dwide - World Food Programme · Partners (P) and the remainder to other organizations. When it came to receiving cash assistance, 91% of the respondents declared having received cash

WFP Myanmar Kachin Emergency Relief Post Distribution Monitoring Report

Fig

hti

ng

Hu

ng

er W

orl

dw

ide

2

3

Contents

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

PART I

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

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

Food Distribution Management .............................. 5

Protection and Gender Issues ................................. 6

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

PART II

Income Generation .................................................. 7

Debts and Expenditures .......................................... 8

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

Recommendations ................................................. 11

Conclusion ............................................................. 12

Annex ..................................................................... 13

WFP Myanmar - Kachin Emergency Relief Post Distribution Monitoring Report

4

Introduction

This report is a combinatory exercise conducted in November 2013. The focus was WFP emergency relief (ER) operations in 11 townships/locations in Kachin (Bhamo, Kar Maing, Man Si, Moe Guang, Moe Mauk, Moe Nyin, Myitkyina, Myotit, Pharkant, Shwe Ku and Waing Maw).

This report is made up of both programme reflective data, through the M&E PDM related questions, and, existing food security concerns through an analysis of the data collected through VAM formulated inquiries.

The data was collected through the following methods: Quantitative data collection through household (HH) questionnaires - conducted less than two

weeks after a distribution;

Qualitative data collection through structured Focus-group discussions - conducted in the

same camp 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 following report is not exhaustive and focuses on information derived from the dataset which is of immediate relevance to WFP’s programs. The table provided in Annex summarizes the quantitative data in a basic descriptive manner and can therefore provide additional insights on the overall findings of the exercise.

PART I

Household Demographics The average family composition within WFP’s beneficiary population is 5.2 members with a maximum reported at 11 members. 50% of the interviewed households were female-headed.

Public Awareness of Assistance

95% of the interviewed households declared being aware of the source of food assistance, of which 82% attributed the responsibility of the assistance to WFP, 15% to one of WFP’s Cooperating Partners (CP) and the remainder to other organizations.

When it came to receiving cash assistance, 91% of the respondents declared having received cash

this year, with amounts ranging from 600 MMK to 8000 MMK, averaging out to 6,657 MMK. 89% of

the beneficiaries who reported cash transfer received them from NGOs, and the remaining 11%

came from either the community or some ‘other’ source.

* Please see the annex for a table on the number of focus groups and household checklists by township, and a table

identifying the village tracts by township.


5

Food Distribution Management

99% of the interviewed beneficiaries reported spending less than 2 hours getting to the distributions points (DP). While 83% remarked that it took less than 2 hours to get food rations at the distribution point (figure 1), there seems to be some lag time on occasion, as 16% of the respondents noted spending between 2 and 6 hours waiting for the distribution. It is worth examining if distributions could be managed more efficiently so as to cut down waiting periods for beneficiaries.

Figure 1

With regards to the management of distributions, a positive finding was that WFP was identified as

the responsible party in only 6 of the 42 sites. The other sites were managed either by Cooperating

Partners (CP) or Food Management Committees (FMC). Here an issue arises in that FMCs only

managed distributions at 16 sites whereas CPs operated 30 sites. Focus group discussions revealed

that FMC participate in distributions in 24 sites with varying levels of responsibility. In the interest of

empowering beneficiaries, FMCs should play a stronger role in the actual management of

distributions in all camps.

When it comes to the gender composition of the FMC the average is a little less than 2 women per

committee, with a maximum record of 7 women. Men on average made up 3 members of the FMCs,

with the overall member average recorded as 5 members. Although 3 FMCs had no female

participants (10%), 11 had more female than male members (38%), and 6 were composed

exclusively of women (20%). When looking at specific roles within the FMCs, it is encouraging to see

that some women were holding positions of influence, although they were still largely

under-represented compared with men. Two women were acting as chairpersons, seven women

were acting as secretary, 12 were voting members, and a final 6 held undefined ‘other women

positions’.

If one looks at the data it is possible to see that where women hold a decision influencing position,

the FMCs are either female dominated or are fairly close to gender parity. This shows that when

FMCs have higher female participation, the balance in the decision influencing positions shift more

evenly, thereby making a strong case for continued encouragement to include women in FMCs.

While this gender related data might seem to reflect a positive situation, the fact that 50% of the

responding households were female headed indicate that the balance might not be based solely on

gender equality considerations but rather a consequence of camp demographics where men are

generally under-represented. Further data needs to be collected before this gender related data can

be used to postulate gender zeroing.


