97962 NOTE 1 9 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar1 Social protection schemes can contribute to poverty re‐ duction objectives pursued through current community-driven de‐ velopment (CDD) platforms in Myanmar by building household and community resilience. In turn, existing CDD platforms provide viable options to promote a transition to government-led social protection delivery. Making infrastructure development more pro-poor and providing communities with an expanded menu of options, includ‐ ing social protection schemes, can be a first step in enhancing the poverty reduction potential of CDD platforms. 1. This Note was prepared by Mariana Infante-Villarroel (World Bank). Comments and inputs were provided by Philip O’Keefe, Puja Vasudeva Dutta, Inge Stokkel, Nikolas Myint, and Khin Aye Yee (World Bank). The team benefited from the collaboration of HelpAge International (HAI), ActionAid and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which kindly shared information about their programs. Any comments and questions can be addressed to ainfantevillarro@worldbank.org. The team is grateful to the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement and to the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development for their inputs and facilitation of field trips for the entire assessment; and to the Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development for their inputs and guidance. The team benefited from contributions and field support from WFP, ILO, UNOPS-LIFT, SC, HAI, ActionAid, IOM, MDRI, and several UN agencies and NGOs throughout the process. The team is grateful to the Rapid Social Response program and its five donors- the Russian Federation, Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia- for funding this assessment. 2 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 3 1. Introduction Community-driven development (CDD) models are based on the principle of empowering com- munities to directly manage efforts such as infrastructure development and service provision. International experience with CDD approaches shows the potential for these models to finance and deliver components of social protection provision such as safety nets. Social protection is an important component of development processes by directly contributing to inclusive growth and poverty reduction. Social protection systems, policies, and programs help households and communities build Resilience to risks and shocks;contribute to Equity by prevent‐ ing and alleviating economic and social vulnerabilities; and create Opportunity through building community assets and helping households access services for a better future. Social protection helps reduce poverty and increases social cohesion by ensuring poor and vulnerable groups ben‐ efit from economic prosperity. Although Myanmar has experience with government-led CDD approaches, these have so far not included social protection components. On the other hand, development partners (DPs) have delivered social protection schemes through community-based approaches without establishing linkages with government structures. This note reviews Myanmar’s experience with government- led CDD models and with DP social protection support through community-based structures; dis‐ cusses the rationale for delivering social protection through CDD platforms based on international experience; and identifies potential avenues to deliver social protection in Myanmar through ex‐ isting government-led CDD platforms to make these more effective in achieving poverty reduction and resilience-building. 2. Myanmar experience: CDD Platforms and community- based social protection models 2.1 Government CDD platforms The Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development (MLFRD) is actively involved in the implementation of CDD programs. They are considered important instruments to achieve inclu‐ sive and sustainable rural development through people-centered approaches and ultimately to help reduce poverty, as stated in the Rural Development Strategic Framework (RDSF). The Mya Sein Yaung (MSY), also known as Evergreen Village Development Project, and the National Com‐ munity Driven Development Project (NCDDP) are the two main government-led CDD approaches in Myanmar.2 While both address key development challenges – namely, livelihoods and local in‐ frastructure – neither has yet incorporated explicit social protection schemes in its operations. 2. Smaller CDD platforms include the Asian Development Bank’s Enhancing Rural Livelihoods and Incomes Project (US$ 12 million) in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta, Dry Zone, Tanintharyi and Shan Plateau. Besides infrastructure development, the project includes vo‐ cational training components, especially in the Delta and Dry Zone. http://adb.org/projects/details?page=details&proj_id=47311- 001 4 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection 2.2 Mya Sein Yaung (MSY, 2014-2016) The MSY has the objective of reducing poverty in rural areas by creating job opportunities, achieving food security, increasing productivity, and improving the resilience of rural livelihoods to disasters through village-level revolving funds. The project provides transfers (loans) to vil‐ lages for village-level revolving funds – about MMK 30 million per fund – to finance household businesses related mainly (depending on local conditions) to solar energy, viable livestock-rearing, family-owned and viable fishery and farming projects, agricultural business, and other businesses. The project targets poor villages that have the potential to make profits with the loans, are suit‐ able for livestock-rearing, have rule of law and good behavior, and are enthusiastic and credible in reimbursing the loan (MLFRD, 2014a)3 The MSY is being rolled out in a phased manner, starting with a first (pilot) phase (April 2014-March 2015) in 1,150 villages across 136 townships and 47 districts, reaching more than 1.8 million beneficiaries with a budget of MMK 34.5 billion. Shan state (nearly MMK 8 billion) and Ayeyarwaddy (more than MMK 6 billion) are benefiting the most from MSY funds, followed by Bago (around MMK 3.5 billion), Sagaing (MMK 3 billion) and Magway and Mandalay (around MMK 2.5 billion each)4. MLFRD plans to extend the program to 10,000 more villages in 200 townships to reach 4.8 million beneficiaries in the 2015-2016 cycle with additional financing (MMK 335.5 bil‐ lion; MLFRD, 2014b). The implementation structure of the program uses task forces at different levels (union, state/ region, township, and district), although the most critical structures are MSY committees at vil- lage level. Each is composed of seven respectable villagers (at least 50 percent women), who should be interested in the village’s welfare, not belong to religious clergy, be financially literate, own a somewhat sizable business, and have the ability to allocate time for the program’s purposes (MLFRD, 2014a). MSY village committees are responsible for the administration of the village fund, authorize loans, calculate interest rates, collect payments, and audit financial statements (ibid.).5 The design of revolving funds such as the MSY typically makes such programs more easily ac- cessed by the non-poor. The effectiveness and sustainability of revolving fund models are based on the assumption that households will be able to pay back the loan. This limits the assignment of loans to better-off households and not to the very poor, who are less likely to have the expertise and networks to utilize the loan effectively and to be able to pay it back.6 In the case of the MSY, village committee members are entitled to borrow twice as much from the fund as other villagers and can pay administrative expenses (e.g. travel expenses) out of the fund (MLFRD, 2014a).7 Land‐ owner and non-poor households thus tend to access larger loans than landless ones under the scheme,reinforcing the focus on the non-poor. 3. Approximately 70 percent of MSY villages are in RDSF priority districts (World Bank staff estimate). 