Monitoring and Evaluation for Zone B - Phase 1&2

According to Resettlement Work Plan (RWP) of Zone B – Phase 1&2 including Area 2-1 (100 hectares) and Area 2-2 East (108 hectares), progress and issues of both components namely restoration of economic conditions and adapting to environmental and social living conditions are monitored as internal monitoring and external monitoring.

In addition to internal and external monitoring, external evaluation is also conducted for examination of procedure and effectives of RWP including Income Restoration Program (IRP).

Internal monitoring

Internal monitoring has been undertaken at two levels: at the practical/field level by TSMC in collaboration with JET; and at the official level by the related Government of Myanmar (GoM) sub-committees as necessary at the Resettlement Site (RS).

Internal monitoring at the practical/field level at RS has mainly been conducted by the Thilawa SEZ Management Committee (TSMC) in collaboration with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Expert Team (JET) biweekly since Dec, 2017 to assess progress in livelihood restoration prior to and after relocation to the Relocation Site (RS) of the Zone B – Phase 1&2 PAPs. . (http://www.irpthilawa.com/weekly-report)

Progress and issue of infrastructure and livelihood restoration at the RS have been discussed among Yangon Regional Government (YRG), TSMC and Myanmar Japan Thilawa Development Ltd. (MJTD) to further promote progress and to take action to handle issues immediately.

External monitoring Survey (EMS)

External monitoring Survey (EMS) is conducted in order to: (1) provide an independent periodic assessment of implementation of the RWP, (2) verify internal monitoring results, (3) analyse the social and economic outcomes for displaced persons compared to their socio-economic status prior to resettlement, and (4) suggest corrective measures for issues identified during the review.

External Monitoring and evaluation of the progress of the resettlement works and IRP is conducted by independent third party, focusing on PAPs of the Zone B - Phase 1&2 areas where resettlement has already been occurred.

To date, two numbers of external monitoring were conducted to Zone B – Phase 1&2 PAPs by an external consultant called TWA Rural Development Service, a national consultant team in December, 2017 and in October, 2018 after relocation. External monitoring has been conducted by interviewing with PAPs by using questionnaires related to socio-economic condition.

TA number of different categories of PAPs were targeted for the monitoring survey as well as members of the Host Community at Myaing Tharyar (2) & (3) for a comparison with the resettled/displaced population. It was also important to obtain data from new residents at the RS, including those who have rented or purchased houses from PAPs. The following table lists the different group of people targeted for the survey, the number of households targeted to be surveyed in each group and the number actually surveyed in the 1st EMS and in the 2nd EMS.

Table: Target Groups for External Monitoring Survey in the 1st EMS and in the 2nd EMS

The first EMS was undertaken in December 2017. This was a socio-economic survey that considered the following parameters after resettlement: demography; livelihoods, income and expenditure; Housing and Infrastructure at RS; Ownership of Assets; Education and Health Care; Environmental Conditions; and Communications, Social Networks and Social Cohesion.

Key observations/outcomes from the first survey included:

  • Highest dependency ratio of PAPs living at the RS Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A) shows that number of employed people is less than that of unemployed people although they have bigger family size than other different types of PAPs and non-PAPs. The burden falls to unbalance of income and expenditure.
  • PAPs who sold/rented house at RS from Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group B) and host community (Group E) have higher dependency ratio.
  • PAPs economically displaced only (Group C) have the least dependency ratio among them.
  • Group A, B and C PAPs from Zone B – Phase 1&2 have higher monthly average income than their monthly average expenditure.
  • The data shows that 59% of PAPs living at the RS of Zone B - Phase 1&2 (Group A) are left in situations where there is a range of debt. High percentage of borrowing money and higher level of indebtedness is found in those PAPs living at relocation site from Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A).
  • On the other hand, lower percentage of borrowing money and lower indebtedness level can be seen in PAPs economically displaced only from Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group C) who have lower dependency ratio. Therefore, high level of indebtedness is indirect consequences of traditional livelihood disruption, unemployment, poor financial management and unbalance of income and expenditure.
  • Only 10% of PAPs living at the RS of Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A) are credit group members and majority of households (40%) save their money either at a bank or at home. It can be said that microfinance activity is not functioning well for PAPs living at RS of Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A).
  • 90% of children above 5 years old surveyed in Zone B -  Phase 1&2 are attending school.
  • In terms of current environmental conditions at the RS, water is in good quality and water meter will be equipped and its charges will be paid. There is no complaint about electricity supply bill.
  • Roads of the RS are better than previous places but improvement to roads is necessary to be convenient when walking and for motor bikes.  
  • A few PAPs living at RS of Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A) participated in vocational trainings. As part of income restoration program, delivery of vocational trainings is the biggest role in restoring their income and livelihoods in the aftermath of displacement as traditional economies and social networks of PAPs are eroded and they are vulnerable to adopt coping strategies.

