97958 NOTE 1 6 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar1 Social protection can help build people’s social and eco- nomic resilience against disasters in Myanmar. Regular cash trans- fers, including public works programs, can help smooth consump- tion, build and maintain assets, and develop human capital to better cope with natural hazards. Disaster risk management (DRM) sys- tems can be linked to social protection programs to trigger a safety net response in times of emergencies. Community-driven develop- ment (CDD) programs could provide a useful platform for social pro- tection programming to respond to disasters and build long term resilience in Myanmar. 1. This Note has been prepared by Inge Stokkel (World Bank) with comments from Puja Vasudeva Dutta, Mariana Infante-Villarroel and Jehan Arulpragasam (World Bank) and from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the World Food Programme (WFP). 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 assess- ment; 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 portection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 3 1. Background Myanmar suffers from disaster losses every year caused by a range of hazards that have high immediate and long-lasting impacts on people, livelihoods, the local and national economy, and the government budget. Its coastal regions are exposed to cyclones, storm surges, and tsunamis, while major parts of the country are at risk from earthquakes and fires. Rainfall-induced flooding is a recurring event across the country, and some parts of the country are exposed to landslides and droughts (GoM, 2012a).2 In the past 25 years, Myanmar has suffered 32 disaster events (seis- mic activity, epidemic, flood, landslides, and storms) affecting more than 4 million people and causing USD 4.7 billion in damages.3 Cyclone Nargis was the worst natural disaster in the history of Myanmar, generating a total loss of 21 percent of the country's 2007 gross domestic product (GDP) (ASEAN, 2008). Annual expected losses are approximately USD 184.8 million, equivalent to 0.9 percent of the country’s GDP in 2008. The government spends USD 10-20 million on road re- habilitation after floods and landslides every year.4 Disasters disproportionately affect the poor (particularly women, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, migrants, and marginalized groups). These groups often live in places more ex- posed to hazard risks, partly because of environmental degradation from over exploitation of land, and have less ability to cope with and recover from disasters. Rural households with higher in- comes have a higher ability to diversify livelihood activities to reduce risks, while informal safety nets on which the poor depend (such as borrowing food) become stretched when shocks affect the whole community. Environmental degradation and recurrent disasters exacerbate people’s vulnerability. Experiences in Cyclone Nargis demonstrate that pre-existing environmental degra- dation in the Ayeyarwaddy Delta in turn led to increased vulnerability to disasters. The cyclone resulted in further environmental damage and increased exposure to flooding owing to erosion and destroyed embankments, jeopardizing sustainable livelihoods. Nargis severely damaged the ability of communities to recover on their own; they lost their productive assets, which further exacerbated problems such as malnutrition and food insecurity, keeping them in a cycle of pov- erty (UNEP, 2009). Recovery since Nargis has been slow and investments in long-term develop- ment activities towards rebuilding livelihoods and resilience have been insufficient. Cash transfer (CT) programs, implemented by development partners and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as part of the response, were well received but were only for a short duration (World Bank, 2014). With a focus on social assistance, this Note investigates the role social protection can play in increasing the capacity of poor and vulnerable households to cope with and reduce hazard risk in Myanmar and in developing resilient households and communities. This Note is timely as it can more explicitly explore the conceptual links between social protection and disaster risk man- agement (DRM) described in the 2014 Myanmar Social Protection Strategic Plan (SPSP) as well as providing input into the current development of the Rural Development Strategic Framework (RDSF) implementation plan and the National Disaster Management (NDM) Law’s rules and regu- lations. 2. See Annex 1 for hazard risks in different geographical areas of Myanmar. 3. Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT): http://www.emdat.be 4. World Bank calculations, Disaster Risk Reduction Mission, 2014. 4 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection 2. Overview: the role of social protection in disaster risk management Social protection has an important role to play in DRM. Hazards become disasters when people have limited ability to withstand and cope, with poverty a lead cause. DRM is a systematic pro- cess of using legal and policy frameworks and skills and capacities to design and implement strate- gies and policies to reduce the adverse impacts of natural hazards and the possibility of disaster. This includes disaster risk reduction (DRR) and increasing household and community resilience, as well as disaster preparedness, response, and recovery practices.5 Social protection comprises policies, programs, and delivery systems that help individuals and societies manage risk and volatility and protect them from poverty and destitution, through instruments that improve resilience, equity, and opportunity.6 It offers a holistic approach to di- sasters that can help break the negative cycle of impact in the short, medium, and long term. So- cial protection can complement efforts to develop long-term household economic and social resil- ience, reduce disaster risk, and help households cope with and recover from disasters (see Figure 1). By reducing vulnerability, it can also contribute to reducing hazard impacts on the local and national economy. Figure 1: Disaster risk cycle and the role of social protection Source: Developed by Mariana Infante-Villarroel and Inge Stokkel, derived from content in Burton (2012). 5. Adapted from the DRM definitions of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (http://www.unisdr.org/we/ inform/terminology) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/ SREX-Annex_Glossary.pdf). 6. From World Bank definition of social protection (World Bank, 2012a). Social portection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 5 3. Lessons from international experience The international experiences discussed here demonstrate that building social protection pro- grams and delivery mechanisms could help Myanmar better protect its people against disasters (through risk reduction, preparedness and rapid response) and build long-term social and eco- nomic resilience. This can be achieved by building on existing platforms (such as CDD) and through effective coordination between the different government stakeholders. 3.1 Policy, coordination, and financing The program examples in the next section (‘Social protection programs to assist in DRM’) dem- onstrate that coordination between the social protection and DRM sectors can help reduce the impact of natural hazards. Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) is linked to DRM sys- tems such as hazard risk mapping and early warning systems (EWSs), which has helped with early response and reduced, even avoided, disaster losses. In Indonesia, the existing PNPM network of facilitators and volunteers has enabled local governments to quickly assess community needs and rehabilitate infrastructure. In the Philippines, the existing network of implementers of the Panta- wid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (Pantawid Pamilya) conditional cash transfer (CCT) program and coordination systems between all levels of government have enabled quick response. Social protection programs can provide a common platform for pooling development partner (DP) funds to respond to disaster. This is demonstrated by PSNP, where the Risk Financing Mech- anism (RFM) ensured financial commitments from donors were put in place before any crises oc- curred. In 2008, in response to increasing food prices and the failure of the belg rains, the govern- ment used the RFM to provide additional transfers to 4.43 million existing PSNP beneficiaries and 1.5 million individuals who had not previously participated but who has been negatively affected by the crisis. The RFM was again used in 2009 to provide additional transfers to 6.4 million PSNP participants (World Bank, 2012b). In the Philippines, the government used Pantawid Pamilya to channel donor funding for emergency response efforts when Cyclone Haiyan hit. 3.2 Social protection programs to assist in DRM Social transfer programs can provide multi-year and predictable assistance that can help people accumulate assets to buffer disaster losses and can reduce the long-term economic impact of disasters. Ethiopia’s PSNP is an example of how an ad hoc emergency response can be transformed into a comprehensive, sustainable, and scalable social protection and DRM program that is closely linked to an EWS. The reforms have helped reduce response time from eight to two months and reduced the need for emergency response and human losses. 