4. Discussions with MLFRD. 5. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will provide technical support in implementation (MLFRD, 2014a). 6. Microcredit projects are also difficult to implement in post-conflict contexts since the scheme relies on trust and collective action that may be eroded, tends to benefit individuals more than communities in initial rounds (before all community members have the chance to benefit), and can have difficulties in balancing the objectives of sustainable microfinance (promote profitable invest‐ ments) and community empowerment (promote access by the poor) (Strand et al., 2003). 7. Fieldwork showed loans to individual households can range between MMK 50,000 and MMK 500,000. Interest rates vary across villages, ranging between 0.5 percent and 1.5 percent per month. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 5 2.3 National Community Driven Development Project (2012-2021) The NCDDP (supported by the World Bank) has the objective of delivering key infrastructure and services through community-block grants. It also aims to build government’s capacity to respond promptly and effectively to crises or emergencies. The initial phase (2012-2014) had a budget of MMK 88.5 billion8 and started a gradual rollout in Chin state, Tanintharyi division and Shan state, aiming to cover 640 village tracts in 15 townships (one in each state/region). Townships are selected based mainly on poverty criteria in consultation with region/state gov- ernments. Poverty criteria are complemented by factors such as absence of external funding, willingness and capability of township authorities to implement the project, peace and stability of the township, and relative ease of access to and within the township. Region and state govern‐ ments hold consultations with a wide range of stakeholders to apply these criteria in their particu‐ lar contexts and shortlist townships based on local-level knowledge (GoM, 2014).9 All village tracts in selected townships benefit from the program. The NCDDP has been rolled out in annual implementation cycles with positive achievements that have motivated an expansion. During the first implementation cycle in three townships, the NCDDP financed 357 subprojects aimed at increasing access to and use of basic infrastructure and services, including rehabilitating and expanding school buildings, health centers, water supplies, roads, footpaths, jetties, and bridges. Similarly to the MSY, transfers averaged MMK 30 million per village (MLFRD and World Bank, 2014).The second implementation cycle is currently underway with additional government and DP resources that translate into more than MMK 453 billion to expand the project to 40 additional townships, home to approximately 6 million people.10 The number of grant cycles available to beneficiary communities will increase from three annual cycles in the original grant design to four cycles. The additional cycle will increase the funds available to communities to around MMK 39 million, drawing on international evidence that CDD projects in‐ crease in effectiveness over time as communities become more familiar with the approach. Government roles are found at union, region/state, township, and, critically, village tract and village levels.11 Village tracts are the main planning and supporting unit at community level. Vil‐ lage Tract Project Support Committees (VTPSC) are responsible for consolidating and submitting proposed projects made up of subprojects put forward by villages and village tracts. MLFRD’s De‐ partment of Rural Development (DRD) along with township authorities verifies that the proposed infrastructure subprojects do not duplicate existing government efforts. A finance subcommittee is formed at the village tract level to manage the block grants and village support committees un‐ 8. USD 86.3 million, USD 80 million International Development Association (IDA) grant and USD 6.3 million from government funds. Exchange rate = 1,025.50. 9. More information on targeting in Myanmar can be found in the Note on ‘Reaching the poor and vulnerable in Myanmar’. 10. Additional resources include additional government funds, USD 300 million from an IDA grant, a USD 20 million concessional loan from the government of Italy and a grant of approximately USD 11 million from the Japan Trust for Social Development to enhance key elements of the project, including capacity-building for community facilitation and further development of social accountabil‐ ity mechanisms. 11. More information on government roles in the NCDDP can be found in the Note on ‘Institutional landscape for implementation and financing of social protection programs: Towards effective service delivery in Myanmar’. 6 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection dertake subproject implementation, along with other subcommittees for monitoring and procure‐ ment. Support is envisaged in the near future through a finance clerk in each village as project tasks are challenging and time-consuming for committee members. Building capacity of local-level structures, particularly township and village tracts, to undertake program operations effectively will be an important challenge in future implementation cycles. In light of the ongoing expansion of the program and the underlying objective of strengthening government-led service delivery at local level through program implementation, the current de‐ sign of the program sets aside resources for specific capacity-building activities at union and town‐ ship levels, which can also finance additional technical support at lower levels (e.g. village clerks). The ongoing expansion of the program offers opportunities to explore areas where the program can be complemented to address poverty reduction more comprehensively. For instance, the expansion will test the adequacy of strategies and procedures for engagement and risk manage‐ ment in areas affected by conflict, as well as the flexibility of the model to foster partnerships on key complementary issues of interest for communities (e.g. on livelihoods, income security, and social services). Lastly, the NCDDP has a component on emergency contingency support (e.g. rap‐ id response to disasters). This has not been used yet but options for resilience-building and emer‐ gency support could already be identified and articulated in current program operations. 3. Current experience with social protection schemes delivered through community-based approaches12 DPs have been actively involved in the implementation of social protection schemes as part of community-based approaches. The Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT) has been the main sponsor of community-based models, which often include the provision of social protection to particular groups within communities. Annex 1 includes a list of social protection schemes de‐ livered through DP-led community-based approaches in Myanmar. Livelihood support features strongly in DP-led schemes, although access to services is also en- couraged. Help Age International (HAI) supports in-kind and cash transfers (CTs) for productive investments (partial loans) in Mandalay and Sagaing. ActionAid supports vulnerable women in communities in Magwe through cash-for-training and micro loans for productive investments, al‐ though a more innovative feature of this model is the way it links women to government services such as ID provision, health care, and business development. Lastly, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has supported contributory and non-contributory health emergency funds in Ayeyarwaddy. 12. This Note refers to ‘DP-led community based approaches’ given the diverse range of DP-led initiatives that have communities as main beneficiaries but that may not strictly follow the definition of CDD models. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 7 Evidence on the impact of social protection schemes delivered through community-based mod- els is scarce. Some of these schemes (e.g. ActionAid) are new so evidence on impact is not yet available. Impact evaluations for the other two schemes in Annex 1 have not been conducted.13 Other schemes used in Myanmar and supported mostly by LIFT include community-based infra‐ structure development (with less emphasis on social protection than on infrastructure develop‐ ment objectives)14 and rice and paddy banks. Emerging models that could bring future lessons include business development grants with extensive technical support in vulnerable communities in Rakhine, implemented by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 4. Social protection provision through CDD platforms in Myanmar : a way to enhance pro-poor results Expanding the scope and reach of current CDD programs is a sensible step towards achieving poverty reduction in Myanmar. Discussions during the Third Myanmar Development Cooperation Forum acknowledged the importance and achievements of the MSY and NCDDP, but also the need to clearly identify progress in poverty reduction and exploit even further community-based ap‐ proaches as poverty reduction tools. Against a backdrop of low productivity in agriculture, over‐ reliance on single crop income, an underdeveloped manufacturing and services sector, and sharp regional disparities, there is potential to further reduce poverty through enhanced CDD platforms and overall rural development. Social protection provision through CDD platforms can help Myanmar identify opportunities to strengthen its poverty reduction agenda. Selecting the more effective schemes based on Myan‐ mar’s needs and institutional capacity and taking advantage of existing delivery platforms can complement current government efforts on poverty reduction through the MSY and NCDDP. Conversely, embedding social protection schemes as part of CDD platforms in Myanmar can be an appropriate option for social protection implementation. Current experience with govern‐ ment CDD models can facilitate the gradual transition from DP-led social protection provision to a more sustainable government-led system. This gradual transition would need a) significant efforts to build government capacity, especially at local levels, through a learning-by-doing approach on roles of government and non-government actors, as well as enhancing coordination across local stakeholders; b) overcoming current perceptions of communities vis-à-vis government in many places (e.g. conflict-affected communities); and c) providing models that can help overcome po‐ litical economy issues in Myanmar. On the latter, large-scale national social protection programs, which are often the preferred option for ‘quick wins’, make raising a budget difficult and imply dealing with large-scale initial operational issues that can derail even a good program. Scaling- back if the model is not found to be very effective would be hard. In addition, designing national programs is challenging given the diversity of needs and priorities across Myanmar. 13. An evaluation of livelihood changes in areas where LIFT-supported programs are implemented (e.g. the HAI scheme) is available al‐ though it does not cover the impact of specific programs. The IOM scheme was evaluated in terms of its operational performance, as shown in Annex 2. 14. See Noteon ‘The experience of public works programs in Myanmar’ for more information on PWPs in the country. 8 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection From that perspective, a platform like the NCDDP could become more effective in achieving poverty reduction and community empowerment by strengthening the emphasis on pro-poor investments in infrastructure development, as well as by using an expanded menu of options that includes social protection interventions. The NCDDP already generates important employ‐ ment opportunities for local communities, with 80 percent of assets built directly by communities (instead of contractors). Modifying the guidelines for infrastructure development to prioritize pro- poor infrastructure (see Box 1) through labor-intensive approaches that prioritize the poorest can maximize the amount of resources that reach the poor directly.15 A menu of interventions beyond infrastructure development delivered through the NCDDP can also help address a wider set of is‐ sues that the poor face, such as access to social services (see next section for a potential menu). A pro-poor emphasis can also make project resources reach more directly priority groups such as women, children, and migrants, which may benefit less directly from traditional infrastructure- oriented approaches. In addition, the effort made by the program to meaningfully include women in project committees presents an opportunity to achieve gender-sensitive community choices as part of an expanded menu. Box 1: Preference targeting - options for increasing the pro-poor focus of CDD platforms Preference targeting (Van Domelen, 2007) refers to the need for CDD programs to successfully incor‐ porate the poor into planning processes in order to enhance pro-poor results, given that certain in‐ vestments and schemes tend to be more pro-poor than others. Preference targeting is mostly, though not exclusively, relevant to infrastructure development projects. For instance, basic sanitation and in‐ frastructure for social service delivery reaches more poor households than do complex infrastructure development such as sewage systems. Making sure the poor can meaningfully influence the type of projects chosen and pro-poor options are available on project menus can enhance pro-poor results through preference targeting. Besides infrastructure projects, preference targeting could also be encouraged in the selection of so‐ cial protection schemes out of a menu of options. Social protection schemes such as CTs to vulnerable groups can be more pro-poor than more complex and costly contributory schemes such as community- based health insurance (CBHI) (Batthamishra and Barrett, 2008). Preference targeting can be an important complementary targeting mechanism to reach the poor through CDD platforms. The targeting success of Argentina’s Trabajar program (Phase II; see Annex 2), where 85 percent of the beneficiaries fell in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, was achieved through a combination of geographic targeting, wages that promoted self-targeting of the poor, and preference targeting by encouraging pro-poor infrastructure (potable water and social infra‐ structure, both labor-intensive and disproportionately benefiting the poor). 15. An example of practices that can be changed to maximize income support to the poor comes from LIFT-supported public works programs (PWPs) in the Dry Zone. Households with ox-carts were paid higher wages as their contribution to rapid completion of infrastructure was higher. However, if the emphasis of PWPs shifts to providing protection to poor households, this practice may need to change (e.g. better-off households with ox-carts are not encouraged to participate and poor households with no assets are prioritized). Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 9 5. Potential modalities to incorporate social protection schemes in CDD platforms Several social protection programs may be suitable to meet the needs of the rural poor. Labor- intensive public works programs (PWPs) can simultaneously provide the infrastructure communi‐ ties need and generate income for local vulnerable and income-insecure households. Cash and in-kind transfers (e.g. food transfers) can help vulnerable households (e.g. the elderly and those unable to work) meet their needs. Social protection schemes as part of CDD models include those that support individuals and communities manage risk and shocks, protect them from poverty and destitution, help them access services, and build skills and assets for a better future. There are three broad project areas that have been financed by CDD models and that include social protection schemes, as shown in Figure 1: income security, access to social services, and community-based social insurance. Figure 1: Social protection schemes as part of CDD platforms Source: Adapted from Da Silva and Sum (2008). 