6

Protection and Gender Issues Women take on the primary role when it

comes to collecting the food from the DP

(figure 2). In the focus group it was noted

that women make up to a vast majority of

those that collect the food. Answers on

safety during the journey to and from the

DP given in the focus groups differed

significantly from the household survey,

with one women focus group out of three

reporting feeling unsafe. It cannot be

determined exactly why this might be the

case as no comments were recorded on this issue. In the interest of ensuring that women are safe

in collecting the rations and bringing it home, it would be worthwhile to share this information

with partners and FMCs and follow-up with more qualitative enquiries with women to understand

the nature and scale of the risk to their safety.

Figure 2

Use of the Food Ration The most common response to how the rations are used was that the food is consumed within the

family, 89% (Figure 3). The remaining 11% predominantly reported selling the food. Of those

beneficiaries who reported selling the food, 46% did so to purchase other foods, 37% did not like

the food, and 14% used the cash to buy medicine. The two commodities that were sold/

exchanged/donated were rice and pulses. The salt, oil and blended food (BF) were almost always

consumed by the family.

Figure 3

Interestingly, there is no clear correlation between food consumption rates and satisfaction levels.

Whilst satisfaction levels for rice, pulses, oil and salt were consistently high (all above 90%), only

31% of the beneficiaries were satisfied with the blended food, for which consumption rates were

substantially higher than for the other 3 commodities. What should remain a high concern though

is that this all could very well change and with such high rates of dissatisfaction beneficiaries could

start to sell the blended food. A better appreciation for why the blended food is so disliked might

prove very useful to avoid future issues.


7

PART II

Income Generation This section shifts the focus away from the specifics of the food assistance to take on elements

that make up a part of determining the food security of beneficiaries. When it comes to the

income status of beneficiaries’ the results showed that the vast majority of households had access

to income in the month previous to the PDM and in the last 12 months. When breaking it down to

the 30 days prior to the PDM, 84% had at least one income activity, 10% only had to rely on cash

assistance as single income source and 6% reported no source of income at all (figure 4).

For those with at least one income activity in the last 12 months, agriculture and non-agriculture wage labor were the main income activities with 48% and 36% respectively. In relation to agricultural land access, 10% of the respondents explained they were able to access on average 4 acres of land. Cash assistance was largely reported as a source of income during the last 12 months (92%), and when beneficiaries were questioned on what they use cash for**, the most common response with 88%, was to purchase other food. Of the households with at least one income activity, 71% reported an average monthly income

above 25,000MMK (52% between 25,000 and 75,000MMK). This would indicate that the

beneficiaries are by and large able to support themselves financially, which further leads to the

question as to whether WFP’s blanket food assistance continues to be appropriate for the context.

**Though the question was designed to determine what cash earned from selling food aid is used for, the response can be

extrapolated to what any extra cash might be used for.

Figure 4

Pho-

tos: WFP/Philip McKinney

Photos: WFP/Philip McKinney


8

Debts and Expenditures When asked, 50% of beneficiaries explained that they currently have debt, and a split response

nullifies the ability to determine whether it was more or less than the previous year. When asked

what the value of their loans were (figure 4) the majority were found to have 50,000mmk or less.

Figure 4

On average beneficiaries noted that the amount that they had spent on non-food items in the last

6 months, was made up of 48% on credit, and 52% in cash (figure 5). This is similar to what was

found in the average household expenses in the last 30 days. Here beneficiaries also noted using

credit slightly more than cash to buy non-food items. What can be seen in the expenses in the

previous month, for food expenses, is that cash far exceeds credit as the means of purchase

(figure 6).

Figure 5 Figure 6


9

This would suggest that beneficiaries are able to support themselves within the range of regular

food expenses but when it comes to non-food expenditures, education and health as seen in figure

7, it is more difficult and thus loans are taken out to cover these expenses. This being said, food

does still play a significant part of the recorded reasons why loans are taken out, 19%.

Figure 7

Household Food Access Based on the food consumption score of the respondents, we can see that the diet has been found

to be adequate for the vast majority of households, with no significant discrepancy between male

and female-headed households (see figure 8). A detailed look at respondents’ diets in the recall

period shows that they were relying on rice, oil, vegetables and meat/eggs/fish with some

consumption of beans***. As the WFP food basket does not contain fresh products, the bulk of

the items were purchased on the markets.

Figure 8

*** See Annex for more detailed breakdown of the consumption of different food items


10

Borderline FCS made up approximately 5%, and less than 1% were calculated to have poor FCS.

When we narrow the FCS down to specific townships (figure 9) we can see that 7 out of 11

townships had 100% adequate food consumption scores. For those that did not the majority still

can be found to have adequate food consumption scores with Pharkant exhibiting the highest

borderline and poor FCS at 17% and 3% respectively, followed by Bhamo at 14% and 1%

respectively. Across these various calculations, no major differences were found between female

and male headed households. There was also not a single reporting of hunger with every

household lending to 100% experiencing ‘little to no hunger’ in the last 30 days.