6 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection The PSNP consists of cash-for-work projects to improve environmental assets (60 percent of projects in soil and water conservation); unconditional food/cash transfers for the poorest 10 percent; an insurance-for-work scheme in a particularly disaster-prone area; a contingency bud- get to respond to sudden emergency needs; and the RFM for use when the contingency fund is insufficient. PSNP provides long-term support to chronically food-insecure rural households to help them cope with shocks, reduce disaster risk through asset creation and rehabilitation of their natural environment, and build household resilience. The financing mechanisms allow the pro- gram to scale up to also provide assistance to risk-prone households when necessary. PSNP’s long- term support has helped reverse the trend of deteriorating livelihoods despite climatic shocks. Timely and predictable assistance has enabled households to manage risk more effectively and avoid negative coping strategies and food insecurity. Box 1: Why CDD platforms are useful in disasters a. Social funds operate at community level and can respond to local needs, use local knowledge, and be scaled up as early response measures against hazard. b. Social funds are decentralized, which makes them flexible to adapt programs to meet local needs (including target group and transfer size). c. Social funds have a focus on community capacity-building, which is essential for building effective management of and response to natural hazards. d. They can respond immediately to shock or provide longer-term support, hence complementing the need to bridge the short-medium-long-term approach to disaster management that is fre- quently absent. e. Monitoring and evaluation systems are built into social funds. Source: Pelham et al. (2006). In other countries also, cash transfers are increasingly being used as part of disaster responses. In the Philippines, the government with donor assistance scaled up its existing Pantawid Pamilya CCT program and used the same delivery mechanisms to channel food and cash transfers to af- fected household in the program and to identify households for cash-for-work (CFW) and cash-for- asset-rebuilding. The program was modified to make unconditional transfers available to help support disaster-affected families. In Pakistan, the government established a new CT program when the 2010 floods affected one- third of the country and nearly 10 percent of the population. The Floods Emergency CT Program provided unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) to flood-affected families to promote early recovery and to jump-start the economy. Social protection instruments for DRM and response have also been used as part of community- driven development (CDD) programs.7 As they are already established in government systems, CDD programs can rapidly access and disburse resources at scale to affected areas, even when fi- nanced externally by donors (Pelham, 2006). For example, following the Pakistan earthquake, the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund was able to set up disaster relief centers and provide support in 7. See Note on ‘Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms: International experience and key con- siderations for Myanmar’ for further information on the opportunities and constraints of social protection implementation through CDD. Social portection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 7 2,000 communities within one day, and USD 220 million in CTs was delivered to households (ibid.).8 Indonesia’s PNPMMandiri CDD program was used to provide UCTs to the poorest and most-affect- ed 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 community economic re- covery, with funds spent locally to purchase replacement goods. It also provided employment opportunities through clearing rubble and rebuilding community infrastructure in CFW programs9 (Annex 3 presents more information on PNPM). All examples discussed above included a CFW component. CFW is a common social protection instrument used for DRR and recovery. Cash/food-for-work (C/FFW) programs help build and diversify assets and livelihoods by providing an income during the lean season. The assets built can help reduce disaster risk.10 A review of all cash responses following the 2004 tsunami showed there were significant benefits from CFW projects for the rehabilitation of communities as well as for psychosocial recovery. Cash was used for food and non-food needs but also for paying off debts and livelihood recovery. CFW projects did not have an inflationary effect on local food prices and labor markets were generally not disrupted. CFW was found to have a positive impact on tradi- tional systems of community support. A weakness inherent in the design of CFW projects is that they exclude households with little or no labor capacity; complementary support for labor-poor households has been provided in some contexts (e.g. Ethiopia’s PSNP) (Adams, 2007). 3.3 Delivery systems The examples above demonstrate that having basic social protection systems in place before disaster strikes can reduce emergency response time and disaster losses. Existing delivery mech- anisms can help scale up (Ethiopia, Philippines) or introduce new programs (Pakistan, Indonesia). Identification and payment systems Existing identification and payment mechanisms help reach many people quickly when disaster strikes. In the Philippines, the database of the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR) was used to disburse cash and food quickly and helped with identifying households that could be enrolled for a range of rehabilitation programs, such as CFW and cash- for-asset-rebuilding. In Pakistan, it was possible to disburse cash quickly (with 97 percent of house- holds able to withdraw cash within 48 hours). There were sufficient human resources on the ground and a national poverty registry and a debit card payment system were already in place. 8. Further information on regional use of social funds is available at the World Bank:http://go.worldbank.org/HBZ7191990 9. Other disasters included the North Sumatra and Aceh earthquake in March 2005, the Java earthquake in May 2006, the Java tsu- nami in July 2006; and the Mount Merapi eruption in October 2010 (ADB, n.d.). 10. Hazard-proof infrastructure could include strengthening embankments, roads, bridges, or gullies, but also health clinics or class- rooms. Land conservation and rehabilitation work could include tree planting (or mangrove planting to protect coastal areas), bunds, area catchments, and small irrigation. 8 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Targeting In the aftermath of a disaster, poor and non-poor households require assistance. A risk is that many non-poor but risk-prone households are not included in often poverty-targeted transfer programs.11 Reaching all affected households can be achieved by scaling up existing programs to cover all affected households. The PSNP demonstrates that, with appropriate, pre-committed fi- nancing models in place, it is possible to scale up to also include risk-prone households. PNPM in Indonesia raised the grant ceilings and allocated more funding to affected communities, including for UCTs to the poorest and most affected households. New villages entered the program as they were also affected by the tsunami. In the Philippines, Pantawid Pamilya was expanded to include disaster-affected households that were not previously included. Programs were scaled down again and became more targeted to the poorest and most affected households in the recovery phase. Where programs are not yet in place, systems can be developed. As demonstrated by the Paki- stan program, no existing mechanism was in place to reach flood-affected households. In the first phase, households were geographically targeted; in the second, the program was scaled down and targeted to households based on a housing damage indicator. The beneficiary list was then checked against the national poverty database to exclude the well-off (Johnson, 2012). System flexibility Flexibility is crucial for effective disaster response through social protection programs. In Ethio- pia’s PSNP, this flexibility to quickly expand and contract its program is already built in, with con- tingency plans in place. PNPM modified its operations manual to accelerate planning and widen the menu of projects to respond to emergency.12 The usual participatory social analysis approach also allowed for faster damage and loss assessments. Coordination and administration systems were strengthened through additional staffing to handle the scaling-up of operations. 