10 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection A focus on the poorest and most vulnerable along a selection of the simplest schemes can be a good starting point to narrow down options for Myanmar. Annex 2 shows four international ex‐ amples of social protection provision through CDD platforms, in Argentina, India, Indonesia, and Tanzania. These and other models have achieved a wide array of social outcomes and provide important lessons that can be useful for Myanmar. Priority should be given to schemes that capi‐ talize on opportunities to make infrastructure development more pro-poor, support access to ser‐ vices by the poor and vulnerable, and build social cohesion and community resilience. Within these, schemes with relatively simple operational considerations, like those with which Myanmar is familiar or that make identifying beneficiaries easy, can facilitate implementation. Box 2: Public works programs and cash transfers PWPs, also known as workfare or labor-intensive rural works programs, can serve two objectives: cre‐ ation of jobs for needy workers and creation and maintenance of small-scale community infrastructure. These programs provide temporary employment at low wages, mainly to unskilled workers in rural areas. Such temporary employment during the slack season or during crisis will typically contribute to consumption-smoothing and poverty alleviation. Public works can also be used to promote social cohesion; schemes are now present in 94 countries. CTs provide assistance in the form of cash or near- cash instruments (vouchers) to poor and vulnerable households to satisfy consumption needs, allow for more risk-taking in productive activities, and invest in human capital development. While the number of countries with in-kind social assistance programs such as school-feeding remains stable, CTs are becom‐ ing increasingly popular. CTs can be unconditional or conditional, depending on the specific objectives, administrative capacity for monitoring conditions, and supply of education and health services. UCTs or CTs with soft conditions (e.g. encouragement of behavior rather than full enforcement) can be more appropriate in contexts with evolving administrative capacity or with limited availability of services that can constrain compliance with conditions. CCTs are now present in 64 countries, more than double the 27 in 2008. In the past year, new information has become available for 11 countries with UCTs, totaling 130 worldwide. Sources: Fiszbein et al. (2011); Subbarao et al. (2013); Fiszbein et al. (2011); (World Bank, 2015). 5.1 Strengthening the emphasis on pro-poor investments in infrastructure development Myanmar CDD platforms could explore the possibility of delivering basic community infrastruc- ture through labor-intensive PWPs in order to provide a safety net for income and food insecure households.16 PWPs can simultaneously provide the infrastructure communities need and gener‐ ate income for local vulnerable and income-insecure households through labor-intensive practices (see Box 2). An important step to maximize the benefits of PWPs in platforms such as the NCDDP is to ex- plore feasible modifications to guidelines for infrastructure development to prioritize pro-poor infrastructure. Given the public-good nature of assets developed through CDD approaches, addi‐ 16. Information on PWPs in Myanmar and further elaboration of some recommendations on PWPs can be found in the Note on ‘The experience of public works programs in Myanmar’. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 11 tional elements embedded in program design can help make these projects more pro-poor. Op‐ tions of feasible projects can be expanded to facilitate ‘preference targeting’ through assets that benefit the poor more directly in specific contexts (see Box 1). Another potential modification to infrastructure development is to promote labor-intensive ap- proaches that prioritize the poor through community-based targeting.17 This can help maximize the direct benefits (e.g. through wages) from local infrastructure development to the poor in local communities and would be aligned with operational demands of current platforms like the NCDDP where understanding local labor markets is needed. LIFT has implemented PWPs through commu‐ nity-based structures that can provide interesting lessons in light of implementation through gov‐ ernment systems and the need to balance objectives of asset creation and employment genera‐ tion.18 5.2 Incentivizing utilization of social services and improv- ing human development outcomes CDD programs can encourage access to services by giving communities flexibility on how to ad- dress access constraints. For instance, Indonesia’s PNPM Generasi (see Annex 2) gives communi‐ ties options and discretion (with the help of trained facilitators) to choose schemes that can better help households invest in health and education. Schemes chosen include scholarships, uniforms and textbooks, transport costs to schools and health facilities, and nutrition services for children and pregnant women, among others. PNPM Generasi has significantly increased growth monitor‐ ing and school enrollment and attendance, and has significantly decreased malnutrition, with the strongest effects in worse-off areas.19 Several instruments can be considered when designing a menu of options that encourages ac- cess to services by the poor. Cash and in-kind transfers can help vulnerable households in the community (e.g. the elderly and those unable to work) meet their needs. Social services such as immunization, nutrition, and sanitation campaigns as well as legal support for conflict resolution (e.g. protection of migrant workers) can support vulnerable groups in communities (e.g. children and the elderly). Operationally simple options such as unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) for vulnerable groups20 and community-based care can be considered in an initial phase. In addition to supporting infra‐ structure development, CTs can support particularly vulnerable groups such as the poor elderly, 17. See the Note on ‘Reaching the poor and vulnerable in Myanmar’ for more details on how community-based targeting is being implemented in Myanmar. The World Food Programme (WFP) has some experience with this type of beneficiary identification in its asset creation programs. 18. See the Note on ‘The experience of public works programs in Myanmar’ for more information on PWPs in the country. 19. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/07/04/pnpm-generasi-program-final-impact-evaluation-report 20. Information on CTs in Myanmar can be found in the Note on ‘The experience of cash transfers in Myanmar’. 