Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2013 Unicef Myanmar
Nina Victoria Mattus Justiniani
[INITIAL RAPID ASSESSMENT
OF SELECTED IDP
SETTLEMENTS IN KAYIN AND
TANINTHARYI, MYANMAR]
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 6
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 10
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 10
OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIAL RAPID ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 10
METHODOLOGY, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 11
III. IDP CHILDREN AND THEIR VILLAGES .................................................................................................... 18
GEOGRAPHIC AND ACCESS INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 18
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 22
DISPLACEMENT TRENDS ........................................................................................................................ 25
SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS ............................................................................................................ 30
LIVELIHOOD AND FOOD SECURITY.......................................................................................................... 32
WATER, SANITATION, HYGIENE .............................................................................................................. 38
HEALTH AND NUTRITION ........................................................................................................................ 44
EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................................. 51
CHILD PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................. 59
ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 62
NEEDS PRIORITIZED: ............................................................................................................................... 66
IV. FRAMEWORK: PEACE BUILDING AND DURABLE SOLUTIONS TO IDPS .............................................. 68
V. INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 69
ANNEX A. LIST OF VILLAGES ASSESSED ..................................................................................................... 72
ANNEX B: NEW RESETTLED VILLAGES ........................................................................................................ 77
ANNEX C: REPORTED IDP VILLAGES (not yet assessed): ............................................................................ 78
ANNEX D: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM.............................................................................................................. 79
A report on 131 villages with internally displaced persons in Kayin state and Tanintharyi region,
South East Myanmar. This report is based on an initial rapid assessment exercise carried out by
volunteers from various faith-based organizations in late February to April, 2013.
ii
List of FiguresFigure 1: Respondents .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Map of the location of IDP settlements assessed ........................................................................ 18
Figure 3: Access by Land and Water ........................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4: Means of Transportation ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 5: Hard-to-Reach Villages ................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 6: Numbers of Migrants, IDPs, Refugee Refugees .......................................................................... 22
Figure 7: Returning Refugees ...................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 8: Numbers of Females, Males, Lactating Women, Pregnant Women and Children ..................... 23
Figure 9: Vulnerable groups ........................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10: Languages spoken ...................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 11: Description of Settlements ........................................................................................................ 26
Figure 12: New Arrivals ............................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 13: Duration of Displacement .......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 14: Reasons for staying in the current settlement .......................................................................... 27
Figure 15: Reasons for not returning to their original village ..................................................................... 28
Figure 16: Where the IDPs would like to settle permanently ..................................................................... 29
Figure 17: Percentage of ID holders in the villages..................................................................................... 30
Figure 18: Types of Identity Documents ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 19: Shelter types .............................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 20: Sources of Income ...................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 21: Livelihood Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 33
Figure 22: Land Ownership ......................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 23: Livelihood Shocks ....................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 24: Loss due to Livelihood Shocks .................................................................................................... 35
Figure 25: Food stock .................................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 26: Assistance Received ................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 27: Coping Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 28: Availability of drinking water, safe drinking water, cooking water and cleaning water in the
villages ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 29: Sources of Water........................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 30: Condition of Borehole ................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 31: Condition of Pumps .................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 32: Availability of Latrines ................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 33: Number of Persons Using a Latrine ........................................................................................... 41
Figure 34: Percentage of Villagers Using Flyproof or Unsanitary Latrines ................................................. 42
Figure 35: Percentage of Villages using latrines and openly defecate ....................................................... 43
Figure 36: Functioning Latrines ................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 37: Availability of health facilities .................................................................................................... 45
Figure 38: Availability of Health Care Providers ......................................................................................... 46