4. Current SP and DRM policy and program initiatives in Myanmar 4.1 Policy, coordination, and financing DRM and social protection legal and policy framework Myanmar has taken serious steps towards reducing the impact of natural hazards, including through the development of legal and policy frameworks. With the government’s responsibility to protect its people there is an increasing acknowledgement that social protection can play a role in DRM as part of long-term development programs. Table 1 summarizes social protection and DRM linkages in relevant government documents. Building resilience and long-term protection against natural hazards is a common theme that provides opportunities for integrating social pro- tection instruments in DRM activities and vice versa. 11. In many low- and middle-income countries, the poverty line is set low to reduce the cost of poverty reduction programmes. 12. The declaration of a state of emergency now triggers these new procedures. Social portection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 9 Table 1: Social protection references and linkages in DRM legal and policy frameworks Legal/policy framework Social protection–DRM linkages Integrating social protection in DRM NDM Law (2013) • One objective is to ‘provide health, The Law does not specify how long-term education, social and livelihood pro- risk should be reduced and resilience grams in order to bring about better built, nor how vulnerable groups should living conditions for disaster victims’ be prioritized. Rules and regulations are • Cash assistance is mentioned as one in development, and this is an opportu- of the potential rehabilitation and nity to include a more coherent strategy reconstruction activities of piloting relevant social protection pro- grams linked to using available delivery • It calls for measures to provide platforms (such as CDD) long-term protection against natural disasters • Priority should be given to protect children, older people, people with disabilities and women (especially pregnant women and mothers) Myanmar Action Plan for Disaster Risk • The objective is to make Myanmar MAPDRR will be updated in 2015, fol- Reduction safer and more resilient against natural lowing endorsement of the Sendai global (MAPDRR) hazards, in order to protect lives, liveli- framework for DRR. This also provides hoods, and developmental gains, in opportunities to include social protection line with the global Hyogo Framework investments. This could include PWPs to for Action (HFA) and the Association build hazard-resilient infrastructure or of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) a sustainable CT program that increases Agreement on Disaster Management human development and livelihood and Emergency Response (AADMER) diversification • The plan outlines a range of interven- tions and includes the provision of public works programs (PWPs) to in- crease livelihoods in vulnerable areas and to strengthen the preparedness and resilience of communities Myanmar National Adaptation Program • It identifies priority activities for PWPs, long-term CTs to help promote of Action (NAPA) Myanmar to adapt to climate change livelihood diversification impacts by building/enhancing resilience of vulnerable communities. These activities focus on key climate infrastructure and livelihood diversifi- cation RDSF • One of its missions is the mitigation The implementation plan could detail of natural disasters and creation of how social protection instruments could resilient communities assist in building disaster resilience. An • It mentions the role of social protec- opportunity could be to include social tion in reducing socio-political and protection measures in the Department ecological risks and livelihood vulner- of Rural Development’s (DRD’s) CDD ability program • It calls for poverty reduction measures, effective EWSs, skills development training, and community savings and insurance schemes In December 2014 the government endorsed which complements the DRM and rural develop- ment policies in building resilience against shocks by addressing the social and economic vulner- abilities of the poor and vulnerable. Myanmar's vision for social protection is of an inclusive, eq- uitable, and sustainable system. It aims to improve ‘livelihoods of poor families and communities before disasters arise, by smoothing consumption over the year to address seasonal or weather- related nutrition shortfalls, by building the capacity to deliver cash benefits where needed, and by 10 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection supporting public employment programs that mitigate community risks to disasters’ (GoM, 2014: 16). It calls for integrated DRM and social protection programming to increase local capacity to cope and recover from shocks and potential disasters. It suggests PWPs to contribute to environ- mental conservation, build disaster-proof infrastructure, and increase the resilience of communi- ties to disasters (GoM, 2014). The Relief and Resettlement Department (RRD), with support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), is in the early stages of developing a national framework for community disaster resilience. The framework will provide a common understanding on strengthening community disaster resilience in Myanmar and set the national direction in this regard. Social protection could be part of this framework. RRD has also taken steps towards pre-disaster recovery planning as part of Myanmar’s commitments under the AADMER work program. In addition, RRD is developing the ASEAN Recovery Planning Reference Guide with support from the UN Development Programme (UNDP). Social protection could be linked and incorporated into the recovery planning framework of the government. DRM institutional arrangements and links with social protection arrangements (See Annex 2) The National Natural Disaster Preparedness Central Committee (NNDPCC), under the chairman- ship of the second vice-president, was established in 2013 and replaced the Myanmar Disaster Preparedness Agency. Its task is to ensure disaster preparedness and to promote coordination and quick and effective disaster relief and response activities. It has 36 members, including 19 union ministers and all state and region chief ministers. Under the NNDPCC sits the National Natu- ral Disaster Preparedness Management Working Committee (NNDPMWC), chaired by the union minister of social welfare, relief and resettlement, which supervises the implementation of disas- ter management activities and coordinates any activities of the NNDPCC (GoM, 2013b). Ten work- ing committees support the NNDPMWC. NDM Law calls for the formation of a National Natural Disaster Management Committee (NND- MC) to be chaired by a vice president and be responsible for all aspects of disaster management. An inter-ministerial working committee will be in place to implement decisions by the NNDMC. It is as yet uncertain wither the NNDMC will supersede the NDPCC after the NDM Law rules and regulations have been finalized. Funding for the NNDMC would come out of the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement (MSWRR) budget. Disaster preparedness working committees also exist in regions and states and at district, town- ship, and village tract level. They each have subcommittees (the number and nature varies among regions and states) to implement the activities of the working committee (GoM, 2012a). The role of the state and region working committees (chaired by the chief minister) is to monitor potential and imminent disasters, implement responses, ensure systemic provision of food and relief items and rehabilitation materials to victims, and manage the state/region natural disaster management fund (GoM, 2013a). Responsibilities would need to come with adequate decentralized budgets. The roles and responsibilities of all relevant ministries for disaster preparedness, response, and rehabilitation are outlined in the 2009 Standing Order on Natural Disaster Management in Myanmar. MSWRR coordinates disaster response and preparedness and the Ministry of Home Affairs facilitates communications at subnational level. The Department for Hydrology and Meteo- Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 11 rology is responsible for EWSs. MSWRR in collaboration with other government agencies and DPs and civil society organizations will update the Standing Order once the rules of the NDM Law have been approved. A range of government agencies are implementing or