Cash Transfer Programming in Myanmar Brief Situational Analysis 24 October 2013 Background Myanmar is exposed to a wide range of natural hazards, triggering different types of small scale to large-scale disasters across the country s territory. Since its independence in 1948, Myanmar has also been home to some of the longest-running insurgencies in the world, resulting in internal displacement and an influx of refugees in neighboring countries. Myanmar s vulnerability to hazards is compounded by socio-economic factors: widespread poverty and poor infrastructures are at the heart of the country s relatively low capability to recover from significant shocks, and have put a strain on the development gains of a country that is naturally well endowed in natural resources. The nature and type of response provided to both humanitarian and developmental challenges in Myanmar has evolved significantly in recent years, leading to an increased interest in Cash Transfer Programming (CTP). Rapid political and economic changes occurring in the country since the election of a nominally civilian Government in 2010 are increasing the scope and relevance of CTP with their positive impacts on markets, telecommunication and financial infrastructures and the increased space for cooperation with the Government and the private sector. Although there is increasing interest and opportunity for CTP, coordination on cash issues remains limited. Initiatives such as CaLP (Cash Learning Partnership) trainings have taken place but information on existing CTP experiences, good practices and lessons learned is not widely available. This coordination gap represents a risk (overlapping, unmet needs, non-harmonization, etc.) and undermines the effectiveness and impact of CTP in Myanmar. The Government of Myanmar does not have a stated position on CTP but has provided assistance to disaster-affected populations through cash transfers at a limited scale in recent years in addition to welcoming the use of cash by humanitarian partners. The Government is also in the process of developing a Social Protection Strategy, which is likely to include the use of cash transfers in a number of areas including safety nets. The Government however has limited experience and capacity to implement CT programmes. The Cash Transfer Working Group (CTWG) was established in September 2013 in recognition of the need to increase coordination and learning on CTP issues in Myanmar, and to build on the opportunities created by the reform process in the country. The CTWG is composed of a group of development and humanitarian professionals from a diverse pool of agencies who have a commitment to promote; and it aims to provide a platform for coordination and learning on cash transfer programming in Myanmar. Objective of the Document and Methodology The objective of the document is to provide an overview of the situation of CTP in Myanmar, in both humanitarian and development sectors to support the work of the CTWG. The analysis explores experiences and learning available with humanitarian and development practitioners and identifies common challenges and gaps (both 1
geographical and technical). It also intends to assess other key stakeholders perceptions on CTP, including the Government of Myanmar and the private sector. This document was developed based on the discussions held in the CTWG meetings organized in Yangon since the formation of the group in September 2013, ongoing key stakeholder consultations (Oxfam, Save the Children, ACF, KMSS, Trócaire, UNICEF and WFP) and the analysis of a cash mapping and assessment form completed by the members of the CTWG. The lead agencies of all other sector and thematic working groups have also been requested to raise the question of the use of cash in their respective meetings, collect information on ongoing cash-based activities of their members, and provide suggestions for areas of work of the CTWG. The information collected feeds into this analysis. This is a living document that will be updated regularly as more information on CTP becomes available. General Overview Cash transfer programming was first introduced in Myanmar during the rehabilitation period following cyclone Nargis. The most common modality of CTP was cash for work, used as a way of rehabilitating essential infrastructures (schools, roads, embankments) and livelihoods whilst providing enhanced income security and stimulating local markets. Although CTP was reportedly a common tool, no specific documentation is available on the impacts and learning coming out of the Nargis experience in the area of cash. Some of the organizations interviewed during the consultation recalled inflationary tendencies resulting from the use of cash in unprepared markets and access challenges for some beneficiaries. Others highlighted the importance of cash injections for the resumption of normal market activities in the Delta. Cash for work was later used after cyclone Giri at the early recovery stage as well as through unconditional cash grants for emergency relief (e.g. Oxfam). Cash grants have also been used in response to the Magway flash floods in 2011 (Oxfam, CPWG) and more widely in the Kachin conflict where over 50,000 IDPs have been receiving monthly cash transfers from a variety of partners (Trocaire, Oxfam, Metta, KMSS, KBC, Shalom). In Rakhine, the humanitarian community has been exploring the appropriateness and feasibility of CTP and a few agencies have started cash for work activities and targeted household grants on a relatively small-scale (ICRC, DRC, CDN). In the humanitarian sector, cash for work is by far the most common modality of CTP found in Myanmar with a much more limited practice of unconditional cash