Figure 39: Health Services ........................................................................................................................... 47
iii
Figure 40: Recent Main Health Concerns ................................................................................................... 47
Figure 41: Availability of Medication .......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 42: Nearest Health Facilities Available ............................................................................................. 49
Figure 43: Vaccination Offered in 2012 ...................................................................................................... 49
Figure 44: Health Assistance During Delivery of Babies ............................................................................. 50
Figure 45: Nutrition Information ................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 46: School Fees ................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 47: Total Number of Students, Teachers, Classrooms ..................................................................... 52
Figure 48: Number and Location of Temporary Learning Facilities ............................................................ 52
Figure 49: Types of School .......................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 50: List of Villages with 20+ out- of- school IDP children................................................................. 54
Figure 51: Reasons for Children not Attending Schools ............................................................................. 55
Figure 52: Sufficiency of School Supplies .................................................................................................... 56
Figure 53: School Latrines ........................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 54: School Building Repair Information ........................................................................................... 57
Figure 55: Teaching Curriculum .................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 56: Vulnerable Children ................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 57: Monasteries assisting vulnerable children ................................................................................ 62
Figure 58: Organizations doing Coordination ........................................................................................... 62
Figure 59: Organizations doing Education .................................................................................................. 63
Figure 60: Organizations doing Food Security ............................................................................................ 64
Figure 61: Organizations doing Health Assistance ...................................................................................... 64
Figure 62: Organizations providing Non-Food Items .................................................................................. 65
Figure 63: Organizations providing Nutrition assistance ............................................................................ 65
Figure 64: Organizations in Shelter Assistance ........................................................................................... 65
Figure 65: Organizations in WASH .............................................................................................................. 66
Figure 66: Needs Prioritized ........................................................................................................................ 66
iv
Acknowledgements
This report is made possible because of the following:
UNICEF RPO Thet Wai Hlaing, who helped in the translation of the questionnaire form to Myanmar,
trained the enumerators in Kayin and Tanintharyi, supervised the assessment in Kayin and provided
important inputs to the whole exercise and to this is report;
UNICEF RPO Tin Aung, who prepared and supervised the assessment exercise in Tanintharyi region and
provided important inputs to the whole exercise;
Volunteer enumerators from the Catholic Bishops Convention Myanmar, Karen Baptist Convention,
Anglican Church, Kyainseikgyi Karen Baptist Association, Karen Women Action Group, Save the Children;
The German fund, for supporting the travel expenses and allowances of the volunteers
Cho Cho Lwin, for making the data base and data entry; and most importantly,
Participants from 131 villages who responded to the questions.
Much appreciation to the following:
Norwin Schafferer, OCHA, for providing the OCHA questionnaire form;
Kelly Ryan, UNHCR, for the help in formulating the draft questionnaire on displacements and providing
useful suggestions;
Nway Aung of MIMU, for locating the IDP settlements on the map.
v
Acronyms
DKBA Democratic Karen Buddhist Army
IDP Internally Displaced Person
KBC Karen Baptist Convention
KNLA Karen National Liberation Army
KNU Karen National Union
MIMU Myanmar Information Management Unit
NMSP New Mon State Party
NSA Non-state actor
NSAG Non-state armed group
MNLA Mon National Liberation Army
TBC The Border Consortium
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ceasefire agreement between the government of Myanmar and the Karen National Union (KNU) in
the south east Myanmar in early 2012 signaled a halt to hostility in the most bitter armed conflict in the
country, and the oldest in the world, having lasted over 63 years. This offers an opportunity for UNICEF’s
assistance to the internally-displaced children and their communities as access to the conflict-affected
areas improves.
One major difficulty to start UNICEF’s engagement is the absence of knowledge on the situation of IDP
villages in the southeast. Public information on their whereabouts and situation has been extremely
limited due to the reluctance of most organizations to share pertinent information, or the lack of readily-
sharable information when it was available. Other aggravating factors included the lack of humanitarian
and development activities in conflict-affected areas, as well as restrictions imposed on travel to these
areas. .
With the spport of local volunteer from several Christian faith-based organizations, an initial identification
and rapid assessment exercise was implemented in 131 IDP settlements, with 10,960 households and
58,484 individuals, mainly in Kayin and northern Tanintharyi districts. This report is a product of the
initial and rapid assessment done by local volunteers with limited training and technical capacity. Some
information reported may not be as accurate as desired. However, initial findings can be used as a basis
for further consultation, and for follow-up action – such as to further improve understanding of the local
context, or to start specific activities for target communities.
There is a significant reduction of conflict after the ceasefire agreement was signed. However, peace
remains fragile, and the process to resolve the political issues and core grievances of the armed opposition
groups has not yet started. That many IDPs keep temporary houses, one foot in their place of refuge,
and another foot in their original village, indicating lack of trust in the stability of the ceasefire.