12 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection people with disabilities, and people living with chronic illness. There is a wealth of international examples of community-based care services for vulnerable groups such as older people, people living with disabilities, and female-headed households.21 The Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement has started a pilot program for older people self-help groups, with support from HAI. Linkages with this structure could be established if possible, but working through existing informal arrangements or DP-led community-based initiatives can also be pursued in a first stage. Additional medium-term interventions to facilitate access to social services can pursue both the establishment of linkages with government agencies for service delivery and the contracting of service delivery provision to fill remaining delivery gaps. Models such as the ActionAid one (see Annex 1) that explicitly bring in government officers (mainly from township level) to share infor‐ mation and provide services (ID, health and education campaigns) could be replicated as part of a CDD platform. India’s self-help groups (SHGs) (see Annex 2) build on community mobilization to demand government services, including social protection. When services are unavailable through government agencies, communities could identify alternative providers (e.g. non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and DPs. For instance, adapting models such as World Food Programme (WFP) school-feeding and nutrition programs to be delivered through CDD platforms can benefit food-insecure communities and help promote access to education.22 5.3 Promoting social cohesion and building community re- silience23 Social protection schemes can help respond to post-conflict needs as part of CDD platforms. PWPs can help with reconciliation efforts by including ex-combatants and ethnic minorities in community development efforts. These approaches have brought positive results in countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone.24 Implementing these schemes as part of CDD platforms can help address the need for quick results against a backdrop of weak institutional capacity in post-conflict areas. Other services needed in post-conflict contexts can also be delivered as part of CDD platforms, such as legal services for returning migrants and displaced populations (Strand et al., 2013). Community empowerment can be reinforced by social protection schemes, particularly benefit- ing vulnerable groups. Besides planning process around infrastructure development, schemes for community mobilization through SHGs have been found to have significant positive effects on fe‐ male empowerment in India, even among non-participants (Deininger and Liu, 2009).25 Action‐ Aid’s model (see Annex 1) aims to further empower vulnerable women in the Dry Zone by going 21. See, for example, Voluntary Home Care in Sri Lanka, the Home and Community-Based Care Program in Korea, Grameen Vikas Santhsa in Uttar Pradesh, India, and Hogares Comunitarios in Colombia. 22. See Andrews et al. (2011) for more on school-feeding delivered through CDD platforms in Togo. 23. More information on disaster risk management (DRM) and social protection can be found in the Note on ‘Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar’. 24. See Andrews and Kryeziu (2013) for more information on PWPs and social cohesion. 25. Economic empowerment is measured based on the ability of a woman to set aside money for her own use, go to the market, to the clinic or the community center, visit friends, or work on fields outsides the village, without asking permission from her husband or other males in the family. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 13 beyond economic vulnerabilities to support access to services, community mobilization, and ca‐ pacity-building. Social protection can complement the potential of CDD platforms to build community and household resilience. Schemes such as CTs and PWPs can support household economic recovery in times of crises. They provide a mechanism to deliver cash to households, which can be readily available to support disaster response, enable households to recover faster, and reduce the long- term economic impact of disasters on households and communities. Disaster response has been enhanced and accelerated by the existence of household-level transfers and SHGs in India and Tanzania, where droughts and macroeconomic crises have challenged governments’ response (see Annex 2). In these contexts, existing social protection schemes as part of CDD models have served to channel resources, identify beneficiaries, and ultimately deliver response programs timely and effectively, resulting in less severe impacts on the nutritional status of communities in the case of India (Deininger and Liu, 2009). PWPs can also promote resilience by building hazard- proof infrastructure and by enabling quick response and recovery activities after disasters, such as debris removal and community reconstruction.26 6. Opporunities and challenges for social protection provision as part of CDD platforms CDD platforms bring several advantages to social protection provision in contexts where service delivery systems are still evolving. First, CDD platforms maximize effectiveness by taking advan‐ tage of having first-hand information on the goods and services communities need, as well as on households and groups in need of assistance. This can potentially translate into relevant schemes, targeting efficiency, and program ownership. Second, CDD platforms can help weak local govern‐ ments transition to a more responsive service-delivery approach, as participatory planning and budgeting around social services help local governments get familiar with social protection needs of communities, available mechanisms to respond to these needs, and their potential roles in de‐ livering those services. Lastly, the existence of strong community-based mechanisms for risk man‐ agement can support the deployment of central-level responses to crises (Deninger and Liu, 2009).27 However, measures to mitigate risks associated with weak institutional capacity and elite cap- ture are needed. Elite capture and the creation of structures parallel to local governments are both common risks in CDD approaches, and Myanmar is no exception. Elite capture can be a sig‐ nificant risk for social protection delivery since schemes intended to reach the poor and vulnera‐ 26. Additional examples can be found in the Note on ‘Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar’. For example, following the Pakistan earthquake, the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund was able to set up disaster relief centers and provide support in 2,000 communities within one day and USD 220 million in CTs was delivered to households. Indonesia’s PNPM Mandiri CDD program was used to provide UCTs to the poorest and most affected households as part of response and recovery efforts after the 2004 tsunami in Aceh and other disaster events between 2005 and 2010. The CDD program accelerated commu‐ nity economic recovery with funds spent locally to purchase replacement goods. It also provided employment opportunities by clearing rubble and rebuilding community infrastructure through cash for work programs. 27. See also the Note on ‘Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar’. 14 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection ble can fail to do so if the poor are excluded from decision-making processes in the first place. CDD platforms can also create parallel structures to those of local governments, which can undermine the sustainability and scalability of schemes, particularly if local government stakeholders are not sufficiently involved in program activities. Despite the privileged information communities pos‐ sess, clear program guidelines and sufficient community facilitation of decision-making processes are needed for schemes to be able to reach target groups and strengthen, rather than replace, government structures in the process. 