developing social protection programs, such as the Ministries of Health, Education, Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development, Social Welfare, Finance, and Labor and the Social Security Board. The Department of Social Welfare of MSWRR is responsible for coordinating social protection. The minister of social welfare chairs the Social Protection and DRR Sector Working Group to ensure effective coordination at the sector level and to promote development effectiveness in Myanmar. Under the Sector Working Group sit the Social Protection and DRR Sub-Sector Working Groups. To date, there are no linkages between the two sub-groups. Having the coordination function of social protection and DRM under one ministry provides an opportunity for a coordinated approach to disaster preparedness and response, as well as build- ing long-term household economic and social resilience against hazards. On the other hand, with both DRM and social protection being cross-sectoral issues, there is a risk that cross-ministerial coordination and cooperation will not be effective. While all social protection programs, imple- mented by a range of ministries, can contribute to household resilience, including in times of di- sasters, the DRD and MSWRR programs provide the most logical platforms for incorporating DRM elements. At present, the Ministry of Home Affairs (through the General Administration Depart- ment) has the widespread presence on the ground and provides the link to community and town- ship levels. Effective coordination will require ministries/departments to be encouraged to oper- ate outside their sectoral silos, build technical capacity, and provide financial resources for disaster management and social protection at both national and subnational level. Further decentraliza- tion and strong political support are required to effectively implement the different policies. DRM financing A national contingency fund of approximately USD 116 million (MMK 100 billion) is managed by the President’s Office. The RRD HFA Progress Report mentions that the RRD budget allocation (USD 2.9 million in 2012-2013) and the Fire Services Department’s budget (USD 14.3 million in 2012-2013) could also be considered a budget for DRR and emergency response.13 While it is chal- lenging to capture all DRR budget and expenditure, RRD reports that the combined disaster man- agement funds represent 0.85 percent of the national budget (RRD, 2012). States and regions also receive an annual budget allocation for development projects based on priority needs, with in- vestment in DRR and emergency response at the discretion of the state/region government. There is no clear budget for recovery activities at township level in the current union budget, or for risk assessments at national and regional level. Current disaster funds are insufficient to cover recurrent losses and the government remains exposed to more extreme events, relying entirely on international donor assistance for re- sponse, relief, and recovery. For the Cyclone Nargis response, a quarter of funds were public funds, with the rest funded from bilateral and multilateral contributions. There is, however, no 13. 1.7 percent of RRD’s budget goes to DRR, which includes awareness-raising, capacity-building and strengthening policy and insti- tutional capacities, and inter-agency and regional cooperation for DRR; 61 percent is for response efforts. 12 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection mechanism in place for pooling resources through common platforms, such as the PSNP RFM in Ethiopia, through which donors can (pre-)commit funds. Public assets are largely uninsured, and there is no strategy or policy framework in place to actively manage the financial impact of natural disasters. A better understanding of the underlying risks and a comprehensive strategy with ap- propriate disaster risk financing and insurance products could help increase the ability of national and subnational governments to respond quickly, and would enable timely access and effective use of reconstruction and recovery funding. DPs and the private sector have had early discussions with the government on risk financing options in Myanmar. An RFM would also offer the opportu- nity to rapidly finance the implementation of a pre-planned early response social protection pro- gram. 4.2 Social protection programs to assist in DRM Myanmar has undertaken positive steps to increase social protection provision, which provides opportunities to develop sustainable and adequate measures to help protect its most vulnera- ble people against hazards. The RRD HFA Progress Report acknowledges that, to date, ‘consider- ations on resilience of risk prone households and communities to natural and man-made disasters in the schemes are not enough’ (RRD, 2012: 24). While the government has coordinated emer- gency operations, it has limited experience in implementing CT programs and C/FFW programs. RRD has provided cash grants to families that have lost family members in disasters (MMK 100,000 (USD 100) for an adult and MMK 50,000 (USD 50) for a child under 12 years old). The government also provided cash assistance to disaster-affected populations after the Magwe flash floods, when cash was delivered to flood-affected households through officials.14 CDD programs are potential platforms to incorporate social protection measures in Myanmar to contribute to building resilience and DRM. The DRD has two community funds worth exploring as possible avenues for social protection for DRM at scale: the Mya Sein Yaung (MSY; also known as Evergreen Village Development Project) (2014-2016) and the National Community Driven Devel- opment Project (NCDDP) (2012-2019).15 While neither of these has incorporated explicit social protection schemes in its operations at the present time, both have improving resilience of rural livelihoods to disasters within their objectives. 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. The project provides loans to villages for village-level revolving funds. Projects that can be financed include solar energy, livestock-rearing, fishery and farming, agricultural business, and other businesses. 14. The government ran emergency operations to thousands of disaster-affected people after Cyclone Nargis in 2008, Cyclone Giri in 2011, the Tarlay earthquake in 2011, and the Magwe flash floods in 2011, involving a wide range of departments and DPs. On 23 October 2011, the vice-president and president visited temporary camps in affected areas and provided assistance in cash and in kind worth USD 273,000 and USD 250,425, respectively. See http://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/providing-food-and-shelter- flood-victims-should-be-top -priority-vice-president-dr-sai. See Note on ‘The experience of cash transfers in Myanmar' for further information on CTs in Myanmar. 15. Further information on these schemes can be found in the Note on ‘Social protection delivery through community-driven develop- ment platforms’. Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 13 The NCDDP16 has the objective of delivering key infrastructure and services through community- block grants. The program also aims to build government’s capacity to respond promptly and ef- fectively to crises or emergencies. An emergency contingency response component allows for rapid reallocation of grants to provide preparedness and rapid response to disaster as needed. During the first implementation cycle in three townships, the NCDDP financed 357 projects 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. These CDD platforms could be used to build basic hazard-resilient community infrastructure through labor-intensive PWPs, which will also provide an income for food-insecure households. Further analysis is required of both programs to see if these decentralized planning and financ- ing systems could be used for social protection delivery to assist the most vulnerable people in the community and to be scaled up as part of rapid disaster response efforts. DP activities focus largely on national and community DRR capacity-building, community educa- tion on DRM, and community-based DRR activities (through community grants). Social protec- tion programs could complement these efforts by building household resilience. The Tat Lan pro- gram is a disaster community recovery program that builds on emergency response and contributes to equitably and sustainably improving the livelihoods of Cyclone Giri-affected communities. It includes social protection instruments such as CFW and a pilot maternity CT. DRM could have been more explicitly considered in the program to increase communities’ capacity to cope with future shocks (e.g. apply ‘build back better’ principles in CFW projects). The Building Resilience against Climate Extremes and Disasters program aims to build commu- nity resilience to climate