Figure 9

When examining the diet diversity of IDP’s the data could be revealing a contradiction that should

be looked in to. While beneficiaries are explaining that they are satisfied with the various items in

the food basket and they do not sell it (only 9% reported selling the ration) the pulses/beans are

only being consumed 3 days a week (figure 10). With the ration being designed for daily

consumption the data would indicate that the pulses are potentially being used in some other

fashion (i.e. feeding to cattle) that may not provide the nutritional benefits to the IDPs.

Considering that the primary source of protein was reported as coming from ‘Meat, Eggs, Fish’,

consumed five days a week, this would suggest that the ration might not adequately designed for

the IDPs in Kachin.

Figure 10


11

Recommendations

13% reporting that it takes between 2-4 hours and 3% saying it can take between 4-6 hours, when combined makes for a fairly large percentage of the beneficiaries that are having to wait a significant amount of time for food distribution. It would be worthwhile to examine if this indeed is a prevalent issue, if it is then it should be asked why it may be an issue and if something can be done to reduce this waiting time.

FMC’s should play a stronger role in the actual management of the distributions and should

participate more than 60% of the time. Complaint mechanisms need to be in place in all camps and PDM tools amended to capture

the type of complaints received, the response time and the type of actions taken to address the complaints. This should be supported by discussions with the CPs.

Information on income and debt portrays a positive picture whereby a substantial number of

IDPs have been able to secure income through a diversity of livelihood activities. Average income amounts show that a large number of families now have the capacity to cover part of their food needs. This raises questions as to the need for continued blanket food distribu-tions as opposed to a more targeted approach to food assistance.

Despite the fact that beneficiaries are not selling blended food, the satisfaction with the

commodity is low, especially when compared to the other commodities, and so it would be worth examining why beneficiaries’ are so unenthused by the blended food being offered in the WFP food basket.

The fact that women are having a difficult time with collecting and staying safe bringing the

food home is not good. This is something that should be raised with the FMC and the CP and further inquiries should be made with women to determine the exact nature and scale of the problem.

Lower FCS in localized areas: Phakan, Bhamo and Moemauk should be investigated. When selling food was noted, by 9% of respondents, the most common reasons for selling

food were recorded as ‘buy other food’ and ‘don’t like food’. Along with the consumption of

pulses in contrast to the daily consumption expectation of the ration, this points to an issue

with the food basket not meeting the local diet and preferences. An examination should be

carried out to see what exactly is being done with the pulses and how this can be addressed

to improve the food assistance to IDPs.


12

Conclusion In Kachin we can see an increasingly normative situation for beneficiaries where they are able to

access and sustain themselves, for the most part, with varying forms of livelihoods. The Post

Distribution Monitoring and the VAM data both, not only show very positive results in relation to

the food distributions but also the overall food security situation with a good access to income,

adequate food consumption score, minimal reports of hunger, and no coping strategies being

utilized, and beneficiaries also have good dietary diversity. These factors could be result of a

stabilizing situation for the beneficiaries, and aided by their income and access to credit. There are

still issues that need to be address, as outlined in the recommendations, but when one looks at

the bigger picture of this exercise the situation would appear to be going in the right direction for

beneficiaries, and, WFP programming is being implemented properly.

Photo: WFP/Philip McKinney Photo: WFP/Ayuka Ibe

Photo: WFP/Ayuka Ibe Photo: WFP/Philip McKinney


13

Annex

# of FG and HH checklist by township

Township # VT

# FG

# Check list

Bhamo 1 6 97

Kar Maing 1 1 5

Man Si 1 1 10

Moe Guang 2 2 5

Moe Mauk 1 3 51

Moe Nyin 1 1 5

Myitkyina 5 12 60

Myotit 1 1 2

Pharkant 7 8 30

Shwe Ku 1 2 10

Waing Maw 5 6 75

Grand Total 26 43 350


14

Village Tract by Kachin Township

Township Village Tract

Bhamo Urban

Kar Maing Htoi San Yang

Man Si Urban

Moe Guang Ma Haung Nat Gyi Kong

Moe Mauk Urban

Moe Nyin Nant Moon

Myitkyina Maw Hpawng Naung Pong Pa La Na Shwe Zet Urban

Myotit Rural

Pharkant Lone Khine Maw Si Zar Maw Wan Nam Ma Phyit

Naung Hmee

Nyein Chan Tharyar

Seik Mu

Shwe Ku Urban

Waing Maw Khat Cho Ma Ding Mai Na Naung Hee Urban

Analysis result for Focus Group Discussion - ER in Nov-Dec 2013

Sub Office: Myitkyina Concise descriptive notes

# of checklist: 43

Public awareness and beneficiary satisfaction on Food assistance

Do you know who provided the food assistance All did

Do you know your entitlement 95% did

Are you satisfied with the quality of the food 95% happy

Did you experience any distribution problems 19% reported problems

Distribution Centre Management

Distributed by CP 30 groups reported the CP distributed food

Distributed by FMC 9 groups noted the FMC distributed rations

Distributed by WFP 2 groups noted that WFP was in charge of distributions

Did the FMC participate 62% noted that the FMC participated

How many women are on the FMC The average female FMC participation was 1.74, highest

