successful meetings with local government, during which they received permission for activities, or get other support/help. A few noted that this success comes after relationship building. Mudon respondents in particular noted overall good relationships with local government. The other half of responses noted difficulties in meetings with government, including:

• Having registration or activities rejected • Trust issues

31 • Insufficient responses; no interest/help/support The largest cohort of responses described meetings that focused on getting permission (especially in Mawlamyine). Some respondents described having meetings for discussion, knowledge sharing, training, cooperation, but these types of interactions were much rarer. Some respondents also said that they never or rarely met with government, especially in Kyaikmayaw. When asked why some CSOs might have good relationships with government, common responses included that the CSOs do good work, have good communication or regular meetings with government, and have a mutual understanding. There was little consensus on how CSO and government can improve relationships, but the most common responses focused on increased communication: sharing, advocacy, negotiation, transparency, and regular meetings. When asked about policies that hinder their work, the most common policy/law was related to organization registration, though most did not respond or stated they had no policy/law related barriers. The process for registration requires a lot of information and is burdensome, and public activities (e.g. campaigns, events) often require advance notice to government and police. For those that aren’t registered, CSOs find government not willing to engage or even meet, making advocacy, campaigning, or relationship building very difficult for unregistered organizations. A few CSOs were frustrated with not being able to deal with local township government because the issues they work on are the responsibility of state or union departments, requiring relationships they don’t have or difficulties with travel. A few were also frustrated by weak government action (for example, low penalties for corruption). Some townships with active resource extraction are frustrated with weak land management and environmental protection laws. In speaking with CSO leaders, it became clear that government relations vary from township to township, from village to village, from CSO to CSO.Responses indicate that government relations are easiest for organizations that provide uncontroversial direct support (e.g. funeral association, blood donations). For those that do advocacy work, good relationships are still possible, but require relationship building. One organization found out that police needed help with translation, and so the CSO could help them with translation and the police were more supportive of their campaigning activities. Some townships governments struggle more with corruption, or with controversial mining activities. Some local authorities act independently of senior levels of government, whether because of personal/local interests, or because central communication doesn’t trickle down to the local level. This can be positive when higher levels are interested in suppressing CSO activities, or negative when the central government encourages local government to work better with CSOs. Some respondents said that many local authorities have state military experience and are not interested in working with CSOs, thinking that CSOs are against everything government does and not understanding the breadth of positive work that CSOs do. Likewise, CSOs might only focus on the bad, not the good within government, and therefore chose not to engage. Trust is absent. Some CSOs see willingness by government to learn from and strategize with CSOs. One respondent described that government officers want to support their citizens, but feel shame in not having the skills or other capacity to do their work to the level they would like. In this case, meetings with CSOs and other community leaders are leading to a shared understanding of community needs, and how CSOs and government each plays an important role. Overall this demonstrates a huge area of opportunity for government and CSOs. Success is seen when trust, understanding, and communication exists. Rather than seeing government (or government seeing itself) as a gatekeeper to doing CSO work, government can be a potential partner for CSO, as CSOs and government often have shared interests relating to the health and prosperity of their communities.

32 Networks and collaboration A variety of working groups, networks, and ad hoc collaborations exist in Mon State. The Burma Southeast Region Civil Society Organizations convenes at a regional level, including CSOs from Kayah, Karen and Mon states and Tanintharyi Division. Within Mon State, The Mon State CSO Network was formed in 2014 at the initiative of the UNDP. UNDP recently funded this network, including office space, over 18 months, though the relationship now is only as nonexclusive funder. The intent of this network is to have township level networks, each with two elected representatives that serve as voice for CSO in their township and who serve on the state network. Paung Ku also funds CSO networks that preexist the UNDP funded ones, so that in some cases townships now have two CSO networks that hold competing forums and activities. LRC also holds a monthly CSO coordination meeting in Mawlamyine.These often have monthly meetings with agendas that are based on issues raised by individual members. One recently meeting focused on corruption and how various CSOs could and were responding to citizen reports of corruption. CSO leaders report the need for a CSO network, to help connect CSOs, support collaboration, and provide a voice representing CSOs to government, especially unregistered CSOs that often don’t get acknowledge by authorities. Others however, expressed concern that the networks:

• Risk representing the interests of a small group of dominant CSO leader voices rather than the broader interests of CSOs in their townships, • In some instances, organisationshave shifted towards self-preservation and on being dedicated organizations, rather than serving as connectors and advocates, and • Have become gatekeepers, an additional layer of obstruction that impacts the ability of CSOs to do their work. • Major donors, who encourage local CSOs to collaborate and not to duplicate work, have themselves duplicated networks. Beyond CSO networks, a variety of internationally funded working groups attempt to bring together actors focused on specific issues (e.g. case management, education) and some CSOs are members, but few respondents mentioned belonging to collaborations or networks beyond CSO networks, and many respondents said they did not belong to any network, coalition, or umbrella group. One newer initiative mentioned by a few respondents is the Mon State Community Observers Association, which was formed for election work, but at the time of writing was in discussions to continue for new purposes. When CSOs do work together, the examples of collaboration that respondents shared were usually ad hoc, often related to a specific event or campaign rather than an ongoing, formalized, collaboration. Some examples are given below:

• Event collaboration: Myanmar People Forum, Peace Conference, Human Rights Day, 16 Days of Activism, Anniversary of the Child Rights Convention Day events, Mon Revolution Day, Mon Youth Day, Mon National Day, monk death celebrations • Connecting/linking: making introductions, giving recommendations for invitations, passing on messages when travelling to other townships. • Referrals: directing citizens to other organizations (e.g. for medical, legal purposes) When CSOs do network with each other, they communicate personally, most often through monthly meetings and by phone. Email is not a priority; most organizations that did list using email also mentioned having INGO funding. Only 23% of organizations interviewed shared an email address; all but one shared at least one phone number.

FIGURE 14NETWORKING METHODS USED BY RESPONDENTS .

33 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Weekly meetings

Monthly meetings

Quarterly meetings

Email list

Newsletter

Annual report

Phone calls

Other:

In “other” participants described meeting with individuals in-person and sending invitations (personally delivered printed invitations in envelops is standard). Only one person mentioned social media, though this communication medium is important to add in future versions of this research to account for the use of Facebook and Viber especially. When asked how networking and collaboration among CSOs could improve, most respondents described actions that are already taking place: meetings, workshops, forums, and linking activities. It was suggested that there was a need to encourage more cooperation and mutual respect, part of the theme of trust building that is repeated in many areas of this research. Very few respondents mentioned strategizing together or planning collective efforts to achieve their goals. Key informants also brought this up as an opportunity to create a shared purpose. Observations and recommendations In interview data, key informant interviews, and other, more informal conversations with CSO leaders, a variety of trends indicate a number of realities, opportunities, and challenges facing civil society in Mon State. The statements below reflect a synthesis of these sources. They present the current context 105 as well as potential actions the CSO participants identified, that CSOs and stakeholders could consider. CSO space

It was felt that space for civil society had expanded greatly over the past few years. CSO activities that were approved by authorities in 2015, would not have been approved by the authorities 3 years ago. There has been a shift from needing approval from authorities, to only needing to inform (though not in all cases). Also, BBOs have begun to move into the region, feeling freer to operate in regional centers rather than in non- government controlled areas, or,from Thailand.

However, at the time the research (late 2015/early 2016), the national elections had just taken place, and there was a new government in waiting (handover March 2016). During this transition period, most people seem to be taking a “wait and see” approach, not assuming that things are assured to continue to improve. A few people observed that some political parties are not receptive to civil society engagement since the party policy do not include any mentioning about the role of civil society. Civil society is unclear what the change in government will mean for the approval/informing process required for their activities.

The opening of space for civil society to operate has meant an increase of activity, of public activism, and influx of funding for civil society activities from international funders. The concern of CSOs is that instead of the recognition of the government on CSOs work as a think tank or watch dogs, some wonder if this will lead to a crackdown on civil society from government as civil society is seen as blockage or obstacle.