Findings based on the initial information show that access to the villages has improved but this varies in
different places. Despite the improvement of access brought about by to the ceasefire agreement,
geographical difficulty (remote, bad and/ or impassable roads especially during the rainy season) as well
as political, security, logistical and bureaucratic concerns continue to get in the way in reaching many IDP
communities. There are IDP settlements in remote areas that remain inaccessible to international
organizations. In many areas, both the government and KNU authorities require even members of local
faith-based organizations to seek authorization from them in order to collect information. .
Some IDPs have started to return to their original villages. Some found their villages already removed
from the list of government registered villages. Some were again dispossessed of their land and
community social structures due to the occupation of military and agri-business establishments. IDPs who
remain in their current village of refuge continue to visit and maintain their farms in their village of
origin. Lack of livelihood opportunity, general remoteness, distance from social support services and
fear for their physical safety are the main reasons that prevent them from returning permanently.
7
Many still lack identification documents. Among the total of 131 settlements, those living in 10 villages
have no IDs, less than half have IDs in 59 villages, while more than half of the population have IDs in 41
villages. Birth registration certificates are issued in only 27 villages.
Landmine explosions are reported in Parpun, Thandaung, Dawei and Thayetchaung. The risk of landmines
is one reason why the IDPs in 19 villages have not returned to their original villages.
Common source of income in most of the villages is daily wage. Farming is the main livelihood
opportunity yet 48 per cent of the population are landless, thus they work as farm laborers and are daily
wage earners. Compared to the host community households, the IDPs are more economically
impoverished. Their main problem is the lack of livelihood opportunity.
A great majority of the IDPs have no land, have rely mainly on daily wage labor, live in temporary shelters,
and are in need of household non-food items. Livelihood shocks in the past year occurred to most of
them because of unemployment, sickness in the family, and poor harvest due to heavy rains and/ or
drought. Travel restrictions, armed conflict and forced displacement during the past year greatly limited
access of IDPs to their farms in 20 villages, and have thus caused adverse effects to their income. Main
forms of coping strategy are borrowing, skipping loan payment, selling of young/ immature livestock,
collecting wild products from the forest, harvesting immature crops, consuming seed stock and begging.
Water is scarce. More than half of the villages do not have sufficient drinking water and around one
third g do not have sufficient cooking and cleaning water. Water is even more scarce during summer days.
Thirty seven per cent of the boreholes are not working while only 2 out of 40 pumps are working. Thirty
eight per cent of the villages think that their water is not safe for drinking and 51 per cent do not boil their
water before drinking.
Given the lack of potable water, proper practice of sanitation and hygiene practice is worsened.. Although
most villages have latrines, most of these are unsanitary and are inaccessible to many persons. . Open
defecation is a common practice. Cases of diarrhea were found in 70 villages and dysentery in 41 villages
two weeks prior to the assessment. In Kyainseikgyi, some villages have drinking water problem because
the mine for Antimony production is very close to their village, polluting their source of drinking water.
Malaria and diarrhea top the list of ailments. Medicine is generally inadequate. Around 45 per cent of
the villages have not received any vaccination in 2012. Only 15 villages have health facilities. These are
mainly clinics run by the Myanmar government and NGOs. While here are 3 doctors available, their
services cover only townships. The remaining health care attendants of the community are traditional
birth attendants, healers, midwives, community and NGO health workers. Birth deliveries are mainly at
home and majority are assisted by traditional birth attendants.
Obvious signs of malnutrition can be seen in 71 villages. 52 per cent of the villages have not received Vit.
A, while 38 per cent of the villages have not had deworming
In 131 villages, nine have high schools, 26 have middle schools, 119 have primary schools, 39 have
preschools and 28 have temporary learning facilities. Fifty two villages have no drinking water at school.
8
Only 10 schools have washing facilities. Sixty five per cent the school buildings need major repair and 35
per cent need minor repair. Eighty four per cent use the government curriculum. School supplies are
generally insufficient in 62 villages.
Majority of the students speak Kayin (Sgaw is most dominant, followed by Pwo). A small number can speak
Bamar, Dawei, and Mon.