7. Recommendations: Social protection a short-term option for expansion of CDD platforms Sustainable and government-led PWPs and CTs can be powerful instruments for social protec- tion and poverty reduction in Myanmar; exploring them through a CDD platform can be the most appropriate vehicle to promote a transition towards government-led social protection provision. CDD platforms can address some of the key outstanding questions regarding imple‐ mentation of PWPs and CTs in Myanmar: how to balance objectives of asset creation and employ‐ ment generation in PWP implementation and how to test household-based CTs with relatively simple design and implementation arrangements, in order to complement efforts on community development. Basic care for vulnerable groups could be part of a more comprehensive menu of social protection schemes, in addition to cash-based interventions. From this perspective, the fol‐ lowing can be feasible social protection options to explore operationally in Myanmar in a first stage. • Strengthening the emphasis on pro-poor investments and resilience-building in infrastruc- ture development: Features of PWPs such as labor-intensive approaches and encouraging the participation of the poor through community-based targeting can be promoted in order to provide a safety net for income- and food-insecure households. Pro-poor infrastructure can be encouraged through active participation of poor households in community decision-making process and a pro-poor menu of projects (preference targeting). Incorporating these features can also support community resilience-building, provide a mechanism to channel resources for household support in time of crises, and become a vehicle to further support social cohe‐ sion in post-conflict contexts. • Expanding the menu of options to include selected social protection interventions: Interven‐ tions beyond infrastructure development can also help address a wider set of issues that the poor face, such as access to social services. Examples could include: o UCTs for vulnerable groups: In addition to supporting infrastructure development, CTs can support particularly vulnerable groups such as the poor elderly, people with disabilities, and people living with chronic illness. o Community-based care for vulnerable groups: Linkages with existing informal arrange‐ ments and SHGs can help identify the services vulnerable groups most need in communi‐ ties. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 15 As CDD platforms stand today in Myanmar, the NCDDP appears technically more viable to test social protection schemes in the short term than the MSY or any DP-led platform. First, the prin‐ ciple of community grants – as opposed to loans – that underpins the program allows for explora‐ tion of a wider range of social protection schemes and takes the pressure off of choosing only profitable options. Second, enhancing the pro-poor focus of the local infrastructure created through the NCDDP requires relatively minor adjustments to the existing model, making it simpler to operationalize, at least in communities that have already experienced the first implementation cycle. Third, components of the NCDDP such as community facilitation, administrative support, emergency response mechanisms, and institutional capacity development can facilitate the im‐ plementation of social protection implementation functions – such as beneficiary identification and payments – in low-capacity settings while minimizing the risk of developing parallel structures that undermine sustainability or exacerbating elite capture. The NCDDP has also served as a viable platform to pool resources from DPs, decreasing the risk of fragmentation. Lastly, the time envis‐ aged for project implementation (until 2021) allows enough space to test the effectiveness of de‐ livering social protection schemes through CDD platforms in Myanmar and provide government with lessons for an eventual scale up, if effective. DPs involved in social protection provision could support government in gathering lessons from their implementation experience and providing technical advice in particular stages of program design and implementation.28 DPs like LIFT and its partner NGOs have a wealth of experience in implementing community-based models in Myanmar. Advising design phases and supporting gov‐ ernment with particular functions of service delivery such as community mobilization and com‐ munication can contribute to strengthening government’s capacity to implement social protection programs. 28. Additional information on potential roles of DPs in specific delivery functions of social protection provision can be found in the Note on ‘Note on ‘Institutional landscape for implementation and financing of social protection programs’. 16 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection References Andrews, C. and Kryeziu, A. (2013) ‘Public Works and the Jobs Agenda: Pathways for Social Cohe‐ sion?’ Background Paper for the World Development Report 2013. Andrews, C., Galliano, E., Turk, C., and Zampaglione, G. (2011) ‘Social Safety Nets in Fragile States: A Community-Based School Feeding Program in Togo’. Social Protection and Labor, SP Discussion Paper 1117. Washington, DC: World Bank. Berra, C. (2010) ‘Temporary Employment: Lessons Learned’. PowerPoint presentation. Buenos Ai‐ res: Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security. Bhattamishra, R. and Barrett, C.B. (2008) ‘Community-Based Risk Management Arrangements: An Overview and Implications for Social Fund Programs’. Social Protection and Labor, SP Discussion Paper 0830. Washington, DC: World Bank. Da Silva, S. and Sum, J.W. (2008) ‘Social Funds as an Instrument of Social Protection: An Analysis of Lending Trends’. Social Protection and Labor, SP Discussion Paper 0809. Washington, DC: World Bank. Deininger K. and Liu, Y. (2009) ‘Economic and Social Impacts of Self-Help Groups in India’. Policy Research Working Paper 4884. Washington, DC: Development Research Group Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team, World Bank. Fiszbein, A., Schady, N. et al. (2011) ‘Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Past and Present Pov‐ erty’. Washington, DC: World Bank. GoM (Government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar) (2014) ‘National Community Driven Development Project: Operations Manual’. Naypyidaw: GoM. MLFRD (Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development) (2014a) ‘Evergreen Village Devel‐ opment Project Operations Manual’. Naypyidaw: MLFRD. MLFRD (Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development) (2014b) ‘Evergreen Village Devel‐ opment Project Document’. 30 April. Naypyidaw: MLFRD. MLFRD (Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development) and World Bank (2014) ‘Myan‐ mar National Community Driven Development Project: Helping Communities Help Themselves’. Naypyidaw: MLFRD and World Bank. Strand, A., Toje, H., Jerve, A.M., and Samset, I. (2003) ‘Community Driven Development in Con‐ texts of Conflict’. Report for ESSD, World Bank. Subbarao, K., del Ninno, C., Andrews, C., and Rodríguez-Alas, C. (2013) ‘Public Works as a Safety Net: Design, Evidence and Implementation’. Washington, DC: World Bank. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 17 Van Domelen, J. (2007) ‘Reaching the Poor
and Vulnerable:
Targeting Strategies for Social Funds and Other Community-Driven Programs’. Social Protection and Labor, SP Discussion Paper 0711. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (1998) ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of US$284 Million to the Argentine Republic for a Third Social Protection Project (Trabajar Program). Buenos Aires: World Bank. World Bank (2009) ‘Additional Financing for Tanzania Second Social Action Fund (TASAF II)’. Project Information Document. Dar es Salaam: World Bank. World Bank (2012a) ‘PNPM Generasi Final Evaluation Report’. Jakarta: World Bank. World Bank (2012b) ‘Implementation Completion and Results Report on a Credit in the Amount of XDR 219.60 Million (US$333.87 Million Equivalent) to the Republic of India for an Andhra Pradesh Rural Poverty Reduction Project’. New Delhi: World Bank. World Bank (2013) ‘Implementation Status & Results: 
