WFP Myanmar Rakhine Emergency Relief Post Distribution...

WFP Myanmar Rakhine Emergency Relief Post Distribution Monitoring Report

Fig

hti

ng

Hu

ng

er W

orl

dw

ide

3

Contents

Introduction ............................................................. 4

PART I

Household Demographics ....................................... 4

Public Awareness of Assistance ............................... 4

Food Distribution Management, Process, Protection and Gender Issues

................................................................................. 5

Beneficiary Satisfaction ........................................... 6

Use of the Ration ..................................................... 6

PART II

Household Food Access ........................................... 9

Income Generation ................................................ 10

Loans and Debt ...................................................... 13

Recommendations and Conclusion ....................... 14

Annex ..................................................................... 16

WFP Myanmar - Rakhine Emergency Relief Post Distribution Monitoring Report

4

Introduction

This is a Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) and Food Security Report of the WFP Emergency Relief (ER) operations in Sittwe. Data was collected in November 2013, from Sittwe and 7 townships (Kyauk Taw, Kyauk Phyu, Pauk Taw, Min Bya, Mrauk Oo and Myae Bo).

Post-Distribution monitoring household (HH) questionnaires - conducted less than two weeks

after a distribution at the household level;

Focus-group questionnaire - conducted in the same location and at the same time as the

above HH questionnaire but with a group of beneficiaries, men and women together and then separated for gender specific questions.

The sampling framework utilized was a complete list of IDP locations/camps where emergency

relief activities are conducted. Proportional to Size sampling techniques were utilized to select the surveyed villages.

PART I

Household Demographics In Sittwe we can see a range of family sizes to the highest recorded at 14 family members down to a single person and the average family size came in at 5.8 members. Of the total number of respondents (435 households surveyed), 20% were noted to be female headed.

Public Awareness of Assistance

89% of beneficiaries responded affirmatively to knowing who provided food assistance, of these respondents, beneficiaries were asked to further clarify who specifically they received assistance from, the responses can be found in figure 1. In Sittwe and the surrounding townships there are camps that WFP has direct implementation and there are camps where CP’s implement on WFP’s behalf, and this is reflected in the data.

Figure 1


5

Second to the awareness of who they get food assistance from, beneficiaries were also asked if they had received any cash assistance in 2013. In this regard 30% affirmed, and, of those respondents an average has been calculated to 21,482 MMK per month. Of those who received cash, 56% noted that they had help in the form of cash from their community.

Food Distribution Management, Process,

Protection and Gender Issues

By and large the management of distributions would appear to be timely and the Distribution Points (DP) well situated as 100% of beneficiaries explained it takes less than 2 hours to get to and from the DP, and, 88% expressed that it takes less than 2 hours for the food distribution.

Looking at the responses in relation to focus group discussions, it is possible to see that food distri-butions are managed by Food Management Committees (FMC) the majority of the time reported in 12 focus groups, followed by Co-operating Partners (CP) in 7 focus groups, and lastly WFP in 4 focus groups. FMCs seem to have a prominent role in distributing food, and responses in the focus groups also show a significant reflection, 22/23 focus groups, that FMC’s are at least participating in distri-butions if not always primarily responsible for them.

If we keep in mind the role that the FMCs have in distributions, and that WFP field monitoring assis-tants have been tasked with being present at each food distribution to curb issues, and move on to examine the reported instances of illegal fees being paid, we can find a potential issue. There were 8% of respondents that reported illegal fees (table 1), and when these beneficiaries were asked “to whom?” 64% specified FMC explicitly. There was no specifics provided on what exactly the fees are being paid for in this module, but when we look at the ration entitlement responses (in Beneficiary Satisfaction Section, page 4) we find 33% of the comments beneficiaries made related to reduced rations being carried out by FMCs to cover transportation fees, labour fees, guard/fire brigade fees. When it came to how much on average the beneficiaries had to pay in cash it was 162 MMK per dis-tribution.

Issues that were inquired about within PDM Questionnaire

% of HH reporting instances

Illegal Fees (e.g. having to pay a bribe for ration)

8%

Discrimination 3%

Security Incidents 2%

Feeling unsafe to, from, or at the distri-bution point

3%

Table 1

Though in of themselves these figures (table 1) do not amount to disconcerting levels of discrimination, security issues, or feeling unsafe ‘to from and at the distribution point’, combining these figures along with the fact that 81% of beneficiaries responded that they were unaware of the existence of a WFP or CP related complaint mechanism, would lead to the suggestion that a mechanism be set in place to capture these issues regularly and deal with problems that may arise on a more immediate basis.