The second EMS was conducted in October 2018. This reviewed the same aspects as the initial survey undertaken in December 2017.

Key observations/outcomes from the second survey included:

  • High dependency ratio of PAPs living at the RS of Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A) shows that numbers of employed people are less than those of unemployed people and they have bigger family size than other different types of PAPs and non-PAPs. The burden falls to unbalance of income and expenditure. PAPs economically displaced only (Group C) have the least dependency ratio among them.
  • At the 2nd EMS, monthly average net income of PAPs who sold/rented out a house at the RS (Group B) was the highest, followed by PAPs economically displaced only (Group C). The  expenditure of PAPs economically displaced only (Group C) was the least among PAPs and Non-PAPs.
  • When comparing with the 1st EMS, monthly average income of all Group A, B and C PAPs from Zone B – Phase 1&2 were decreased at the 2nd EMS.
  • The expenditure of PAPs living at the RS of Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A) were increased while those of PAPs who sold/rented out a house at the RS (Group B) and PAPs economically displaced only (Group C) were decreased at the 2nd EMS when comparing with the 1st EMS.
  • At the 2nd EMS, PAPs living at RS (Group A) had a negative difference in income and expenditure that is very similar to their pre-resettlement conditions; indicating that their livelihood situation is generally stabilized. On the other hand, PAPs who sold or rented out at RS (Group B) and PAPs who were economically displaced only (Group C) had positive difference in income and expenditure that is better than their pre-resettlement conditions; indicating that their livelihood situation is getting better.
  • Debt level of PAPs living at relocation site from Zone B was the highest followed by that of PAPs who sold/rented out a house at the relocation site. Lower percentage of borrowing money and lower indebtedness level can be seen in PAPs who were economically displaced only from Zone B – Phase 1&2. Therefore, high level of indebtedness is indirect consequences of traditional livelihood disruption, unemployment, poor financial management and unbalance of income and expenditure.
  • Some PAPs and Non-PAPs’ households have saving practice. All PAPs from Zone B – Phase 1&2 have not microfinance program, except host community where PACT Myanmar Microfinance Program is existed.
  • 91% of children above 5 years old surveyed in Zone B – Phase 1&2 are attending school.
  • In terms of current environmental conditions at the relocation site, water is in good quality and water meter is equipped and its charges will be paid by PAPs. There is no complaint about electricity supply bill. Improvement to roads is necessary to be more convenient when walking and for motor bikes.
  • A variety of vocational trainings such as a job readiness training, a sewing training and a driving training had been provided to PAPs. After the driving training, participants could get his driving license if he met criteria. 31 % of PAPs living at relocation site from Zone B – Phase 1&2  participated in vocational trainings. Percentages of households interested in further vocational training are increasing in PAPs at the relocation site from Zone B – Phase 1&2. It is proven that PAPs have learnt the value of the vocational training and it would be helpful for their income restoration in the future.
  • As part of income restoration program, delivery of vocational trainings is the biggest role in restoring their income and livelihoods in the aftermath of displacement as traditional economies and social networks of PAPs are eroded and they are vulnerable to adopt coping strategies.
  • It is found that over 80% of PAPs economically displaced only (Group C) and PAPs who sold/rented out a house at the RS (Group B) were participated in social groups in their community. Over 50% of PAPs living at relocation site from Zone B – Phase 1&2 (Group A) had social groups.