There are 558 teachers and 239 are paid by the community. The teachers in 81 villages can speak the
local language (Kayin mainly). Most teachers receive low salary. Teacher’s absenteeism is also one reason
given for children not attending school.
Only 25 per cent of under- five years old are attending pre-schools. Preschools are available only in 39
villages (29 are community-supported and 10 are government pre-schools). Majority of the total 13,598
students are in primary schools. Of the 119 primary schools, 57 are community supported, 58 are
government schools and 3 are affiliated schools. Classrooms in primary schools are limited with an
average of 1 classroom for 49 students.
Middle school students account for 15.5 per cent while high school students only 4 per cent of the entire
student population. Population count shows that there are 9,463 children between the ages of 12 to 18
years old. But middle school and high school students total 2,938 only. This means that 6,535 children
ages 12 to 18 (or 69 per cent) are not attending schools.
On missing and vulnerable children, one hundred forty eight (148) child-headed households were
identified. Thirty (30) children have been identified are missing from 20 families. One hundred forty
(140) children are unaccompanied, 134 children are separated from their parents, 322 are orphans,
and2504 children are working. Nine (9) children have been identified with HIV/Aids and 300 children
with visible disabilities. Reports on recruitment of children by armed groups have been heard of in
Parpun and Kyainsekgyi.The sexual abuse and possible trafficking of young girls in Parpun have also been
reported. This information need further verification on the ground.
Ten monasteries and Christian churches providing assistance to the vulnerable children have been
identified. Organizations providing assistance to some communities include UNICEF, other international
organizations, INGOs, NGOs, faith-based, KNU, and business companies. Unfortunately, we have no
information about the existence of village-level self-help organizations. Initial inquiry with the assessors
show that people’s organizations at the village level are either non-existent or weak.
The communities prioritized their immediate needs as the following: 1) education (95 villages), 2) health
(92 villages), 3) water (74 villages), 4) livelihood and land (48 villages), 5) electricity ( 32 villages), 6) safety
(30 villages), 7) roads and bridges (25 villages), and 8) fly-proof latrines (17 villages). Whereas, the IDPs
ranked land, income and livelihood as their most important need, followed by education and health.
Shelter and household items are also given higher priority by the IDPs. The needs identified are not
comprehensive.
9
Addressing the needs of the IDPs and conflict-affected communities in the south east should be done in
the framework of durable solutions to displacement and peacebuilding. This requires due attention in
understanding the specific context on the ground, and to ‘do-no-harm’, while taking care not to
undermine peace. Initiatives should ensure acceptance, and cooperation, and generate trust from all
sides. Support requires linking short-term humanitarian actions to peace building and long-term
development at the same time.
In the peace process, specific and distinct needs of the IDPs should be considered as they have special
concerns, apart from the rest of the affected population, due mainly to displacement. The voices of the
IDPs and their participation should be included in the humanitarian, peace and development processes.
Conflict-affected communities have been resilient for a long time and they have relied mainly on their
local capacities and support mechanisms to survive.
It is important that support further strengthen their local capacities, not undermine nor overwhelm these.
It is the primary responsibility of the government to address internal displacements and to establish
conditions and provide the means to allow the IDPs to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and with
dignity. Support should help stabilize local and national capacities as quickly as possible to encourage a
quicker and sustainable transition to longer term recovery. Coordination with other agencies is also
important to optimize available resources and to harmful effects of uncoordinated interventions.
10
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In January 2012, a ceasefire agreement was signed between the Karen National Union (KNU) and the
government of Myanmar. This signaled a halt to hostility in the oldest and most bitter armed conflict in
the country (and the world), a conflict which has lasted for more than 63 years. Other armed opposition
groups in the southeast by that time had already signed their respective ceasefire agreements with the
government. These included the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), DKBA’s “Kloh Htoo Baw”
group, Karen Peace Force (KPF), and KNU/KNLA Peace Council1, and the New Mon State Party (NMSP),
with its armed group, the Mon National Liberation Army (MNLA). These ongoing ceasefire agreements
have provide opportunities for UNICEF to reach the affected children for the first time in the new
ceasefire areas and to respond to their humanitarian and development needs. In 2012, in the 3 states of
Mon, Kayin and Tanintharyi, TBC recorded 195,800 IDPs in 20122.