extremes.17 The objective is to enhance adaptive capacity and support individuals, households, and groups to better protect their assets and access financial services. CTs are not included in this program. Several DPs have implemented C/FFW programs18 after Cyclone Nargis and some are still ongo- ing. While these programs were initiated as part of recovery efforts to contribute to community and household resilience, DRR can be more explicitly mainstreamed. For example, it will be worth- while to explore options for applying the standards for (re)-building hazard-proof infrastructure as part of C/FFW programs in hazard-prone areas. This does not seem to be standard practice at the moment. The World Food Programme (WFP) through its cooperating partners (Save the Children (SC) and CARE International) implemented a cash-for-food pilot in Yangon division, where markets were functioning, four weeks after Cyclone Nargis hit. SC supported 63,000 beneficiaries in five town- ships, in communities where at least 50 percent of the homes were completely or partially dam- aged. The weekly UCT covered the cost of a basic food basket. Lessons from this short pilot were a) set up systems and structures in advance of emergencies to enable rapid response; b) assess the 16. The NCDDP is a USD86.3 million program, supported by the World Bank, that will cover 640 village tracts in 15 townships (one in each state/region), with a gradual rollout that started in Chin state, Tanintharyi division, and Shan state. 17. The project is funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and led by Plan International, with the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), BBC Media, ActionAid, World Vision, and the Myanmar Environment Institute as implementing partners. 18. See the Note on ‘The experience of public works programs in Myanmar’ for further details on CFW programs in Myanmar. 14 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection need of beneficiaries and respond with appropriate programs; and c) ensure funding follows pro- gram purpose, rather than program implementation being constrained by funding limitations (Rees, n.d.). 4.3 Delivery systems The international examples demonstrate that existing social protection identification, enroll- ment, and payment systems can assist in more effective disaster management. In Myanmar, these social protection and DRM mechanisms require significant investments and integration to enable maximum impact of social protection programs in DRM. Poverty and vulnerability data for identifiation Comprehensive poverty and vulnerability data collection in Myanmar could be strenghtened to ensure the effective identification of the poor and vulnerable. While the Census will provide new data, additional mapping at all levels is required to anticipate the negative impacts of disasters in different parts of the country and on different population groups, including the poor. This includes comprehensive hazard risk and poverty vulnerability mapping at national scale. Multi Hazard Risk Assessments have been conducted in Rakhine state and Delta region.19 The Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Rural Development with support from WFP has conducted food security assess- ments in the Dry Zone; in Bago, Yangon, and Ayeyarwaddy regions; and in Shan, Kachin, and Chin states and Sagaing region with the intention being to cover the whole country.20 The assessments inform food security patterns across Myanmar and provide estimated poverty levels. They can support the design of poverty alleviation strategies and programs for different livelihood groups. RRD has taken critical steps to improve the systemic collection of data on disaster losses and damages. Supported by UNDP and the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), it is cur- rently creating a database to capture losses and damages from past disasters and put in place systems to continue data recording. This will result in the Myanmar Disaster Loss and Damage Database, Desinventar. A comprehensive database will help us better understand disaster risk and contribute to more targeted action at national and subnational levels.21 19. The assessment was funded by UNDP and implemented by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center and the Myanmar Engineering Society. 20. Food security was assessed based on the availability of food, access to food (income levels, diets, and hunger levels), utilization (access to water), and stability factors (food gap, coping mechanisms). The results are available here: http://www.fsinmyanmar. net/publications/itemlist/category/5-food-security-and-nutrition 21. http://www.mm.undp.org/content/myanmar/en/home/presscenter/articles/2014/10/07/new-database-to-help-myanmar-bet- ter-assess-loss-and-damage-risks-from-disasters/ Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 15 Targeting When disaster strikes, all people in the area will be affected to some degree and assistance can be geographically targeted. This was the lesson from WFP’s CT pilot following Cyclone Nargis, which required poverty targeting owing to limited financial resources but found most people needed support. In the medium- to long-term recovery phase targeting is more feasible and can be applied, if required, to the households who need it most to support livelihood recovery and resilience-building. Poverty, vulnerability, and hazard mapping can help with targeting social protection initiatives that assist with resilience-building. In addition, EWSs can help with geographical targeting efforts by providing accurate predictions of where a natural hazard will occur and enable early response. Current cyclone and flooding EWSs in Myanmar do not generate sufficient data to be able to ac- curately predict the precise geographical impact of incoming weather systems. There is also po- tential to improve information and communication systems to provide effective early warning in- formation to local communities and relevant national-level agencies for a quick response to potential hazards (ASEAN, 2008). Payment systems Myanmar has not yet developed a system through which cash could be delivered to households at scale in a safe and transparent manner. With the expansion of the financial and telecom sec- tors and associated regulatory frameworks, opportunities will arise to establish mechanisms to transfer benefits to households nationwide. These mechanisms can then also be used to reach disaster-affected households quickly as part of disaster response efforts. 5. Conclusions and considerations for social protection for DRM Investments in disaster prevention, preparation, early intervention, and long-term resilience- building, including through social protection, has economic benefits for the country. Social pro- tection can play a role in better risk coping during response and early recovery, reducing disaster risk, and building household resilience in Myanmar. Building household resilience against hazards could be more mainstreamed into DRM and social protection programming to reduce natural haz- ard exposure and vulnerability. The following policy, program, and delivery system considerations emerge: 16 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection 5.1 Policy, institutional arrangement, and financing considerations • With the development of the RDSF and the SPSP, which establish the role households trans- fers can play in DRM, the government can more specifically consider what social transfer in- vestments and implementation arrangements are most effective, feasible, and appropriate to help build community and household economic and social resilience against disasters in a coordinated way. • NDM Law rules and regulations: The rules and regulations that are currently being drafted could specifically outline how special vulnerable groups in Myanmar will be supported and protected against natural hazards, including through social transfers that provide a regular and predictable income to manage risks and shocks and help diversify their livelihoods. • The forthcoming Community Resilience Framework will help guide future investment in com- munity-based resilience programs and could consider including social protection instruments as part of the framework. • Behavioral change: Better coordination and institutional arrangements can help facilitate the establishment of a prevention rather than response culture in DRM. However, this is possible only with political will. It also requires a shift of focus by government and DPs from donor as- sistance and public appeals for disaster relief to publicizing situations where disasters are avoided through early intervention. Donors play an important role in communicating that un- acceptable impacts of natural disasters can be avoided. • Disaster risk financing and insurance: An assessment of disaster-related contingent liabilities can guide