6

While the figures related to how seldom negative issues are impacting beneficiaries are encouraging, what is discouraging is the lack of women on FMCs, making up on average only 0.9 persons of FMC membership, with a recorded range between no FMC female members and the highest at 7 female members. In the case of female participation only two camps showed encouraging figures, 7 women on a 10 person FMC, and, 5 female members out of 9 member FMC. However, the majority of the time FMCs with many members (15+ members) lacked female representation at all.

In addition to the above, none of the committees have women in decision influencing/making positions (Chairperson, Secretary, etc) with every single women noted only as a member. This issue becomes even more pronounced when compared to how often women make the decisions on what food will be used for (see the Food Utilization Section), and how often women are involved in the collection of food (32%).

Ration Entitlement and Beneficiary Satisfaction

When it comes to beneficiaries knowing their ration entitlement 85% noted that they were aware of what they should be receiving. When it came to specific commodities, rice, pulses, oil, and salt, we find very little difference, 1-3%, reported between what beneficiaries are entitled and what they received. The exception to this was in blended food where 11% was recorded. In the case of blended food, for those who gave a comment on why the ration was different from the entitlement, 26% explained that it was shared. Quite often it was explained that there was a new baby or unregistered IDP’s. It is not clear how the FMC would share the blended food as in some of the comments it was explained to be among the whole group, and in some cases it was distinguished as the ration being reduced to cover a new child.

In terms of whether the beneficiaries are satisfied with the commodities the percentages remained consistently positive and high for the quality of the food and type of food, 100% for rice, oil and salt and 98% for pulses. Blended food was reported with 92% satisfaction.

Use of the ration In 49% of the households interviewed, women were the main decision makers on the use of food (whether for consumption or other uses such as selling). Men were reported to be the ones taking decisions on the usages of the food in 34% of the cases, and the decision was shared 17% of the time (figure 3). This is the case whether it is in the traditional sense of preparing food, or, as could be suggested by the data presented in this PDM, in selling it*.

Figure 3

*This should be kept in mind for any messaging in the future, regarding how food should be prepared and optimally used


7

What is interesting, despite the fact that women are not given much of a representation in the power structures in the FMC, and that 20% of households were found headed by a female, the responses show that 49% of women actually are the primary decision makers regarding what the food should be used for. This is a significant percentage in of itself but it is further strengthened with the fact that 17% of the time women are a part of the decision making process in those circumstances where it was reported that both sexes make decisions.

When Beneficiaries were asked what they do with the rations (figure 4) they responded that by and large most households consumed it in the family. Proportional piling was used to develop the data in figure 4, and it shows that when averaged not only are pulses, oil and rice the commodities most commonly sold but the average proportion is 23% of pulses, 14% of oil, and 7% of rice, sold out of the ration.

Figure 4

If we look at the figures in figure 5, we can see for those beneficiaries that did explain selling their rations, a more detailed layout of the proportions of rations being sold for pulses, oil and rice. Here it becomes clear that the circumstances vary greatly depending on the commodity. In the case of rice the majority sold between 0 and 40% of their rations.

In the case of oil and pulses, the proportions of rations being sold are high at between 40-59%. We can look back at the beneficiary satisfaction section to see that while 98% of beneficiaries noted satisfaction with the pulses, when we look at the follow up question, “For those who are unsatisfied with the types of food provided, what do they think is better instead?” 28% explained that they felt that the pulses were of low quality. This could provide a hint for why pulses are being sold but fur-ther examination should be made as to the particular reasons and why pulses and oil have the high-est record of being sold in some portion. Determining this would aid in understanding the food bas-ket and whether it is adequately designed at this stage of intervention.


Photo: WFP/Ayuka Ibe

8

Proportion of pulses, oil, and rice rations sold in HH that reported selling rations

Pulses Oil

Rice

Figure 5



9

PART II

Household Food Access

The large majority (97%) reported food assistance as the main provider of rice in the 30 days before the survey was conducted. In some circumstances they receive gifts or are able to borrow food but this only makes up a couple percent. WFP is also reported as not being the only source for food assistance, as 22% of beneficiaries noted receiving food from other sources. Within this we see 5% of beneficiaries getting assistance from the community and 4% getting assistance from the local government. However, figures lend support to the significant role that WFP is playing in providing food assistance in this area.

When it comes to Food Consumption Score (FCS) at the household level, we are able to see (Table 2) that combining all of the locations included in this survey, that the WFP target for adequate food consumption score (>80%) is being met with 82%. The breakdown per township can be found in the annex and it will show that the FCS hovers around that 80% for all of the townships**. This would mean that within the realm of FCS the situation is within an acceptable range, especially considering that the prevalence of poor food consumption was only recorded at 1% for the whole area surveyed and between 0 and 5% for individualized townships.