Before starting any intervention targeting IDP children in the states of Kayin, Mon and Tanintharyi,
UNICEF first needed to identify their location and needs. However, very little information on the location
of IDP villages in southeast Myanmar was shared within the humanitarian and development community.
The lack of humanitarian and development engagement in conflict-affected areas, fear of sensitive
information falling into the wrong hands, concerns about the quality of information and unprocessed
information not in readily sharable formats were some of the reasons for the lack of available public
information on IDPs3. Furthermore, many government officials deny the existence of the IDP villages or
of recent incidents of displacements. Verification of reported IDP locations was difficult because of travel
restriction to most of the remote areas. There were also doubts about the reported number of IDPs as
exaggerated. However, contacts with local faith-based organizations with networks in IDP communities
provided an opportunity to verify and collect information on IDP settlements.
OBJECTIVES OF THE INITIAL RAPID ASSESSMENT
To build a shared understanding within UNICEF on the situation of IDPs in the southeast states, a decision
to undertake an initial rapid needs assessment was reached in late January 2013. The aims of the initial
rapid assessment were:
a) To identify and verify the IDP settlements, their locations and population;
b) To know the current trends of internal displacement and resettlement in the southeast;
c) To collect information on some socio-economic needs, specifically in health, education,
WASH, and child protection issues, for UNICEF’s response;
1 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict, 2011 2 The Border Consortium, Changing Realities, Poverty and Displacement in Southeast Burma/Myanmar, 2012, 3 Findings of the JIPS scoping mission in the southeast in March 2013
11
d) To highlight some critical areas of needed action and suggest practical ways to address these
in the context of peacebuilding and durable solutions to IDPs.
METHODOLOGY, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
A UNICEF team led by Nina Victoria Justiniani and the RPOs of Mon/ Kayin and Tanintharyi (Thet Wai
Hlaing and Tin Aung) as members, was organized to implement the assessment.
An initial rapid assessment questionnaire form was prepared. The questionnaire form adapted OCHA’s
Multisectoral initial rapid assessment of IDP village/ camp questionnaire (June 2012) which was agreed
by the humanitarian country team. This was an attempt to come up with a ‘common approach’ in
collecting information that will also be usable to other agencies. This form was expanded to
accommodate information needed by UNICEF in WASH, Education, Health and Child Protection. This
form also included UNHCR’s concerns regarding some displacement issues. The final version of the
questionnaire was translated into Myanmar language. The questionnaire form and the list of targeted
villages for the initial rapid assessment were shared with UNHCR and TBC to avoid duplication, as the two
agencies were also planning to do their own assessments. An agreement was to share relevant
information.
Volunteers from several local faith-based organizations were chosen as enumerators. These
volunteers were church workers, lay leaders and pastors. Most of them had prior knowledge of the IDP
villages because they have either worked there or are natives of these villages. Majority of them are
Sgaw-speaking Karen. It was for practical reason that due to their knowledge and access to most of
Sgaw-speaking Karen villages, those villages initially assessed were predominantly Sgaw Karen..
The enumerators were given a short training on the questionnaire form and methods in doing the
assessment. They were organized into several teams and assigned 5 to 10 villages. After several weeks,
an end of assessment meeting and evaluation was held with each group of volunteers. Submitted
questionnaire forms were checked and collected. The enumerators were asked to share the highlights of
their assessment, discuss their key findings and challenges faced in information gathering.
In general, the volunteer enumerators sought permission from the local authorities and KNU authorities
before they conducted the assessment. They also sought the assistance of the parish priest or pastors
present in the village in convening community meetings. The village authority called on the intended
respondent who were community leaders, teachers, health workers, IDP men and women. In many
instances, more people came and eagerly participated in the group discussions based on the
questionnaire form. Key informant interviews were also done to collect information. Another method
employed was direct observation of the infrastructure and access issues. Despite limited availability, the
aid of GPS devices was used to locate some villages. An average of one day was used to collect
information in a village. A total of 7,000 respondents were asked, including 2218 IDP women, 1712
12
IDP men, 314 community leaders, 93 teachers, 86 health workers, 521 elders, 1590 2012 children, 44
other villagers.