the development of a comprehensive disaster risk financing and insurance strategy. International practice shows such a strategy can help governments address their financial and fiscal risks and guide strategic investments in prevention, preparation, and recovery from the impacts of disasters. The assessment and strategy should be complemented by capacity-build- ing. In the medium to long term, the Ministry of Finance could look at ways to establish a system for risk layering, which uses different financing instruments for different-level inter- ventions. A well-designed system helps the government meet urgent post-disaster funding needs without resorting to major budget reallocations or external borrowing. Myanmar can also further explore opportunities through ASEAN for greater cooperation at regional level on DRM, including on regional disaster risk pooling/financing and EWSs. • Institutional arrangements: Clarification on communication and coordination structures be- tween the different DRM committees and agencies is necessary to make sure the structure is effective. Overlap of responsibilities needs to be minimized and relevant committees need true authority to deliver on their mandate. In addition, with its presence on the ground and its responsibility for disaster response, it could be worthwhile to engage the Ministry of Home Affairs in more specific social protection discussions, particularly around the feasibility of identification and implementation arrangements of social transfer programs. • Ministerial cooperation: Cooperation between relevant ministries/departments should be promoted not only at senior and policy level but also at implementation level. For example, social protection, poverty reduction, and disaster management are all trying to achieve the Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 17 common goal of reducing vulnerability. Tackling underlying vulnerabilities of households and communities requires a multi-disciplinary approach. 5.2 Program considerations Cash transfers (including public works) • The use of CTs can be increased as part of disaster response, where appropriate, to increase the purchasing power of households and enable quicker recovery and reduced long-term eco- nomic impact of disasters on households and communities. This can be done in combination with in-kind transfers in early recovery and be scaled up as local markets are recovering. • CTs delivered by government to date have been ad hoc. Establishing predetermined process- es and procedures for how the government can provide cash assistance to disaster-affected households can accelerate assistance and increase transparency and accountability towards people and increase the social contract with the people of Myanmar. • In the long term, Myanmar could consider integrating social protection and DRM through the design of a CT program that is a flexible and scalable program that can be activated by EWS triggers to reduce the economic impact of disasters on households. The program should be linked not only to the EWS but also to an identification or management information system to reach more people quickly when needed. Designs should have a plan in place on how it will be funded (e.g. through contingency funds or an RFM), how to scale up a program (in coverage, benefit level, and/or type of assistance), which departments will be involved, how communi- cation will flow, and how payment systems would work. This approach can also enable harmo- nization of DP funding in times of disaster. • Public works have proven to be an effective approach to risk mitigation and to helping reha- bilitate community assets, while also contributing to household recovery. Existing DP-led C/ FFW programs could increase their focus on DRR, particularly in hazard-prone areas. This should also include investigating the feasibility of constructing hazard-proof infrastructure through labor-intensive PWPs. An understanding of the hazard risk in the community will help define how public works activities can help reduce hazards and prevent disasters. Alternative support would be useful to assist labor-poor households. Community-driven development platforms • Community ownership for disaster recovery should be encouraged through community plan- ning and reconstruction. Communities know their own vulnerabilities and are best placed to identify solutions. Social protection can complement community efforts by increasing house- hold economic recovery. 18 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection • Options could be explored to use existing systems or programs for social protection to assist in rapid disaster response. Two such programs could be the MSY or the NCDDP implemented by the DRD. Both these have systems in place to channel funding from national to local levels that could be an effective approach to accelerate sustainable recovery efforts after disasters. • The CDD approach could also provide a platform for the incorporation of social protection components to build long-term resilience.22 The opportunity to integrate, for example, a la- bor-intensive public works component with a DRM focus in existing CDD programs should be further explored. Insurance Weather index-based insurance: Over 70 percent of the population is rural. (Subsidized) Agricul- tural insurance mechanisms could be explored to reduce disaster risk for subsistence farmers. This would, however, not assist the high proportion of landless households (between 25 and 50 per- cent of the population) and the most vulnerable households in Myanmar. Other risk-based insur- ance schemes could be considered as a response to risks identified in multi-hazard risk assess- ments. Delivery system considerations • Investments in delivery mechanisms, such as beneficiary identification, geographical target- ing, and payment systems, are crucial to advance the social protection agenda, let alone to enable effective linkages with DRM systems such as EWSs. Early responses, including through social protection instruments, can be triggered by an effective EWS, which will reduce avoid- able losses (a dollar invested in early warning systems can save USD 2-14 of avoided losses (Rogers and Tsirkunov, 2010)). • Data collection: Increased investments are needed for systematic data collection on vulnera- bility and poverty that can complement and be overlaid with geographic hazard risk and cata- strophic risk modeling. Understanding the vulnerabilities and risks of different population groups will help maximize the DRM impact of social protection interventions. • Private sector partnerships: The private sector could play an important role in DRM and social protection program implementation. For example, mobile phone technology can be used to send CT payments, as well as to send early warning or DRM education messages. The private sector can also play a key role in risk financing and insurance of public or household assets. 22. See Note on ‘Social protection delivery through community-driven development platforms’ for more information on this. Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 19 References Adams, L. (2007) ‘Learning from Cash Responses to the Tsunami’. HPG Background Paper. London: ODI. ADB (Asian Development Bank) (n.d.) ‘The Indonesian Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyara- kat Mandiri: Lessons for the Philippine Disaster Risk Management’. Supplementary Document 7. Manila: ADB. ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) (2008) ‘Post-Nargis Joint Assessment’. Bangkok: ASEAN. Burton, C. (2012) ‘Social Protection for Disaster and Climate Risk Management: The Design and Implementation of Effective Social Safety Nets’. PowerPoint presentations, 3-14 December. Wash- ington, DC: World Bank. CFE-DMHA (Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance) (2014) ‘Myanmar Disaster Management Reference Handbook’. Honolulu: CFE-DMHA. GoM (Government of Myanmar) (2012a) ‘Myanmar Action Plan on Disaster Risk Reduction’. Nay- pyidaw: GoM. GoM (Government of Myanmar) (2012b) ‘Myanmar’s National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to Climate Change’. Naypyidaw: GoM. GoM (Government of Myanmar) (2013a) ‘National Natural Disaster Management Law’. Naypy- idaw: GoM. GoM (Government of Myanmar) (2013b) ‘Without Racial, Religious Discrimination, Relief Works Are to Be Carried Out: Life-Saving Is a Must: President’. The New Light of Myanmar, XXI(29). Nay- pyidaw: GoM. GoM (Government of Myanmar) (2014) ‘Social Protection Strategic Plan’. Naypyidaw: GoM. GoM (Government of Myanmar) (2009) ‘Standing Order on Natural Disaster Management in Myanmar’. Naypyidaw: GoM. HCT (Humanitarian Country Team) (2014) ‘Emergency Response Preparedness Plan Myanmar’. Draft. Yangon: HCT. ILO (International Labour Organization) (n.d.) ‘Innovations in Public Employment Programmes (PEP) Spectrum from Public Works to EGS. Case Study: Ethiopia’. Geneva: ILO. Johnson, K. (2012) ‘Social Protection in Disaster Response. 