grants. There are currently no organized systems for social protection in Myanmar. Safety nets are provided to extremely vulnerable communities by some UN agencies and NGOs (e.g. WFP s asset creation and school feeding programs; World Vision pilot social protection programs, etc.) as well as through traditional mechanisms mostly linked to faith-based organizations and networks. In 2012, the President of Myanmar announced the need for the country to develop and implement a national Social Protection Strategy. Under the leadership of the Department of Social Welfare and with support from UNICEF, inter-governmental working groups have been set up to develop an overall framework that will guide the development of the strategy. The Government would like to have the strategy ready by 2015. The development of the strategy and later on its implementation will require for the Government s commitment to translate into adequate budget allocations for social protection. The Government will also need support and capacity-building on accountable targeting and use of CTP. Inputs from civil society on 2
the strategy development process will be channeled through the Government-led Social Protection Sector Working Group where UNICEF and HelpAge International have been representing the broader international community. Overall, experience with CTP remains limited in Myanmar, even for agencies with a strong regional and global CTP approach. The reasons advanced by the consulted agencies for the relative low use of CTP include the complexity of the Myanmar context, the perception that the Government might object to cash distributions, poor humanitarian access, the lack of banking and telecommunication infrastructures, and the lack of donor interest. Actors that have used CTP have done so with limited technical capacity and resources (only a handful of CTP/market assessment trainings have been organized and most guidelines and manuals are not available in Myanmar language). Most actors however have a commitment to develop cash-based interventions and are interested in strengthening their capacity to use CTP at scale. There will also be fewer and fewer barriers to CTP as Myanmar consolidates its rapid political and economic reform process. Thanks to the early use of cash in the Kachin response, local NGOs have accumulated valuable experiences on CTP and have the potential to share their learning with the rest of the development and humanitarian community. Based on organizations recent experiences, key donor agencies also seem supportive of CTP. On the Government s side, none of the partners interviewed felt that there was a clear position either in favor or against CTP and reactions reportedly varied from one geographical area to another. Cash assistance is mentioned in the recently approved Disaster Management Law as one of the potential rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. On a number of occasions, the Government has resorted to distributing cash grants to disaster-affected populations, such as after the Magway flash floods or more recently in Kachin State where partners reported that the use of CTP was openly encouraged by the local authorities. Geographical Areas of Interest The consultations with CTWG members highlighted three geographical areas of particular interest for CT programming: Kachin State, Rakhine State and the South East. On the latter however, the CTWG members felt that there was currently insufficient information and interest to establish a dedicated coordination mechanism or formulate a specific CTP strategy. Kachin State CTP interventions have been used in Kachin State since the beginning of the conflict by most of the partners engaged in the response and are currently reaching over 50,000 IDPs. For the most part, cash grants have been unconditional and calculated on the basis of complementary food needs per person per day, in addition to the basic food package provided by WFP and other food partners. Some agencies have conditioned the reception of cash assistance to attending hygiene promotion sessions. Although cash transfers have been calculated on the basis of complementary food rations, postdistribution monitoring by partners indicates that a significant proportion of the grant is used for education (payment of tuition fees, purchase of school materials, etc.). This points out to the need for increased monitoring to ensure that the use of cash grants for purposes other than food does not have a negative impact on household food security levels and it also highlights the importance of cross-sector coordination for CTP. 3
Although some level of ad hoc coordination has taken place among the agencies that use CTP in Kachin, the amount, conditionality and monitoring of cash transfers vary from one agency to another. Similarly, market information has been collected in an unsystematic and uncoordinated manner. The most formalized market assessment to date, Oxfam conducted an EMMA in Myitkyina and Waigmaw to explore the viability of different livelihood options for IDPs in relation to two critical markets (carpentry and pig rearing) as well as to build the capacity locally on market assessments. The assessment will be repeated and the methodology shared with other actors to improve the availability and quality of market data. Finally, all partners using CTP in Kachin face significant security challenges with the transport of cash to the camps across Kachin State. Recurrent issues raised by the Kachin partners on CTP include: Rate calculation and appropriateness of blanket distribution Mode of payment Market information Security Monitoring To address coordination gaps and improve the effectiveness of CTP interventions in