Figure 1: Respondents
Data collection was done from late February until end of April, 2013. This was a good period to reach
most of the remote villages that would have otherwise been difficult to reach during the rainy season.
However, this period was not favorable for the collection of information on education because all the
schools were not in operation during this summer break and many educators were not available for the
interview.
In data consolidation, a local consultant was hired to customize an MS Access database in accordance
with the questionnaire form. The same consultant prepared the data entry and computer-generated
analyses.
The unit of analysis is the village level.
IDP women, 2218,
32%
IDP men, 1712, 24%Community Leaders,
314, 5%
Teachers, 93, 1%
HealthWorkers, 86,
1%
Elders, 521, 7%
Children, 2012, 29%
Other villagers 44,
1%
Respondents
13
The assessment covers only the initially known and accessed 131 villages mainly in the states of Kayin
and Tanintharyi. We can assume that it covers only the “tip of the iceberg” compared to the TBC report
of 3,700 villages destroyed, relocated and abandoned in whole of southeast Myanmar since 19964.
The focus of this assessment is on armed conflict-induced displacement and not on other types of
displacement such as disaster and development-induced. It includes population counts, displacement
trends, health, education, WASH, protection, livelihood, food security concerns. Because of the
sweeping nature of this initial assessment, more detailed assessments will still be needed when starting
specific program interventions are actually invited.
There are inherent shortcomings and limitations in the methodology used. Due to travel restriction to
remote areas and limited availability of the consultant in leading the exercise, the collection of
information relied mainly on the limited technical capacity and training of volunteer enumerators who
had access to the IDP villages. The use of closed questions was formulated to facilitate easy and quick
gathering of facts. However, this also limited the variation of responses from the respondents and could
not capture the opinions, feelings, and specific stories. Some questions in the questionnaire form have
limited multiple choices when there are more probable responses. Using the village as the unit of
analysis may be useful in informing village-level interventions benefitting the entire population, but
since the community people are not homogenous, individual needs of IDPs were not given due attention.
Much of the information can only show names and numbers of villages affected but there is no population
count to determine the number of persons affected. Although the information needs are generally in
the context protracted displacement, some questions in the questionnaire form adapted from OCHA
were more relevant in the emergency context and camp setting.
There are also limitations in collecting accurate and reliable information on population estimates (difficult
for respondents to identify exact ages of individuals), on diseases (respondents sometimes guessed the
causes of illness), measuring the land or farm areas (difficult for respondents to calculate the size of
land), safe drinking water (“it seems safe for drinking”), number of students and education-related issues
(school teachers were not available for interview), etc. Some enumerators failed to fill in some questions
in the questionnaire form, thus the percentages and ratios would not be accurate as desired. Caution
should be taken when using this data, and the context in which this information was drawn should be
carefully considered.
At this initial stage when collecting specific information on IDPs can still be considered “sensitive”,
protection-related questions are not as exhaustive as desired.
Access was not granted in some areas. In Parpun, enumerators were not allowed to collect any
information unless granted permission from the central committee of the KNU. KNU just issued a “policy
on humanitarian operations in ceasefire zone” requiring local and international organizations wishing to
operate in these areas to register, obtain approval, and enter into a memorandum of understanding with
4 The Border Consortium, Changing Realities, Poverty and Displacement in South East Myanmar, October 2012.
14
the group, who will then issue operational permissions and identity cards for humanitarian workers and
assist them with safe passage and security5 .
Despite the limitations and shortcomings, the initial information collected by the local volunteers can
provide a starting point for UNICEF in its consultation with partners, in doing follow up actions and future
interventions, including further assessments.
5 Karen National Union, Policy on humanitarian operation in ceasefire zone, 25 March 2013, cited by the JNA
desktop review done in March 2013.
15
II. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CONFLICT AND DISPLACEMENT IN KAYIN AND TANINTHARYI
The main armed conflict in the southeast states of Kayin and Tanintharyi for over 60 years now is the
conflict between the central government and the Karen National Union/ Karen National Liberation Army
(KNU/ KNLA), which represents the Karen nationalist ethnic minority. Historically, the most fundamental
grievance of the Karen people is their lack of influence on the political processes and decisions that affect
their lives. They consider themselves discriminated against and marginalized in economic, political, social,
cultural, linguistic, and religious rights. They have accused successive governments of a deliberate policy
of “Burmanisation”. Historically, the Myanmar government’s approach to nation-building seems intent
on assimilating the Karen people into the dominant Burman-Buddhist culture. The government’s
suspicion of the Karen people seeking to split the country served as justification for its repressive, often
brutal policies in minority areas6 in the past.