Tanzania Second Social Action Fund (P085786)’. Dar es Salaam: World Bank. World Bank (2015) ‘The State of Social Safety Nets’. Washington, DC: World Bank. 18 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Annex 1: Examples social protection schemes delivered through community-based approaches in Mynmar HAI – LIFT-supported ActionAid – LIFT-supported* IOM Name Reducing Economic Vulner‐ Socio Economic Development Village Health Funding Mecha‐ ability through an Equitable Network for Regional Develop‐ nism (2010-2013) Inclusive Approach to Liveli‐ ment (2013-2016) hood (2011-2014) Main objective Improve livelihoods and Contribute to social and Increase access to maternal reduce vulnerability of food- economic development of and child health services by insecure households in Dry vulnerable families in Magwe communities affected by Zone region Cyclone Nargis (2008) Description/ Community-based transfers to Provision of cash-for-training Three funds per village: a) emphasis establish a revolving fund to and facilitating access to revolving fund to finance finance community develop‐ services through a referral sys‐ health emergencies in vil‐ ment activities. Social protec- tem for poor and vulnerable lages by means of loans; tion components (analyzed women. Promotion of women b) non-contributory health subsequently): livelihood support groups through soft emergency referral fund in-kind transfers for poor loans after training for pregnant women and and vulnerable households. young children and subsidies Cash and in-kind assistance to health workers to reach to vulnerable people (elderly, remote areas (financed by disabled, children) interests from revolving fund) (social protection component analyzed subsequently); and c) development fund (financed by interests from revolving fund) Geographical scope 15 villages in Ma Hlaing town‐ 40 villages in Myaing and 60 villages in Myawlamyine‐ ship (Mandalay region) and 15 Pakokku townships, Magwe gyun township (Ayeyarwaddy villages in Ayadaw township region region) (Sagaing region) Target population Entire villages for develop‐ 2,500 poor and vulnerable Pregnant women and children ment activities. Poor and women with children particularly poor and in hard‐ vulnerable households for to‐reach areas livelihood transfers Targeting criteria • Geographic: not clear • Geographic: villages with • Geographic: township af‐ • Categorical: elderly, high levels of poverty, exist‐ fected by Cyclone Nargis disabled, women-headed ing LIFT–Adventist Develop‐ • Categorical: pregnant households ment and Relief Agency women and children support such as ‘trained • Poverty: use of Economic youth fellows’ and Village Vulnerable Score (3 levels Development Committees of poverty beneficiaries (VDCs), good relations with belong to Level 1), verified government authorities, by communities potential for commercial‐ ization of goods in Bagan touristic area • Categorical: poor and vulnerable women with children • Poverty: as determined by VDCs Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 19 HAI – LIFT-supported ActionAid – LIFT-supported* IOM No. of beneficiaries Between 50% and 75% of vil‐ 200 women so far About 300,000 people had lagers are categorized as poor access to these funds and benefit from transfers Benefit levels In-kind provision of inputs: USD 30/month/trainee About USD 8 to subsidize cash equivalent of USD 125 transport costs per vulnerable household to start livelihood activities Frequency of payments One time only Monthly for 3-4 months while As needed training Conditions Repayment of 25% of transfer Attending training Access health service after 9 months Budget About MMK 30 million per - - village fund (loan) Role of government in imple- • Township: coordination Over 50 state service provid‐ Implementation has been mentation with project implementa‐ ers are part of the referral handed over to local stake‐ tion teams and township network (e.g. GAD, MOE, Min‐ holders but there is no clarity authorities for service istry of Immigration, NATALA, yet on roles of government provision MOH, MRRSW, Ministry of • Village: none. Village ad‐ Commerce, etc.) ministrators excluded from project-established VDCs to ensure vulnerable groups are part of the VDCs Impact - - An evaluation was done on fund status, not on outcomes on beneficiaries. Findings: a) funds have disappeared in some villages; b) meetings and activities regarding fund man‐ agement are more frequent than those on health-related activities (e.g. referrals) although villages where funds still exist carry out more refer‐ ral activities than those where funds no longer exist; c) refer‐ ral fund could extend to other emergencies if contribution to this fund is established Note : * Although not exactly a CDD model, this approach illustrates how linkages with government structures can be encouraged through non-government-implemented programs. 20 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Annex 2: International examples off social protection delivery through CDD platforms Tanzania – Tanzania So- Indonesia – PNPM India – Districts Poverty Argentina – Trabajar cial Action Fund (TASAF) Generasi Initiatives Project (DPIP) (Phases I, II, III; 1997- (Phase II, 2004-2013) (2000-2003), and Rural 2001) Poverty Reduction Project (RPIP) (2003-2011) Main objective Improve access of Address three lagging Socioeconomic empower‐ Improve living standards beneficiary households Millennium Develop‐ ment of women by promot‐ of communities through to enhanced socioeco‐ ment Goals: Maternal ing and strengthening SHGs execution of infrastruc‐ nomic services and Health, Child Health, ture projects with high income-generating op‐ and Universal Educa‐ social value that provide portunities tion work to unemployed workers Budget USD 176 million (Nation‐ USD 44 million from DPIP: USD 110 million; Phase II: USD 1,200 al Village Fund (NVF)) government (2012) RPRP: USD 150 million million plus USD 28 million Phase II: USD 1,077 from DPs for expansion million (2011-2012) Description and The NVF provides a Incentivized com‐ DPIP: existing SHGs were en‐ Implementation of PWPs social protection mechanism that allows munity block grant couraged to convert to the by local governments, emphasis local and village govern‐ program that builds program-promoted SHGs, NGOs and civil society. ments to provide social on the architecture which means a) inclusion of Average project cost protection schemes of government’s CDD poor and vulnerable women USD 100,000, employing demanded by commu‐ program, the National (e.g. from excluded castes) about 20 workers. Labor nities. These schemes Community Empower‐ previously excluded from intensity of 60%. Project include NVF-financed ment Program in Rural SHGs); b) viable economic duration 4.5 months. A PWPs and CTS, grants Areas (PNPM Rural). opportunities identified by positive menu of options for income-generating The program uses a community facilitators; c) is provided. Types of activities, and improved facilitated commu‐ savings and loans for busi‐ projects include potable service delivery and nity decision-making ness development; d) food water, sewerage, latrines, infrastructure process to allocate transfers under the public housing, roads, urban block grant funds to distribution scheme; e) in- works, irrigation, schools, target 12 health and kind credit for food; and f) health centers, and other education indicators. insurance community social infra‐ Communities work RPRP: similar to DPIP but structure. A pilot within with facilitators and with greater emphasis on Phase III encouraged health and education the poorest and aiming at pro-poor investments service providers to convergence with govern‐ by giving additional improve access to ment schemes and institu‐ resources for non-wage and use of health and tional structures costs. These projects education services. satisfied the following Average block grants criteria: a) located in one total approximately of the 300 municipali‐ USD 12,000 village/ ties in which the share year. Subsequent fund‐ of the population with ing is partly informed unsatisfied basic needs by performance on the is