2010 Floods Emergency Cash Transfer Program’. PowerPoint presentation. Washington, DC: World Bank. 20 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Pelham, L., Clay, E. and Braunholz, T. (2011) ‘Natural Disasters: What Is the Role for Social Safety Nets?’ Washington, DC: World Bank. PNPM (n.d.) ‘CDD Financing and Budgeting: The Case of PNPM in Indonesia’. Jakarta: PNPM. Rees, A. (n.d.) ‘Start Stutter Stop –Learning from an Innovative Emergency Food Assistance Cash Transfer Programme in Yangon Division’. Yangon: Save the Children Myanmar. Rogers, D. and Tsirkunov, V. (2010) ‘Costs and Benefits of Early Warning Systems’. Paper for UNIS- DR Global Assessment Report of Disaster Risk Reduction. RRD (Relief and Resettlement Department) (2012) ‘National Progress Report on the Implementa- tion of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2011-2013) – Interim’. Yangon: RRD. Sumarto, S. (2015) ‘Indonesia’s Unified Database (UDB): Rationalising a Fragmented System’. Ja- karta: TNP2K. Villar, F.R. (2013) ‘The Philippine Social Protection Framework and Strategy: An Overview’. 12th National Convention on Statistics, Mandaluyong City, 1-2 October. UNEP (UN Environment Programme) (2009) Learning from Cyclone Nargis – Investing in the Envi- ronment for Livelihoods and Disaster Risk Reduction’. Geneva: UNEP. World Bank (2012a) ‘World Bank 2012-2022 Social Protection and Labor Strategy, Resilience, Eq- uity and Opportunity’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2012b) ‘Affordability and Financing of Social Protection Systems’. Africa Social Protec- tion Policy Brief. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2014) ‘Post-Nargis Social Impacts Monitoring, Round 4’. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank and GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery) (2013) ‘Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP): Integrating Disaster and Climate Risk Management’. Wash- ington, DC: World Bank and GFDRR. Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 21 Annex 1: Geographical vulnerability to extreme weather events in Myanmar Extreme weather event Vulnerable areas and regions/states Drought Central Dry Zone – Sagaing, Mandalay, and Magwe regions, particularly agricultural land in these areas Cyclones/strong winds Coastal regions – Rakhine, Ayeyarwaddy, and Yangon regions/states Intense rain Tanintharyi, Yangon, Rakhine, Ayeyarwaddy, and Mon states/regions. These areas have the longest exposure to the south-west monsoon flower. Lower Myanmar as well as north-western areas will also be affected Floods/storm surges All lowland and flat regions as well as rivers and associated valleys and basins. Areas in close proximity to the Ayeyarwaddy, Chindwin, Sittaung, and Thanlwin river systems and coastal areas are particularly at risk of storm surges, hydrological floods, flash floods, and river bank overflow associated with snow- melt Extreme high tempera- Relatively flat regions in the central Dry Zone, e.g. Mandalay and Magwe tures Sea level rises Coastal zones, especially areas interspersed with tidal waterways, e.g. the Ayeyarwaddy Delta. In cer- tain areas, it is thought that low-lying coastal areas may face permanent inundation Source: GoM (2012b). 22 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Annex 2: Management and coordination of disaster preparedness in Myanmar National Disaster Preparedness Central Committee (NDPCC) Chair: vice president II Vice-chair: union minister of social welfare, relief and resettlement and union minister of home affairs Secretary: director-general of Relief and Resettlement Department Members: 17 union ministers, chief ministers from affected state/region National Disaster Preparedness Management Working State/Region Disaster Preparedness Management Working Committee (NDPMWC) Committee (RDPMWC)* Chair: union minister of social welfare, relief and Chair: chief minister resettlement Secretary: social affairs minister Vice-chair: deputy minister of social welfare, relief and Joint secretary: secretary of state government resettlement and deputy minister of home Members: 7 ministers from security and border af- affairs fairs, finance and revenue, agriculture and Secretary: director-general of Relief and Resettlement livestock, forest and minerals, planning Department and economy, transport, and electrical and Joint secretary: director-general of General Administration industrial ministries Department Members: deputy ministers of information and educa- Note: * At state/region level, ministries have no consistent tion ministries and chairs of 10 sub-commit- number or name. Committee composition may thus differ tees; state/region minister of security and from one state/region to another border affairs 1. Information Sub-Committee 1. Information Sub-Committee Union deputy minister of information State minister of social affairs 2. Hotline Sub-Committee 2. Hotline Sub-Committee Union deputy minister of communication and State minister of transport information technology 3. Search and Rescue Sub-Committee 3. Search and Rescue Sub-Committee State minister of security and border affairs Union deputy minister of home affairs 4. Collection of Preliminary Damage News and Emergency 4. Collection of Preliminary Damage News and Emergency Aid Sub-Committee Aid Sub-Committee State minister of planning and economic development Union deputy minister of commerce 5. Confirmation of Damage and Loss Sub-Committee 5. Confirmation of Damage and Loss Sub-Committee State minister of finance and revenue Union deputy minister of national planning and 6. Transport and Route Clearance Sub-Committee economic development State minister of transport 6. Transport and Route Clearance Sub-Committee 7. Disaster Risk Reduction and Building of Emergency Union deputy minister of railways Tents Sub-Committee 7. Disaster Risk Reduction and Building of Emergency State minister of development affairs Tents Sub-Committee 8. Health Care Sub-Committee Union deputy minister of social welfare, relief and State minister of social affairs resettlement 9. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Sub-Committee 8. Health Care Sub-Committee State minister of transport Union deputy minister of health 10. Security Sub-Committee 9. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Sub-Committee State minister of security and border affairs Union deputy minister of border affairs 10. Security Sub-Committee Union deputy minister of border affairs Source: HCT (2014). Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 23 Annex 3: International examples of social protection programs for DRM Type of function Function Ethiopia PSNP Philippines Panta- Pakistan CDCP Indonesia PNPM wid Pamilya Mandiri Policy develop- Policy develop- The Productive Social assistance Floods emergency Legal basis for ment and financing ment, legal Safety Net Program and human devel- cash transfer pro- this Commu- framework, and provides cash and opment program gram agreement nity Empowerment coordination food transfers to to break intergen- between federal Poverty Allevia- prevent long-term erational poverty and provincial gov- tion Development consequences of cycle, managed ernments. This CT Program: Act 22 short-term food by Department of has been included of 1999 with Act inaccessibility; Social Welfare and as a model for early 32 of 2004 on encourage house- Development in recovery in the regional govern- holds to engage partnership with National Disaster ment; Government in production and the Departments of Response Action Regulations 72 investment; and Education, Health, Plan approved by and 73 of 2005 promote market and Interior and the prime minister concerning village development by in- Local Government government; and creasing household and in coordination Presidential Regu- purchasing power with local govern- lation 54 of 2005 ment units on Poverty Allevia- tion Coordination Team Budgeting and Ministry of Finance Operating budget Federal and provin- Funds flow direct financial manage- and Economic is PHP15.4 billion cial governments from National ment Development in 2015 Treasury Office oversees financial to community management and accounts at sub- disburses funds to district level. Donor relevant ministries contributions and regions are administered through PNPM Support Facility Sources of funding Government bud- Government Phase 1: co- 2011: USD1.5 bil- get with contribu- budget with some financed by federal lion, most of which tions from WFP, funding from ADB, and provincial gov- funded by national Canada, Nether- World Bank, and ernments and local govern- lands, European Australia Phase 2: gov- ments, and some Union, Ireland, ernment with donor funding Sweden, US, UK, World Bank, UK Denmark, and Department for World Bank International De- velopment (DFID), USAID, Italy 24 