Kachin, Oxfam, Trocaire, Metta, KBC and KMSS together with WFP and other interested actors have decided to hold a cash learning event in Myitkyina and will explore the need for regular cash coordination meetings in Kachin State. Rakhine State Overall, there is a lack of certainty among Rakhine partners as to whether CTP is feasible and desirable in the context of Rakhine given the sensitivities of the operational environment. A group of INGOs has recently undertaken a joint livelihood assessment, which may provide more information as to the appropriateness of CTP and recommended modalities in the context of Rakhine. Meanwhile, three agencies have already initiated small-scale CTP activities through cash for work and household-level cash grants to targeted beneficiaries. Most of the agencies are using CTP in remote rural areas and only one agency has been using low profile and small-scale cash transfers in camps. More agencies are planning to implement CTP activities in the near future, including the Government (NATALA) who is about to launch a significant community infrastructure programme through CFW. In that context, the creation of a platform for experience-sharing and discussions on common approaches and standards is becoming increasingly relevant. In spite of the humanitarian community s legitimate concerns about CTP in Rakhine, it is important to recognize that significant cash injections have already been made since the beginning of the conflict, for which an overall analysis of the social impacts is currently lacking. Sector interventions in camps have relied on sub-contracting, sometimes to external contractors and sometimes to IDPs directly, for the construction of key infrastructures (latrines, shelters, drainage, etc). This represents a significant cash injection in the local economy, with a visible impact on markets. It would be important to consider the implications of such cash injections on whom benefited and what impacts they had on local power dynamics. It would also be important to have a better 4
understanding of targeting mechanisms used if any as well as rationale for rate calculations. Recurrent issues raised by the Rakhine partners include: Lack of overall cross-sectorial analysis Do No Harm approaches to CTP Market information and access Security To address the coordination gaps on CTP, UNDP will include specific cash discussions in the Early Recovery sector meetings held in Sittwe twice a month. This will provide a platform for experience-sharing, standard setting as well as coordination with and support to NATALA. The need to hold separate cash coordination meetings will be explored. The South East The assistance provided to refugees from Myanmar on the Thai side of the border has been mostly cash-based. The experience and learning accumulated by Thai-based actors with cash programming can inform resettlement and rehabilitation activities to ensure better alignment with the refugee s experiences and expectations. Although people s preference may be for cash support, it remains to be seen whether markets on the Myanmar side of the border will be able to absorb and respond to a sudden increase in activity. Current data available on the South East (UNHCR rapid village survey) does not include market information. Whilst preparations are ongoing for possible returns, humanitarian and development partners have a chance to collect market information and to capitalize on the experience of Thai-based organizations. Recurrent issues raised by the South East partners which need to be addressed by the CTWG included: Appropriateness Market information Technical Issues of Interest Throughout the consultation, a number of technical issues related to CTP stood out as being of particular interest to the group. These included: Rate calculation Mode of payment Market assessment Monitoring Security Position of Government Social protection Role of new technologies Suggestions for the CTWG The agencies consulted all felt that the CTWG was an added-value for their individual agencies as well as to the broader development and humanitarian sector in Myanmar. 5
There was a broad consensus among interviewees that the CTWG should focus on the following areas of work: Addressing operational challenges of partners in specific areas Capacity-building Experience sharing and learning Development and standardization of tools Advocacy Respondents felt that the issues discussed within the CTWG needed to be sequenced adequately, starting with a focus on operational issues as a way of addressing ongoing challenges faced by the members, before moving onto advocacy-related activities. Capacity-building activities should focus on basic concepts and protocols for CTP programming and although all respondents welcomed the organization of a CALP level 2 training, most identified the need for regular CALP 1 training opportunities. The creation of an inter-agency pool of trainers within the group was mentioned as one of the possible ways to meet the training demand. Learning was also identified as a key priority and the suggestion was for the CTWG to support a number of learning events, giving opportunity to individual agencies to share their experiences and learning on a specific theme related to CTP. Although the advocacy potential with the Government and key private sector actors such as banks and telecommunications companies was unanimously acknowledged, it was felt that the group needed to create a strong dynamic and develop a greater understanding of CTP in Myanmar before being in a position to engage. Finally, most agencies felt that the role of LNGOs should be promoted within the group, given their experience with CTP and their prominent role in the development of the country. 6