Thresholds Count

of FCS Percentage

Adequate 357 82%

Borderline 72 17%

Poor 6 1%

Grand Total 435 100%

Table 2

The questionnaire included a module on coping mechanisms, to check if beneficiaries had experienced in the 7 days before the PDM, times with not enough food or money to buy food. 59% of the households interviewed reported having experienced such a situation, where they have difficulties to access food, a particularly high figure for food recipients of monthly food assistance. Main food based strategies reported were reducing rice portion size, borrowing food, consuming only rice and purchasing food credit. This occurred over the course of 7 days with average frequencies of use at 1.76 days for rice, 1.47 for borrowing food, 1.07 days for consuming rice only and purchasing food on credit at 1.07 days.

This is a concern as food assistance is aimed at covering basic food needs and preventing people from using such strategies.

For the results on Household Hunger Scale, figure 7, while 75% of the HH were recorded to experience ‘little to no hunger in the household’, a high 24% reported in the range of moderate hunger and 1% within the categorization of severe hunger, this means that 1 in 5 people are reporting some kind of hunger. The household hunger scale findings confirm the results of the coping strategies module, indicating that a significant proportion of the households were facing regular difficulties to access food at the time of the PDM. The majority of households, 59%, had to use food based coping mechanisms, which, for 20% of the sample, were not enough, on top of the assistance provided, to prevent them from experiencing hunger.

**The threshold for FCS will be amended in Myanmar to take into consideration high oil consumption. Currently the threshold is anything below 21 is

considered poor, in between 21 and 35 is borderline, and above 35 is adequate FCS. The new thresholds will be 24.5 to 38.5. This will alter the results of

adequate FCS recorded in this exercise to 71%.


10

Figure 7

Income Generation

When it comes to the income generation of beneficiaries, this survey aimed to understand what kind of income generating activities they employed in the last 12 months, and then to further identify a main and secondary activity that contributed to their income in the last 30 days.

Assessing these responses one can see some patterns in what beneficiaries are able to do when it comes to income generation. With the exceptions of the sale of paddy (3%) and sale of vegetables (2%) none of these activities indicate specific income generation based on land tenure and further questions reveal that only 8% of beneficiaries have access to agricultural land. Of that 8% the average size of land was a little over 4 acres.

In the last 12 months, 93% of households reported income generating activities. Concerning though is that dominant in those income generating activities was the sale of WFP rations. In this case 38.8% of the HH reported selling WFP rations as income source in the last 12months (figure 8). In the last 30 days before the PDM was conducted, selling the ration was the main source of income, with 22% of the households reporting it as the main source of income, 11% of the households with 2 activities, reported sale of the ration as the 2nd main income activity over ranking non agriculture wage labor. This indicates that people have very limited income generation capacities and hence are selling rations to cover general needs.



11

Figure 8

When beneficiaries were both asked “why do you sell your ration?*** And, “what is cash used for?” (Cash received through cash assistance) they explained consistently that they purchased other food****, 93% and 89% of HH respectively. There were 5% who purchased medicine with cash and 1% who explicitly said they sold rations to buy medicine. 3% explained outright that they sold the some of the ration because they did not like it. Outside of this, purchasing cloths and fire-wood were reported approximately 1% of the time in both categories.

Respondents were asked how much they have earned in the last 30 days, which elicited responses on average 29,800MMK per month per households. The majority of households, 64%, reported earning between 0 and 25,000MMK per month in a normal month, 11% between 25-50,000MMK/month, 9% between 50-75,000MMK/month and 9% more than 75,000MMK/month also confirming that income opportunities are limited in nature and in the amounts of money they generate.

We find that female headed households had on average a monthly income of 25,000MMK/month. Female headed households can be found to trend with lower household incomes than male headed households (31,450mmk/month). There is a slightly higher proportion of female headed households, 67%, than male headed households, 64%, earning less than 25,000MMK per month (figure 9). Further to this it was asked whether this income was equivalent to the average they would get a month, or if the income generated in the past 30 days income was more or less. In the majority of cases, 82%, the response was that this amount was the same or less than the usual monthly income.

***This was a different module of the questionnaire than the income module. In the regular PDM module determining the use of the rations, ‘sold rations’

was indicated by 9% of respondents. In the income module we find that beneficiaries selling rations as an income generation activity at significant

percentages. It is suggested to make amendments in future PDMs to ensure consistent data.

