MYANMAR Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT)/ UNOPS Dry Zone Program Inception Mission 14-30 October 2013 Aide-mémoire The Inception Mission was the first of a three step process, intended to focus on validation of the proposed program area, and on provision of main sector focus for the program. Accompanied by LIFT FMO team members the mission visited a total of 28 villages in 8 Townships, of which 5 in Mandalay Region (Kyaukpadung, Mingyan, Taungthar, Natogyi and Mahlaing), and 3 in Magway Region (Pauk, Seikphyu, Myaing). The five Mandalay Townships were identified by LIFT on the basis of vulnerability classification carried out by a major JICA pilot project, while the three in Magway were included to look at possible synergies with the 3MDG program operating there. The village visits were based on a semi-structured participatory approach focusing on discussion of a main topics list, but without fixed questions, and allowing the discussion to follow directions raised by the participants. The discussion group-size varied from 50 to about 100 community members, representing formal as well as traditional village leaders (respected elders and government village leaders), Village Development Committees (where formed by NGOs), single purpose interest groups (such as water management associations), Women’s associations, Parent-Teacher Associations, Mother and Child groups, social and religious groups, landowners/farmers, landless people, migrant workers and people with disabilities. At least half of the community members present at the village meetings were women, some representing female-headed households. The main topics covered included agricultural production, rainfall, livestock, credit, markets, migration, food security and household diets, health and education. All village visits were accompanied by the Township Planning Officer and in some cases other officials. Substantive meetings were also held in each Township under the aegis of the Planning Officer and including Agriculture, Rural Development, Livestock and Industrial Crops Township Officers. Planning Officers also supported village identification. The mission also visited the vocational training centre of ADRA in Myit Chae, in Pakokku Township. After the field visits the team also held meetings in NayPyiTaw with the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development, and Yezin Agricultural University to present the preliminary findings of the mission and seek feedback. Meetings were also held for the same purpose at the field level and in Yangon with 10 national and international NGOs working with LIFT, and also with WFP to discuss the ongoing food security and nutrition survey. 1 Main findings Program area and targeting - The classification of Township areas on the basis of JICA rankings of vulnerability I to III (IV and V areas were not considered) appears to be based on aggregate statistical indicators that are not clearly perceptible on the ground. The scale of difference between a class I and class II Township does not appear to be of such a magnitude as to override the very significant differences within townships. It is possible that a full validation of all Dry Zone townships may find a real correlation (although most JICA pilot project data is now 9 years old), however a better criteria for Township targeting would appear to be the use of agroecological zone data such as that included in the ongoing WFP- SCF food and nutrition security survey. Preliminary information from this study suggests that food and nutrition security conditions in lowland areas with access to irrigation are substantially better than others, while upland and hill areas share roughly similar conditions. All five Mandalay townships fall within the hill area where most rural livelihoods are based on a mixture of cash cropping (pulses and oil seeds) and livestock. In summary, within township variability appears to be much higher than between township aggregate variability. Within the villages surveyed, the presence of substantial community based development programs in the past years appears to have produced significantly improved conditions, albeit starting from a very low baseline. Such villages would most likely not be a first priority for the LIFT Dry Zone program, nor would Townships with a high concentration of such villages. This needs to be specifically considered for the township of Kyaukpadung, where a large UNDP community development was operational for approximately a decade up to 2011. While villages in the Township can certainly benefit from additional support, the needs of adjacent townships that to date have benefited from little or no development assistance should be considered a priority. It is therefore recommended that in Mandalay Region the program focus on the Townships of Mingyan, Taungthar, Natogyi and Mahlaing, with a total aggregate population of 1,265,240, and a rural population of 1,042,215 (GoUM data 2004). In terms of within-township targeting, Township Planning Officers appear to be able to provide an important level of support in terms of vulnerable agroecological zone identification and information on specific villages. During the inception mission they were able to describe at a mapping level the characteristics of certain villages and their poverty profile, later ascertained by the team to have a good degree of correlation with conditions on the ground. Key predictors of village poverty and food insecurity levels appear to be a) soil quality, b) cropping types (presence of paddy) c) distance from sealed road d) presence of development or major government programs and e) scale of migrant remittances. All but e) are relatively easy to ascertain. The WFP-SCF study now underway is also likely to provide very significant contributions to within-township targeting, and it is recommended that general decisions on program areas within townships – and thus village selection, be kept on hold until the full study is available. The inception mission found that within poor and food insecure villages even the wealthiest members of the community face significant challenges and often carry high debt loads. Exclusion of village “elites” (relatively speaking) runs the risk of creating a group hostile to a 2 program they will not benefit from, leading either to attempts to capture resources or block the program if they are unable to do so. The standard village unit generally involves strong family ties and traditional linkages, suggesting the importance of including 100% of the population in the program, although with varying levels of assistance depending on needs. While the entire village should be included in the community development approach, material resources should be weighted towards those most in need, while still providing tangible benefits to all. Based on the assumption of whole-village coverage in 4 Townships with a rural population of approximately 1 million persons, a decision of village coverage needs to take into consideration the preferred balance of program “depth versus breadth” , i.e. preference for a more intensive approach addressing a smaller number of beneficiaries versus a broader program of less intensity. Given that for many, if not most, of the program areas this will be the first major development program in their experience, and the number of program areas to be addressed, the inception mission recommends a relatively “deep” approach, while still achieving a justifiable geographical coverage. Comparison with the cost intensity (program cost per beneficiary) of programs now operating in the area through international organizations suggests that a USD 30 million program following these criteria could address the needs of approximately 180,000 persons, equal to 36,000 households. Given an average village size of approximately 100 households this would be equal to 360 villages. Key vulnerability factors to be considered by the program design exercise include: Limited natural resource base of the area, especially in terms of poor soils, highly erratic rainfall patterns and limited absolute precipitation (compared with the rest of Myanmar), land degradation and poor infrastructure High population density of the Dry Zone in general and the proposed project townships in particular Risk aversion of the population due to extreme poverty and lack of coping mechanisms Limited capacity of Government institution outreach into rural areas Low levels of health infrastructure and education services above primary education High degree of reliance on remittances from seasonal or long term migration Proposed thematic areas for the program Further to extensive discussions with rural communities, Government actors at the Township and Union level, LIFT partner NGOs and the LIFT FMO and FB, the inception mission team proposes that the Scoping mission focus on five potential program areas: Credit, Farm Technology, Value Chains, Water Supply and Social Protection. Credit availability lies at the heart of farmer vulnerability to poverty and food insecurity. Access to affordable productive credit is a prerequisite for engagement in agriculture, 3 livestock, petty trading and migration, the main activities of the Dry Zone. Credit is currently available in the form of MADB loans which, according to all surveyed villages, is universally provided at 2% monthly interest. This is in contrast with results of the recent WB study of the MADB which claims credit is provided at 8% annual interest. It is not clear