over 40%; b) fall into 12 indicators the category of either potable water or social infrastructure (includ‐ ing education, health, and sanitary facilities for those and other com‐ munity infrastructure); and c) cost no more than USD 35,000 Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 21 Tanzania – Tanzania Indonesia – PNPM India – Districts Pov- Argentina – Trabajar Social Action Fund Generasi erty Initiatives Project (Phases I, II, III; 1997- (TASAF) (Phase II, 2004- (DPIP) (2000-2003), 2001) 2013) and Rural Poverty Re- duction Project (RPIP) (2003-2011) Geographical scope All of Tanzania’s 11,000 8 provinces, 290 DPIP covers six poorest National program; 85% villages (Phase I tar‐ kecamatan, and 2,892 districts in Andhra of municipalities geted 40 poor villages) villages Pradesh RPRP aimed to cover the remaining districts of the state Target Population Poor households in Communities with poor Women, particularly Poor unemployed and food-insecure and/ results on maternal and poor, vulnerable, and unskilled over 18 years or remote communi‐ child health and educa‐ previously excluded old, in poor areas ties, vulnerable groups tion. Vulnerable groups from SHGs (people living with HIV/ most benefiting from AIDS or disabilities, the program are poor orphans, elderly) women and children Targeting criteria Rural villages prepare Geographical: prov‐ • Geographic: Andhra Geographic: addi‐ project proposal, for inces of West Java, East Pradesh (6 poorest tional incentives for which funding is allocat‐ Java, North Sulawesi, districts initially) investments in poorest ed based on population Gorontalo, East Nusa • Categorical: women areas (pilot Phase III). and poverty data Tenggara, West Nusa Self-targeting through Tenggara, Maluku, • Means-testing: low wage. Additional and West Sulawesi to government’s ‘below pro-poor focus through target high levels of poverty line’ Census financing pro-poor malnutrition and severe information infrastructure malnutrition • Community-based: participatory iden‐ tification of poor complemented quantitative means- testing indicators with criteria such as social exclusion and vulnerability No. of beneficiaries 20.2 million, 54% 3,630,818 (approxi‐ 11.3 million households 700,000 jobs created. women mately 1,835,100 of mobilized into 1 million 26,453 projects com‐ whom are women) SHGs pleted (72% of those initiated) Role of government in Village governments In addition to the Line agencies are using Ministry of Labor, implementation support implementa‐ Ministry of National Village Organizations Employment and tion at local level and Development Planning, (VOs) (associations of Social Security manages district-level officers the Coordinating Minis‐ SHGs at village level) program through its compile and submit try for People’s Welfare, as effective service central, regional, and proposals. A central of‐ and the Ministry of delivery agents. VOs are provincial structures: fice approves proposals Finance entry points for govern‐ preparation of positive and disburses funding ment programs such list of projects, al‐ as PWPs (Mahatma location of provincial Gandhi National Rural resources based on Employment Guarantee poverty, unemployment Scheme, food support) and implementation performance data. Municipalities and local organizations can propose subprojects to be financed 22 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Tanzania – Tanzania Indonesia – PNPM India – Districts Pov- Argentina – Trabajar Social Action Fund Generasi erty Initiatives Project (Phases I, II, III; (TASAF) (Phase II, (DPIP) (2000-2003), 1997-2001) 2004-2013) and Rural Poverty Re- duction Project (RPIP) (2003-2011) Impact • 22,850,497 person- Significantly increased DPIP: greater par‐ Trabajar II and III days of temporary growth monitoring ticipation of women successfully reached employment and school enrollment in political activities of the poor: 85% of ben‐ provided by PWP, and attendance, and communities; economic eficiaries fell into the increased meals significantly decreased empowerment; higher bottom 20% of income per day, increase in malnutrition, with consumption and bet‐ distribution. Forgone household assets strongest effects in ter nutritional status income was, however, such as poultry, worse-off areas: en‐ among members of considerable (about goats, and pigs, and abled over 1.6 million SHGs half of what was earned increased household women and children RPRP: increased income through the program). consumption to receive nutrition and asset accumula‐ Female participation • Flexible design al‐ counseling and support; tion for poor member was low (15%) though lowed rapid scale-up assisted over 1 million households, poverty without gender dispari‐ to respond to 2008- children under the age reduction, livelihood ties in income. Satisfac‐ 2010 financial, fuel, of 5 to obtain Vitamin A diversification, higher tion with infrastructure and food crises to supplements; ensured school enrollment projects was high reach the vulnerable over 770,000 pregnant among girls poor with PWPs, women received iron platform to pilot the supplements; helped community-based over 365,000 children conditional CT that receive immuniza‐ was the foundation tions; eliminated over (along with TASAF’s 185,000 cases of lessons) of Tanzania’s underweight children; Social Safety Net provided training and Program launched in operational support to 2012 over 59,000 commu‐ nity health volunteers; enabled 556,000 poor primary and junior secondary students to obtain textbooks; provided assistance to approximately 382,000 poor primary and junior secondary students in the form of scholar‐ ships, transportation money, and uniforms; and engaged women in basic health and educa‐ tion service planning and decision-making processes – on average 67% of participants in program socialization, planning, and monitor‐ ing meetings were women Source: Tanzania – World Bank (2009, 2013); Indonesia – World Bank (2012a); India – Deininger and Liu (2009), World Bank (2012b); Argentina – Berra (2010), World Bank (1998) Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 23 24 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection 'Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar' is the ninth note in the series Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: the Role of Social Protection. All notes are available at www.worldbank.org/myanmar. Myanmar Social Protection Notes Series The note – ‘Building resilience, equity, and opportunity in Myanmar: The role of social protection’ – provides an overview of the technical notes in the se‐ ries. These include: 1. Risks and vulnerabilities along the lifecycle: Role for social protection in Myanmar 2. Framework for the development of social protection systems: Lessons from international experience 3. Inventory of social protection programs in Myanmar 4. The experience of public works programs in Myanmar: Lessons from a social protection and poverty reduction perspective 5. The experience of cash transfers in Myanmar: Lessons from a social protection and poverty reduction perspective 6. Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 7. Strengthening social security provision in Myanmar 8. Institutional landscape for implementation and financing of social protection programs: Towards effective service delivery in Myanmar 9. Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key considerations for Myanmar 10. Reaching the poor and vulnerable: Key considerations in designing targeting systems 11. Reaching the poor and vulnerable in Myanmar: Lessons from a social protection and poverty reduction perspective 12. Developing scalable and transparent benefit payment systems in Myanmar World Bank Office Yangon 57 Pyay Road, Corner of Shwe Hinthar Road, 6 1/2 Mile, Hlaing Township, Yangon Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Tel: +95 1 654824 www.worldbank.org/myanmar www.facebook.com/WorldBankMyanmar