****Though we can extrapolate what ‘other foods’ are being purchased based on food expenditures, it is not immediately apparent in relation to these

findings on loans, cash assistance, and the use of rations for income, what beneficiaries area purchasing in terms of commodities. To determine this it would

be advisable to conduct a more detailed assessment targeting these kinds of gaps in the data.


12

Figure 9

The relationship between the income and diet adequacy shows that households with lower income ranges have higher diet inadequacy. The widest gap between adequate and inadequate diets is in the 25,000mmk/month income households. This is probably resulting from the fact that households with lower incomes probably sell more of the WFP ration which in turn has a negative impact on diet quality. When looking at the gender of household heads and the monthly income cross tabulation with diet adequacy, we can see only a little difference, female headed households report higher inadequate diets, 67%, to the 64% found in male headed households in those reporting an income of 25,000MKK/month or less.

Looking at how much households actually spent on non-food and food, in the last 30 days (figure 10), we can get an average break down that shows, between cash and credit, that beneficiaries used cash almost 28% more often than credit for non-food expenditures, and cash almost 45% more than credit for food expenditures. Looking at what respondents could recall for expenditures for non-food items over the course of the 6 months prior to the PDM, it is possible to see that credit, 56% of the time, was the most common means of covering expenditures. Though beneficiaries do not report income generation activities related to seasonality, the expenditure figures could reflect seasonal prices on non-food items.

Figure 10


13

When respondents were asked to detail what they have had expenses on for non-food items, on credit, health was listed primarily, for 29%, of the HH and debt repayment, Education, shop/trade/commerce ranked more or less equally (figure 11). This is supported by data found on loans and debts that would suggest that beneficiaries are accessing funds to a certain extent to cover non-food expenses, such as health and education. When beneficiaries were asked what they do with their rations, it was expressed that purchasing other foods was the primary action of the beneficiaries when they sold their rations, with purchasing medicine and other items reported very low comparative to the food purchase.

Figure 11

Loans and Debt 84% of the HH interviewed noted that they had debt or credit still to reimburse at the time of the survey, and, of these households taking on a loan 89% said it is to buy food. This means that, 75% of the overall HH interviewed had debt to cover their food wants/needs, confirming that the ration provided to the beneficiaries, where there is a lack of livelihoods opportunities or additional assistance, is not enough to cover basic food and other needs.

For 44% of those who have debt it was reported to be 25,000MMK or less (figure 12). This is a significant amount if we look back at the average income, 25,000MMK/month for female headed household and 31,450mmk/month for male headed households.

Figure 12


14

When it comes to what beneficiaries’ use the loans for, there is a heavy emphasis on food purchase, with 74% of households that have taken out a loan expressing they purchased food with the money. 55% of beneficiaries are also taking out loans to pay for health expenditures, and 22% expressed having debt for education expenses, which is something that is similar to what was found in the income expenditures on credit. Small percentages were also recorded for firewood/cooking fuel, cloths, etc. This would suggest that both the food ration provided and the marginal income, as laid out in the income generation section, and any other assistance they may get, is currently not sufficient to meet all the needs of the beneficiaries leading them to take out credit/loans and debt so as to cover regular expenses from food purchases to health and education.

Beneficiaries are using the ration as a source of income in so many instances that this exercises has recorded high instances of coping and hunger, and low food consumption scores. It is also clear that with any extra means, borrowing food/cash, taking on potentially damaging loans, selling rations, etc., beneficiaries try to get other foods items to supplement their rations. This would suggest that the food assistance is not meeting the needs of the beneficiaries, in their current circumstances with limited livelihoods and disposable income and where the food becomes the de facto possession that can be used to generate an income. It would also seem that the food basket might not be meeting beneficiaries’ preferences.

Recommendations and Conclusion In the end this PDM is showing a complicated story for a relief operation that is becoming protract-ed. The simple conclusion is that beneficiaries are still in need of food assistance, both self-proclaimed and through the data examined in this report. The report shows that there are a num-ber of issues in relation to the food distribution management, gender issues, and, food security and a tenuous financial situation based on a variety of colluding factors. This report also serves as a programmatic review that provides feedback on the emergency relief operation, and offers insight or suggested means of improvement. Post Distribution Monitoring is the primary means for WFP in Myanmar to collect process and outcome level data on quantity/value, use, acceptability and quality of assistance provided and to use that information to inform the implementation of the programme.

This PDM has found that by and large WFP is working well under the circumstances of the relief operation. Beneficiaries have expressed that there are very few major issues in terms of discrimi-nation, security and feeling unsafe to from and at the distribution point. The distribution process is one where the FMC is playing a large role, and data collected would indicate that the distribution is being managed in a timely manner and the distribution points are appropriately situated. There were no recorded issues in relation to pipeline breaks and beneficiaries have expressed high satis-faction with the commodities.