34 Maintaining financial independence

Civil society in Mon has a strong history of being self-funded by community and led by volunteers. Much of civil society has been self-sufficient without external or international funding.

Some have expressed a concern on how this independent nature will if there are increased international funding opportunities. From those that have experienced INGO collaboration, some worry that this type of partnership must not turn the existing and ongoing activities (based on community needs) into projects with short term funding (based on donor priorities).

With unpredictable, short term, and inaccessible international funding (due to language abilities and project cycle management abilities, eligibility criteria), the majority of CSOs continue to concentrate on contributions from Myanmar citizens, and also explore opportunities for earned revenue through social enterprises, partnerships with local businesses, income generationetc. to help with financial independence, to ensure CSOs are able to operate independently of international and government interests.

Registered CSOs should consider opportunities to sponsor unregistered organizations as projects, in which they can work with initiatives on financial management, government relations, and coordination with other CSOs. Registered CSOs could also operate small grant programs, for which the registered CSO is fiscally responsible. INGOs could also choose to relax restrictions on registration status. Strengthening leadership &CSO networks

There are multiple organizations serving a “CSO network” role in Mon State. Each network has its own contact lists and relationships. Some networks are more active in some townships than others. In terms of strengthening their role and reach, these networks (and their funders) should clarify remits, encourage coordination and collaboration and think about potentially merging some networks. While collaboration is important, there are already a lot of meetings in civil society. Organizations must be strategic about meetings that help meet theirs goals so that they can focus more time on achieve outcomes.

Many individuals felt that some CSO networks operated as gatekeepers, trying to control CSO activity andwere led by/dominated by local elite to the exclusion of many. To counter this, CSO networks must be inclusive and focus on their roles as connectors, coordinators, and promoters of civil society rather than being an entity themselves. CSO networks should demonstrate that thy are serving the diverse civil society, and be models cooperation and collaboration, not competition.

When organizations don’t work well together, it’s often because of personalities and concentration of control. Both networks and CSOs must improve governance and clarify expectations of leadership and the process for changing or electing new leadership. Sub sector groups and approaches

There has been a lot of focus on civil society to work in coordination and networking (e.g. forums, networks) but there is also a lot of potential for collaboration in subsectors, or on specific issues or problems e.g. violence against women, land rights, environmental issues, public health. These are consider a opportunities for sharing, collaboration, strategizing, advocacy etc. and improving in achieving outcomes. However, when subsector coordination meetings or events are convened by government, INGOs, or UN agencies, many CSOs are not invited or represented to such meetings.

More and more CSOs are being set up and there is an increase in INGO presence and activity, sometimes with overlapping activities, duplication of services, completion for limited funding, or an unhealthy reliance on time limited ‘project’ funding. This can be problematic, when existing organisations may be in a better place to serve communities than new organizations/initiatives.

There is a growing fear that CSOs see themselves as ‘legitimized’ only when they are formalized, on an organisation model that needs paid staff, an office, an international donor and organizational policies.This is less of a concern in traditional organizations like funeral associations and blood donor groups. A lot can be, and has been, achieved, without external funding, an office, and paid staff.

35 Trust between CSOs and government

Government and CSOs have a history of working in opposition, and it is generally recognized that this will take time to break down those barriers and improve trust. Many CSOs have previously had bad experiences trying to talk to government. However, there were also examples quoted of good relationships with local authorities. With the change of government, at the time of the writing, CSOs are waiting to see how this relationship will change.

CSOs and government have different ways of working, limited knowledge on how each other operates, roles and remits. However, they often have shared interests and shared goals, especially as it relates to the health and prosperity of its citizens.