was 7 and lowest was 1

What is the representation of women in the composition

of FMC

2 chairwomen, 7 secretaries, 12 members, 6 'other' posi-

tions

Impact Monitoring

Did food assistance help 98% agreed that it did

Was there an impact on the HH income Almost all agreed there was

Did it have an impact on health almost all said that it did

Was there an impact on education All agreed that it did

Protection and Gender

Feel safe at the DP? 42 of the 43 Focus Groups remark feeling safe at distri-

bution centre

How often are women responsible for collecting the

food? on average women collected food 72% of the time

Have there been any problems for women in connection

to the food distribution?

64% of women had a problem, most often they were

unable to bring the rations home by themselves (too

heavy, too far, too costly)

Is it safe for women carrying the food? 78% noted that it was safe for women to carry the food

home

Have there been any disputes in relation to the food? 7% disputes were recorded

Why is food sold? 22% reported selling food, most commonly sold to get

better quality rice.

What are your main concerns? 84% are primarily concerned that food aid will be

stopped


15

Analysis result for House Hold Interview - ER (November-December 2013)

Sub Office: Myitkyina Concise descriptive notes

# of checklists: 350

Household Demographics

Family Composition Average 5.17

Female Head 50% of households interviewed were female headed

Access to agricultural land Only 10% have access to Ag land with an average of 4.12 acres.

Public Awareness 95% were aware of the food assistance.

Did you receive cash this year 91% responded affirmative, average was 6,657 mmk/month

who provide the cash assistance 81% said it came from an NGO

Food Distribution Management

Time spent receiving the rations 83% said less than 2 hours, 17% noted variations of more than 2 hrs,

Time it takes to reach the DP 99% said less than 2 hours

What kind of transport is used The majority walked, 7% used trishawl

How long it took to get home All said less than 2 hours

Have to pay for transport home? 85% yes, 13% no

How much is paid for transport Average 875 mmk for food, 750 mmk for person

Use of the Food Ration

How is the food utilized? 88% consumed by family. 9% sold the food.

Who makes decision over the food 83% women, 7% men and 8% it’s a shared decision.

Why is the food sold? 46% was to purchase other food, 37% did not like the food, 14% to

buy medicine

What is cash used for 80% of the time to buy food. 6% for access services, 3% to buy medi-

cine

Beneficiary satisfaction

Satisfied with the Quality of the Food The majority were well satisfied with the quality (92+ on each com-

modity), with the exception of BF which only had 31% satisfaction

Satisfaction with type of food Similar results to the quality, strong satisfaction for all commodities

except for BF (31%)

Know ration entitlement 97% know

Ration entitlement difference 1% and less was recorded on all differences in each commodity

Protection and Gender issues

Collect food from family

Who collects the food for the family Women, 85%, Men 11%

Do you feel safe at DP All affirmative

Do women feel safe on the way to and from DP 100% yes

Any discrimination noticed? 2%

Any illegal fees paid No

Do you know of any complaint mechanisms 46% yes, 54% no

Security Incidents

Any security incidents 98% No

Experience problems No problems experience at all

Migration

How many have migrated in your household Maximum 4, average of 1.22

HH Food Access

Where do you get the food you consume in the

household 100% consumed from food aid

Do you receive food from other organizations

than just WFP 80% WFP. 18% from other orgs, of which 47% is from NGOs

If the food aid runs out what do you do? See graph on page 11

HH Food Availability

Food stock All had stock from a minimum of 3 days up to 60 days, average of 23.5

days

Rice Prices

What is the price of rice in the local market Average 657 mmk/kg. 1500mmk max.

How much rice is consumed in the last month

in the household Up to 351 kg, average is 59.9 kg


16

.

Pu

blish

ed: A

ug

ust 2

014

Fro

nt a

nd

Ba

ck C

ov

er Ph

oto

s: WF

P/P

hilip

McK

inn

ey

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]

Documents

dwide - World Food Programme · Partners (P) and the remainder to other organizations. When it came to receiving cash assistance, 91% of the respondents declared having received cash