Based on the findings in this report these are the recommendations:

There is an issue of gender imbalance on FMCs in terms of both membership and representation on positions within the FMC. The issue needs to be taken beyond the socio-cultural argument. Women play a big role in deciding what happens to rations, that women are not adequately represented on the majority of FMC’s is not in line with WFP guidelines. There are a couple of camps that serve as good examples that can be examined and potentially replicated.


15

The potential issues of illegal fees and corruption in the FMC is something that should be looked at. The majority of complaints when it came to why rations did not meet entitlements was leveled at the FMC, and comments would indicate that rations are being reduced in the distribution process by FMC members in order to cover labour, transportation and guard/fire brigade fees. FMCs should be made to understand that this is not acceptable as rations are specifically designed for IDPs. If the issue of fees for FMCs is a persistent one then something should be done to reduce the impact on beneficiaries.

A complaint mechanism that follows international standards should be considered. Currently only 19% of beneficiaries report that there is a WFP or CP complaint mechanism.

Arising from this food security elements of this exercise a number of problems have been brought to light:

The PDM confirms that the target population has limited livelihoods (in term on access to livelihoods and income generated).

The PDM shows that recipients of the food assistance are not able to cover their basic food needs with 25% of beneficiaries reporting hunger, an, 59% are using coping strategies.

The rations are sold in some portion to generate income to buy other food items, a possible problem of preference/diversity, and cover debts that accumulate as a result of other needs.

The data indicates that a significant proportion of the targeted beneficiaries, despite receiving monthly food distributions, are still experiencing difficulties to cover their basic food needs, leading almost a quarter of them to report hunger. Parallel to that 20% of the households were found with inadequate diet, a figure that would raise up to 30% if the food consumption grouping takes into account local preferences and there is a change made to the FCS thresholds. For those households, reporting hunger or inappropriate diet, the food assistance is not reaching its objectives. The data also points toward both a problem of food preferences and lack of livelihoods. Pulses and oil are commodities sold the most (in quantities). Selling the ration is the main source of income for the vast majority of the households, hence again, the difficulties they encounter to cover basic needs. WFP should further examine if alternative program modalities (cash/change of ration) can increase the consumption of the rations or limit the quantity sold. It should also be to look at livelihoods options, or at least advocate for the other sectors to examine the assistance in Sittwe so as to ensure that basic needs (food and otherwise) are not hampered by the lack of livelihoods.



16

Annex

Any additional information that was alluded to in the text of the report but did not need to be directly presented in the body of the document can be found here. The first items to be found in this section are a table presenting the figures for the FCS for each township that the exercise covered, and two graphs that lay out the main use of the loans and where beneficiaries get loans have come from.


Food Consumption Score

Location &

level FCS as %

Sittwe 51.49%

Adequate 79.91%

Borderline 19.64%

Poor 0.45%

Kyauk Taw 13.79%

Adequate 78.33%

Borderline 16.67%

Poor 5.00%

Kyauk Phyu 6.90%

Adequate 96.67%

Borderline 3.33%

Pauk Taw 6.90%

Adequate 80.00%

Borderline 16.67%

Poor 3.33%

Min Bya 6.90%

Adequate 93.33%

Borderline 6.67%

Mrauk Oo 6.90%

Adequate 80.00%

Borderline 20.00%

Myae Bo 7.13%

Adequate 83.87%

Borderline 12.90%

Poor 3.23%

Grand Total 100.00%

Target Area

Township IDP locations

# of

focus

groups

# of HH

checklists

See map for visual

with village tracts

# of locations

within or the

vicinity of

villages

# of

camps

Kyauk Phyu 0 2 2 30

Kyauk Taw 3 1 4 60

Min Bya 2 0 2 30

Mrauk Oo 1 1 2 30

Myae Bo 0 2 2 31

Pauk Taw 1 1 2 30

Sittwe 5 10 9 224

Grand Total 12 17 23 435

Remark: 15 Household checklists per one focus group

17


18

.

Pu

blish

ed: A

ug

ust 2

014

Ph

oto

s: Fro

nt C

ov

er WF

P/P

hilip

McK

inn

ey / B

ack

Co

ver W

FP

/Ay

uk

a Ib

e

For more information contact us:

World Food Programme

No. 5, Kanbawza Street, Shwe Taung Kyar (2) Ward

Bahan Township, Yangon, Myanmar

Phone: +95 1 2305971~6 (6 lines)

[email protected]

WFP Myanmar Rakhine Emergency Relief Post Distribution...

Documents

Transcript of WFP Myanmar Rakhine Emergency Relief Post Distribution...