Township Level Context Assessment and Trends Loikaw Township Community perceptions of governance Weak governance, political vacuum: Good governance and accountability to the public (The rule of law) tends to be weak in Loikaw Township as there are numerous grey areas in terms of governance. The two authorities tend to play politics by deferring unpopular decisions and blocking developments from the other side. Even within government controlled areas, the lack of responsiveness or ‘ownership’ causes frustration among the community when they want to report a problem or a dispute to the proper authority, only to be passed from department to department indefinitely. For example, one village tract reported that despite having the hydropower plant in their community, approximately 50% of the households still lack electricity supply. When community leaders reported this discrepancy to the state ministry they were asked to report instead to the state office, which in turn referred them to the state ministry. No explanation or solution was ever given. Community perceptions of peace & security Improving, but still insecure: Communities across Loikaw township report feeling that the situation is better, but there is always a risk that it could devolve back to open conflict. In part, this is linked to the failure of earlier bilateral ceasefires. However, communities no longer see many armed troops, which contributes to improved feelings of security for them. Demining as a political issue: Prior to 2011, the military government controlled many village tracts in Loikaw Township. Communities reportedly did not dare to move outside of their village tract as there were often random shootings. When travel was necessary, community members would have to sneak out at night. Similarly, landmines remain an issue, with many having been laid around the hydro-power plant, electrical poles, and the elsewhere around the village tract with the aim of preventing other village tracts from tapping into or cutting off the supply. At the time of the baseline there had been no demining efforts, though Danish Refugee Council (DRC) had come to look into the situation, and at least one village volunteer sought assistance from World Education, thus far no interventions have been planned. In part, the reluctance to address the issue of demining is thought to stem from the ways in which demining has been politicised by both the EAOs and the Myanmar government. Restlessness of the young generation: Some village tracts in Loikaw report that there is a youth drug issue (‘yaba tablets’, amphetamines), which is likely exacerbated by the lack of job opportunities. Some youth become alcohol dependent and are prone to creating disruptions in the community. Other village tracts, further from urban centres, noted that the lack of beer stations and strong religious community prevented youth from causing trouble, even when they were idle. Across Loikaw township communities suggested that youth from different areas (youth leaders) or NGOs are in the best position to work on addressing youth issues. Development status Who, What, Where: According to Myanmar Information Management Unit (MIMU) 3W dashboard dated 5 November 2015, there is a total of 34 organizations reported projects under implementation in Loikaw Township. 842 project activities were reported in 11 sectors. Health, protection and WASH were the most widespread interventions, with peace building and conflict prevention as the third least widespread. Delaying the NCA limits development: Communities in Loikaw suggested that Kayah State is behind in terms of development due to the EAO not signing the NCA. Participation is determined by socio-economic wellbeing, ‘sector of society’: It was reported that it is hard to be totally inclusive at village or village tract level as participation can be weak if there is no financial compensation for time spent. Often communities rely on the village leader to gather the community and ensure things are being carried through according to plan. However, the village leader cannot (and will not) force community members to participate and must work around farming and other day-to-day requirements. It also depends on what the community are being asked to participate in and when they are asked to participate. It is not necessarily the poorest who can’t participate, but the sectors of society – e.g. men who are ploughing or preparing the land, women who are weeding or preapring the food, etc. Moreover, those individuals and families within the village that are not on good terms with the village leader may at times be overlooked. Low technical capacity among community members to sustain maintenance of infrastructure building interventions: While development is evident, there is a general sense of low technical capacity to ensure maintenance and sustainability of projects within the community level. Numerous examples linked to Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) were noted, particularly issues linked to pipeline and pump maintenance. For example, one village tract dismissed a government-funded project that would have installed a pump to improve water access over concerns that the pump would not be maintained and if (or rather, when) it broke down, the community would be left without any access to their primary water source. Without assurances that technical assistance would be provided, the community advocated against the development. Manipulation of land laws in government-led development: There are fewer land ownership issues reported in Loikaw than in other townships, however, there are more reported incidents of land confiscation. Specifically, there are numerous reports of military confiscating community and private land for resale to private developers. The process for land registration is felt to be unclear amongst all but the most educated and connected community members. Complicated forms, such as Form LR 1051, have been used by the government to confuse individuals and communities into signing away land. For example, government representatives are reported to have promised village heads in Loikaw Township that they would give land to newly formed couples from their village if they only signed an agreement. It turned out that their offer was not sincere and the land was then sold to a private developer with no benefits directed to the community. There are also episodes of corruption and under the table bribery, which community members have witnessed occurring between officials at state and village tract levels. Similarly, government 1 UNHCR, UN Habitat and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Guidance notes on Land Issues, Myanmar. Available at: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs12/Guidance_Note_on_Land_Issues-Myanmar.pdf projects are not always well managed. For instance, one village tract noted that there had previously been no problems with water use because the community had a dam that they managed well. However, once the government took over control of the dam, ostensibly to distribute the water to additional villages, they failed to manage the supply and overlooked reports of water leakage. Environmental issues are development needs: Some village tracts in Loikaw are in a protected area, which, the community claims, leads many NGOs to think they are not in need of further development. However, communities are quick to point out that this is not true, particularly, they note, in regards to the need for more knowledge and education around environmental stewardship. The environment has been badly affected by the irresponsible actions of private corporations in the area to the point that many water sources have now run dry. Anti-corporate sentiment: One village tract in Loikaw Township reported that they resisted the setting up of cement factory in their community. Even though they are aware that it would have generated employment, they were concerned with the negative externalities produced by the factory, ranging from air, water, and waste management. They also felt a lack of transparency and communication with the factory management and heard many stories about employment exploitation. It was felt that community members would not be in a strong position to negotiate or manage the situation. Another village tract contested the construction of new Telenor towers on the basis that community leaders had not been consulted and that land had been appropriated. The community drafted a letter of complaint, which they submitted to both the government and EAO authorities, in addition to writing a formal complaint to Telenor corporate headquarters. They have yet to receive a response from any party. Free education is not the same as universal access to education: There is only one primary school in their village tract and no monastery schools or secondary schools. Only those who can afford to will go to the next village tract to pursue further education. Although education is technically free, there is an informal demand for donation for school activities and management. Those who are poor have no choice but to drop out. SUMMARY Areas/Issues of Greatest Concern to Community*: Extremely Important Somewhat Important Important Community • Weak governance, perceptions of political vacuum governance Community • Demining as a • Restlessness of perceptions of political issue the young peace & security generation (ER2.3; ER3.5) • Improving, but still insecure Development • Anti-corporate • Environmental • Free education is status sentiment issues as not the same as • Manipulation of development