Most CSOs want to enhance the ‘conversation’ with government to understand shared interests as a starting point for working in support of one another. It was felt that to aid this process:

• Government must increase its ability to meet with unregistered organizations, even if it means meeting with CSO leadership as citizens and not CSO representatives. • Government departments need time to build institutional capacity and understand the benefits of working with civil society. • CSOs need to increase their focus on educating and communicating with government, rather than only permission seeking. Work on presentation skills, demonstrating evidence, explaining goals and activities. Move away from argumentative approach. • CSOs should help government departments, with knowledge of local language, connections to community decision makers, understanding of local needs and actual situation on the ground. • Work with religious leaders and/or international organizations as intermediaries, negotiators, or conveners in situations where CSO-government relations are poor. • CSOs should increase own accountability, operate as transparently as possible, especially those CSOs whose work is not controversial. Invite government to inception meetings, provide regular communication to government on CSO activities. Ask for recommendations for potential partners etc. to strengthen relationship with government. • Learn about the hierarchy of government and how government operates. Talk with other CSO or local authorities to understand which level policy decisions get made at, when Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) are necessary, and who the best people to build relationships are. Start low and move up, or ask more established CSOs to make introductions. • Publicly appreciate government and authorities when they do good work. Trust between CSOs and the public

Some CSOs have reputations (real or perceived) of being agents of government, political parties or individual interests, or of being inactive CSOs with names only. CSOs must improve public perception and build trust with citizens by meeting with citizen, communicating its work, and involving new people without government or political connections as volunteers and leaders.CSOs must consistently choose to work for the people and the environment and not be self-serving. Speaking about being independent from politics or being active is not as important as proving it through actions. Do good work and let people see you in action. Meeting development needs

Many CSOs leaders attend so many trainings, meetings, and forums that they complain they don’t have enough time to actually do their work.

It was observed that training is sometimes conducted by people who don’t have direct experience. A lot of current training raises awareness of important skills for CSOs to have, but is not action-oriented in that CSOs do not leave training with the ability to implement changes. They report that training is not “sticking” and often isn’t leading to actual changes and improvement in practice.

Unless donor driven, organizations are not self-assessing their organizational capacity, and aren’t aware of their own strengths and areas that they could improve.

Alternative options to training development and capacity building were identified as:

36 • Training must focus on ways of doing that do not required computers, and instead are based on paper and smart phones. • Focus on specific and actionable training related to leadership and capacity building (e.g. decision making, managing volunteers), and less on “leadership” and “capacity building” as general topics. • Training (and mentoring/coaching) on monitoring and evaluation, accountability, financial management, and reporting should be tailored to needs done separately for organizations working with international funders. Expectations are different from Myanmar ways of doing and are not helpful or reasonable for smaller groups or new groups. • Put onus on training providers to ensure skilled and experienced trainers • Training in-place (i.e. a trainer coming into the organization/field of operation to observe its work/processes) • Use mentors (trusted and experiences people to call when questions arise) • Use coaches (experienced people to work with leaders to move them towards better practices) • Promote participatory training (organizations come represented by a team, and work on a specific challenge they have) • Increase skills to use simple (and appropriate) organisation self-assessmenttools to identify areas for development, develop action plans and monitor improvements. • Increase opportunities for exposure trips (sending two people to work at another organization for a short period of time to understand different ways of doing, sharing practice and learning) Inclusive development

In many ways, civil society mirrors greater Myanmar society. Civil society is hierarchical and top-down in that power is concentrated among Bamar majority and operates fairly independently of ethnic civil society. CSOs are led mostly by older men. Many CSOs rely on one leader, and leadership is not distributed.

Unregistered organizations are excluded from many opportunities (for funding, for meeting with government). It was felt that CSO networks and government authorities must be encouraged to move beyond invitations to the ‘usual suspects’ and registered organizations. If necessary, invite leaders of unregistered organizations as experienced and informed citizens rather than organization representatives. Reaching out to rural, remote, CBOs, BBOs, and CSOs led by women and youth will also improve the ability for CSO networks and governments act in service of Myanmar citizens.

CSOs must work to build second leaders so that the responsibilities and control does not lie with one person. Civil society must focus on building and supporting leadership among women and youth, and working more collaboratively with ethnic Mon civil society. CSOs must think about their future health and conduct succession planning by building leadership within their organizations.