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Type of function Function Ethiopia PSNP Philippines Panta- Pakistan CDCP Indonesia PNPM wid Pamilya Mandiri Program design Design and imple- Ministry of Agri- Department of Early recovery UCTs Projects are mentation stan- culture’s Disaster Social Welfare for flood-affected planned and dards, including Risk Management and Develop- households with determined by the social protection and Food Security ment (DSWD) design and community. PNPM and DRM elements Sector managed National Project implementation systems were used program, along Management Of- determined in to channel funds with regional fice (NPMO) and federal–provincial to disaster-affected governments. The sub-national offices agreements communities, Early Warning and managed day-to- including for UCTs Response Director- day operations. to the poorest ate is responsible The management and most affected for the EWS that information system households informs the PSNP (MIS) was used to RFM and for the transfer UCTs to transport and beneficiaries in af- monitoring of grain fected households; the database was expanded and used to target other recovery activities such as CFW Roll-out and scale- Covers 8 regions, The CCT operates in Phase 1: cash In 2009, PNPM up processes 319 districts, and all 17 regions, cov- disbursed to 1.69 was rolled out in more than 7.6 ering 79 provinces, million families 33 provinces, 465 million beneficia- 143 cities, and within 6 months districts, 6,408 ries. Fully scalable 1,484 municipali- Phase 2: at least 1 sub-districts, and to meet transient ties. The program million households 80,000 villages food insecurity. covers 4.4 million Access to 20% ad- households ditional resources as contingency fund to expand coverage or extend duration Eligibility criteria • Geographi- Residents of poor- Households with Geographi- cal targeting: est municipalities, flood damaged cal targeting of food-insecure, based on 2003 houses plus dis- districts with high drought-prone small area esti- abled and female- poverty; low level districts mates. Households headed households of basic services • Community- that live at or be- and fiscal capacity; based targeting: low the provincial and disadvantaged households poverty line; that villages that have more have children 0-18 than a 3-month and/or have preg- annual food gap; nant women at the households that time of assessment; have suddenly that agree to meet become vulner- the conditions able as a result of loss of assets Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 25 Type of function Function Ethiopia PSNP Philippines Panta- Pakistan CDCP Indonesia PNPM wid Pamilya Mandiri Delivery sub- Beneficiary identi- Geographical and Beneficiaries tar- Phase 1: geographi- Typically no indi- systems fication community-based geted through the cal targeted to vidual households targeting facilitated NHTS-PR affected areas and targeted. When by Community using biometric PNPM systems Food Security Task verification of were used for UCTs Force (CFSTF) identity after disasters, the Phase 2: household poorest and most identification using disaster-affected housing damage households were indicator and targeted through through the na- community target- tional poverty data- ing processes base to exclude the well off Enrolment and Annual target- Conditions are at- Enrolled using com- N/A compliance (for ing before start tendance of health puterized national CCTs) of program and check-ups and identity card with retargeting after 3 assisted birth for biometric identi- months pregnant women fication at Watan and children aged Card Facilitation 0-5; deworming of Centers (WCFCs) children 6-14; 85% school attendance; and attendance of family development sessions Asset creation (for Public works are N/A N/A Community social PWPs) planned using mapping and par- participatory ticipatory planning watershed plan- with support from ning approach and PNPM facilitators follow environ- mental and social guidelines Payments and Monthly food and/ • Health grant: PHP 3x PKR 20,000 Funds flow from transactions or cash, up to 6 500 household/ (approximately the collective sub- months/year (9 month USD 123) 3 months district accounts to months in pastoral • Education grant: apart through debit village commit- areas) OR un- PHP 300 child/ Watan card after tees for project conditional cash/ month for 10 biometric verifica- implementation. food for labor- months (maxi- tion. The debit The money is poor households. mum 3 children card can be used at sent in tranches Median payments per household point of sales with- of 40-40-20%. An to households are covered) drawal machines activity financial are around USD at the WCFC and at management team, 200 per house- • Payments are any ATM consisting of village hold over 5 years made through residents, handles (about 10-40% of the Land Bank the collective annual basic food or Glob G-Cash account. Disburse- needs). Payments remittance trans- ment at village are made through actions and rural level requires sign- cashiers in key banks off by government locations officials, minimum 4 signatories on bank accounts 26 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection Type of function Function Ethiopia PSNP Philippines Panta- Pakistan CDCP Indonesia PNPM wid Pamilya Mandiri Grievance and re- Independent ward Complaint report- Appeals can be reg- Complaints are dress mechanisms appeal committees ing mechanisms istered at the WCFC handled by the (GRMs) manage griev- include text hot line by presenting a PNPM facilitator ances and they using the DSWD valid computerized and elevated to are brought to the SMS platform, national ID card. PNPM Complaints ward council if nec- email, and social Recommendations Handling Units essary or elevated media. The GRM is are provided by the from sub-district higher part of the MIS and district administra- government up, captures, resolves, tion for final ap- managed by PNPM and analyzes proval by provincial Oversight Com- grievances from level. Changes are mittee beneficiaries and then made in the non-beneficiaries MIS Management in- There is no com- A comprehensive National Poverty PNPM Oversight formation systems prehensive MIS in MIS is managed by Registry managed Committee, Coor- (MISs) place yet. PSNP NPMO and includes by National dinating Ministry also has district- household informa- Database and Reg- for Social Affairs, level computerized tion, registration, istration Authority manages the MIS payroll systems for updates, compli- (NADRA) cash/food distribu- ance verification tions system, payments, and GRM Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring and MIS managed Full village meet- conducted and evaluation consists by NADRA will ings to account for recorded manually of regular supervi- provide targeting, funds used and through single sys- sion by DSWD and enrolment, pay- physical progress. tem for the Food the World Bank ment, grievance Financial audits Security Program and biannual spot redress, and funds conducted by the (includes PSNP). An checks by a third- flow information. Financial and De- information center party Quarterly donor velopment Super- within the Food Se- supervision mis- visory Agency and curity Coordination sions; third party the Regional Su- Directorate collects spot checks and pervisory Agency. real-time data from audits Also government sample districts on and independent status of transfers monitoring and food prices Evaluation Regional house- Quantitative Impact Impact evaluation Independent hold surveys and Evaluation by commissioned by evaluations; PNPM community-level DSWD and qualita- donors Support Facility impact evalua- tive studies tions conducted every two years, in addition to inde- pendent reviews, surveys and evalu- ations Communication, The CFSTF manages Municipal focal By NADRA through PNPM facilitators outreach, and/or community mobili- points manage SMS, website, at village level, vil- community mobi- zation for planning communications WCFCs, district lage notice boards lization exercises. Program and outreach. Each administration, me- information is group of ben- dia, local authori- posted across the eficiaries selects ties, and NGOs/ community a parent leader as community-based representative to organizations communicate to the focal point Sources: Ethiopia – ILO (n.d.),World Bank and GFDRR (2013); Philippines – http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/; Pakistan – http://cdcp. nadra.gov.pk/introduction.jsp; Indonesia – ADB (n.d.), PNPM (n.d.), Sumarto (2015), Villar (2013). Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar 27 28 Building Resilience, Equity and Opportunity in Myanmar: The Role of Social Protection 'Social protection for disaster risk management: Opportunities for Myanmar' is the sixth 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 series. 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