Women in civil society are often relegated to meeting preparation and not strategic leadership roles, unless working specifically on women’s issues. Young people are dismissed. CSO leadership must consider inclusion and participation. Young people must gain skills in communicating their ideas and gaining understanding about culture, context, and history. Appreciating civil society space in Mon State

For CSOs that have had the opportunity to meet organizations from other areas of Myanmar, they have found that they have much more space and freedom to do work than in other states and regions. CSOs have more resources and wealth in Mon compared to other regions. Other regions think it is easier to do things in Mon State. CSOs in Mon must appreciate this freedom, work to ensure that freedom remains and expands, and help others regions to learn from the Mon context.

In parallel with greater society, ethnic Mon CSOs often operate quite independently from the rest of civil society. However, they have many strengths that the rest of civil society can learn from. Mon organizations often have connections to the international community and have English and proposal writing skills that allow them to take advantage of INGO and UN funding. Mon organizations are learning how to coordinate in order to work with government to advance their interests. They are doing their homework on the different levels of government and power structures, and are working with each other to make systemic change happen.

37 Bibliography Aga Khan Development Network and INTRAC. (June 2007). Beyond NGOs: Civil society organizations with development impact. Retrieved from: http://www.richardholloway.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/04/Beyond-NGOs-CSOs-with-development-impact.pdf Anheier, A., Fowler, A., Holloway, R., & Kandil, A. (2011). The Future of Civil Society Assessments: A Conceptual Analysis. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/civil_society/the_future_of_participatorycivilso cietyassessmentsaconceptualana.html Asia Development Bank. (February 2015). Civil Society Briefs: Myanmar . Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/publications/civil-society-briefs-myanmar Caillaud, R, & Jaquet, C. (November 2011). Civil Society in Myanmar. In T. Chong & S. Elies (Eds.), An ASEAN Community for All: Exploring the Scope for Civil Society Engagement , (pp. 86-96). Singapore: Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung, Office for Regional Cooperation in Asia . CIVICUS. (n.d.). About CSI. Retrieved from: http://www.civicus.org/index.php/en/what-we-do-126/2014-04- 25-03-26-23/csi CIVICUS. (March 2015). Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review: 23 rd Session of the UPR Working Group. Retrieved from: http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/myanmar/session_23_- _november_2015/civicus_upr23_mmr_e_main.pdf CIVICUS Civil Society Index: Summary of conceptual framework and research methodology. Retrieved from: http://www.civicus.org/view/media/CSI_Methodology_and_conceptual_framework.pdf Civil Society Dialogue Network. (March, 2013). Supporting Myanmar’s Evolving Peace Process: What Roles for Civil Society and the EU? (Meeting Report) . Retrieved from: http://www.eplo.org/assets/files/2.%20Activities/Civil%20Society%20Dialogue%20Network/Geographic%2 0Meetings/Myanmar/EPLO_CSDNMyanmar_MeetingReport.pdf Department of Population, Ministry of Immigration and Population. (May 2015). The 2014 Myanmar Population and Housing Census, Mon State, Census Report Volume 3-J. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Retrieved from: http://www.dop.gov.mm/moip/index.php?route=product/product&path=54_52&product_id=83 Freedom House. (2013). Burma | Freedom of the Press 2013. Retrieved from: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/burma Human Services Data Specification v1.0. Retrieved from: https://github.com/codeforamerica/OpenReferral/blob/master/Human%20Services%20Data%20Specificat ion%20%20v1.0.md Jaquet, C. (January 2014). Enabling environment of Civil Society in Myanmar (Burma). Retrieved from: http://civicus.org/index.php/en/resources/1983-enabling-environment-of-civil-society-in-myanmar-burma Jesnes, K. (June 2014). Developing relations: political parties and civil society in Myanmar. NOREF Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre. Retrieved from: http://www.peacebuilding.no/Regions/Asia/Publications/Developing-relations-political-parties-and-civil- society-in-Myanmar Jolliffe, K. (2014). Ethnic Conflict and Society Services in Myanmar’s Contested Regions. Yangon, Myanmar: The Asia Foundation. Retrieved from: http://asiafoundation.org/publication/ethnic-conflict-and-social-services- in-myanmars-contested-regions/

38 Kramer, T. (November 2011). Civil Society Gaining Ground: Opportunities for Change and Development in Burma. Netherlands: Transnational Institute and Burma Centre Netherlands. Retrieved from: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/civil-society-gaining-ground Kyaw Yin Hlaing. (2012). Understanding Recent Political Changes in Myanmar. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 34 (2). pp. 197-216. DOI: 10.1355/cs34-2c Mati, J.M., Silva, F., and Anderson, T. (April 2010). Assessing and Strengthening Civil Society Worldwide. An updated programme description of the CIVICUS Civil Society Index: Phase 2008 to 2010. CIVICUS. Retrieved from: http://www.civicus.org/images/Assessing_and_Strenghtening_CS_Worldwide_2008-2010.pdf Mathieson, D.S. (2014). Dispatches: Burma Backsliding on Media Freedom. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/30/dispatches-burma-backsliding-media-freedom Myanmar Information Management Unit. (n.d.) The MIMU 3W: Who is doing What, Where. Retrieved from: http://www.themimu.info/3w-maps-and-reports . Petrie, C., & South, A. (2014). Development of civil society in Myanmar. In M. Gravers & F. Ytzen (Eds.), Burma/Myanmar – Where Now? (pp. 86-94). Copenhagen: NIAS Press. UNDP Myanmar (January 2015). Local Governance Mapping: Mapping Highlights in Mon State. Retrieved from: http://www.mm.undp.org/content/dam/myanmar/docs/Publications/PovRedu/Local%20Governance%20 Mapping%20Highlights/UNDP_MM_Mon_Mapping_Highlights.pdf UNDP Myanmar. (2015). Mapping the State of Local Governance in Myanmar: Background and Methodology. Retrieved from: http://www.mm.undp.org/content/myanmar/en/home/library/poverty/TheStateofLocalGovernanceChin/ mapping-the-state-of-local-governance-in-myanmar--background-and.html United Nations Development Programme. (2011). A Users’ Guide to Civil Society Assessments. Oslo, Norway: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/civil_society/a_users_guide_tocivilsocietyasses sments.html United Nations Development Programme. (2006). UNDP and Civil Society Organizations: A Toolkit for Strengthening Partnerships. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2141UNDP%20and%20Civil%20Society%20Or ganizations%20a%20Toolkit%20for%20Strengthening%20Partnerships.pdf Wallis, K.,& Jaquet, C. (July 2011). Local NGOs in Myanmar: vibrant but vulnerable. Humanitarian Exchange (51). pp. 21-23. Retrieved from: http://odihpn.org/magazine/local-ngos-in-myanmar-vibrant-but- vulnerable/ World Bank. (n.d.) The ARVIN Framework: A Way to Assess the Enabling Environment for Civic Engagement. Retrieved from: http://go.worldbank.org/378AB9OH00

39 End Notes

1Mon census report 2 Users Guide to Civil Society Assessments, Participatory Civil Society Assessments - Experiences from the field, and The Future of Participatory Civil Society Assessments: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/civil_society/a_users_guide_tocivilsocietyassessments.html 3 See http://www.civicus.org/index.php/en/what-we-do-126/2014-04-25-03-26-23/csi 4See http://civicus.org/index.php/en/media-centre-129/reports-and-publications/csi-reports/asia-country-reports 5See http://civicus.org/eei/ 6 The ARVIN Framework: A Way to Assess the Enabling Environment for Civic Engagementhttp://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTPCENG/0,,contentMDK:20529003~page PK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:410306,00.html 7 Anheier, Fowler, Holloway, & Kandil. (2011) 8United Nations Development Program. (2006). pp 5-11 9UNDP Myanmar. (2015). 10 See http://www.themimu.info/3w-maps-and-reports . 11 See http://www.aidtransparency.net 12 Launched in 2015. See http://mohinga.info/en/ 13 Human Services Data Specification v1.0. https://github.com/codeforamerica/OpenReferral/blob/master/Human%20Services%20Data%20Specification%20%20v1.0.md 14 CIVICUS updated program description 2010 15 CIVICUS, Petrie and South, (2014)X 16 CIVICUS Civil Society Index: Summary of conceptual framework and research methodology, p 15. 17 Wallis & Jaquet. p. 21 18 Asia Development Bank. p. 1 19 Jaquet. p. 8 20 Kramer. p. 3 21 Petrie & South. p. 93 22 Jaquet. p. 11 23 Wallis & Jaquet. p. 21 24 Jaquet. p. 11 25 Kramer. p. 11 26 Caillaud & Jaquet. p. 95 27 Kramer. p. 11 28 Kramer. p. 6 29 Kramer. p. 3 30 Kramer. p. 7 31 Kyaw Yin Hlaing (2007), as cited in Caillaud & Jaquet. p. 86 32 Kramer. p. 6 33 Civil Society Dialogue Network. p. 4 34 Jesnes. p. 2 35 Kramer. p. 8 36 Petrie & South. p. 88 37 Kramer. p. 6 38 Petrie & South. p. 91 39 Kramer. p. 3 40 Asia Development Bank. p. 2 41 Kramer. p. 24 42 Kramer. pp. 27-28 43 Kramer. p. 17 44 Kramer. p. 3 45 Kramer. p. 21 46 Asia Development Bank. p. 3 47 Petrie & South. p. 90 48 Civil Society Dialogue Network. pp. 4-5 49 Kramer. p. 15 50 Asia Development Bank. p. 3 51 Jaquet. p. 5 52 Jesnes. p. 3 53 Jaquet. p. 5 54 Asia Development Bank. p. 3 55 Caillaud & Jaquet. p. 87 56 Jaquet. p. 6 57 Kyaw Yin Hlaing. p. 209 58 Kyaw Yin Hlaing. p. 206-207 59 Asia Development Bank. p. 5

60 Petrie & South. p. 90 61 Kramer. p. 17 62 Freedom House. 63 Mathieson. 64 Petrie & South. p. 92 65 Petrie & South. p. 92 66 Kramer. p. 15 67 Kramer. pp. 20-21 68 Caillaud & Jaquet. p. 89 69 Civil Society Dialogue Network. p. 5 70 Caillaud & Jaquet. p. 89 71 Kramer. p. 31 72 Kramer. p. 30 73 Civil Society Dialogue Network. p. 7 74 Jolliffe. p. 27 75 Asia Development Bank. p. 2 76 Kramer. p. 42 77 Caillaud & Jaquet. p. 92 78 Wallis & Jaquet. p. 22 79 Kramer. p. 41 80 Civil Society Dialogue Network. p. 6 81 Asia Development Bank. p. 8 82 Jaquet. p. 8 83 Asia Development Bank. p. 4 84 Jaquet. p. 8 85 Jaquet. p. 8 86 Asia Development Bank. p. 8 87 Jaquet. p.9 88 Kramer. p. 40 89 Jaquet. p. 8 90 Petrie & South. p. 93 91 Jesnes. p. 4 92 Kramer. p. 3 93 Jaquet. p. 7 94 Kramer. p. 17 95 CIVICUS. (March 2015). p. 2 96 Jaquet. p. 9 97 Kramer. p. 11 98 Jolliffe. p. 20-21 99 Kramer. p. 24 100 The three orange bars represent townships where focus group participants took part in a shortened version of the interview. 101 In Thaton, the originally trained community researchers could not be reached so no interviews were conducted. The three organizations working in Thaton were interviewed in other townships. 102 I did not use the same categories in this analysis, as many activities descriptions were not very specific and therefore had to be grouped with others. 103 Department of Population, Ministry of Immigration and Population. 104 Numbers add up to more than 100% because some organizations have more than one leader. 105 At the time of this research, NLD (National League for Democracy) had won the national election, but handover of government did not happen until April 2016.

41 1118C`HI7:JI:`8Q`$ 85 5 5 5 5 7 R 5 7C`H7:J$QJC`HI7:JI:`8Q`$