The Karen/ Kayin people are estimated to be from 3-7 million and are not a homogenous group. They
speak more than 12 dialects 7. Majority are Buddhists, an estimated 20 per cent are Christians, and
there are a few animists and Muslims. Karen communities are living in Irrawaddy Delta, lowland areas
of Yangon and Bago regions, Tanintharyi division, Mon and Kayin. Majority are living in government-
controlled areas and have not been involved in the armed conflict with the government, although they
may be deeply critical of the government. Aspirations for self-determination are deeply held by many
members of the Karen communities8 The Karen communities living in the mountainous areas bordering
Thailand have always been subjected to armed conflict and various forms of violence910.
The Karen National Union is the main leading armed opposition group of the Karen people. Its military
arm is the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA ). As of 2011, it has 7 brigades with around 3,000
soldiers operating in Kayin, Mon, Bago, Tanintharyi 11. KNU was set up in 1947 by well-known Karen
nationalists. They worked closely with the British colonial government and pushed for an independent
state, fearful of Burman domination over the Kayin people. Historical support to KNU included the
activities of missionaries and Cold War security interests. KNU also received material support and
legitimization through support for refugees in camps in Thailand- Burma border12. KNU at that time
functioned like a government exercising authority over large “liberated areas” along Thai border. It
absorbed a lot of activists after the 1988 military crackdown. However, KNU was weakened when it
became the target of the brunt of government’s military offensives because of ceasefires that were
6 International Crisis Group, Asia Report, 2003 7 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict, 2011 8 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict, 2011 9 ibid 10 11 ibid 12 ibid
16
being held in other parts of the country and after the DKBA split13. Thailand also put a pressure to stop
the flow of food and arms from Thailand.
Other Karen armed groups and ex-KNU/KNLA factions as of 2011 were the: 1) “Kloh Htoo Baw” group
( ex-Democratic Karen Buddhist Army – a.k.a. DKBA Brigade 5 plus some other non-BGF DKBA units) with
an estimated 500-800 soldiers. They are active in Kawkariek, Myawaddy, Kyarkdon, Hlain Bwe and Myaing
Gyi Ngu areas. They cooperate with KNU; 2) Thandaung Peace Group (a.k.a Leikto Group) – 100 soldiers,
operating in Northern Kayin; 3) P’Doh Aung San Group – 20 soldiers; area: Hpaan, central Kayin;
4) KNU/KNLA Peace Council, 300 soldiers, operates in southern Kayin state14. Some of the armed groups
were transformed into Border Guard Force under the Tatmadaw’s control15.
Historically, the mountainous ethnic border areas were never been fully controlled by the State. These
areas were administered separately by the ethnic armed opposition groups. The Karen National Union,
for example, operated as a ‘de facto’ government controlling areas, and had modern state-like structures
including departments for health, education, law, forestry, other civil administration, security, policing,
taxation16. The areas were categorized as: “black” areas” (rebel held), “brown areas” (contested
between rebels and government); and “white area” ( government-controlled). To reduce the “black
areas”, the government launched its brutal searched and destroy “Four-cuts” campaigns (depriving the
insurgents with food, funds, intelligence, and recruits) , a military strategy using “free fire zones” to
penetrate insurgents’ areas, extensive population relocation, ‘sweeping’ an area, meaning removing
any suspected villagers and burning their villages.
After a series of ceasefire agreements in the 1990’s, the Tatmadaw military offensives in KNU areas, and
the splits within KNU, the conflict-affected areas in the southeast were subjected to multiple authorities.
The demarcations between these areas of disputed authority and influence blur into each other,
depending on the dynamics of the conflict. Many Karen villages have both a KNU headman and a
government headman, and a village leader accountable to another armed faction17.
The protracted armed conflict in the southeast has resulted in the isolation, underdevelopment, lack of
social services, displacement, abuses and untold suffering of hundreds of thousands, and even possibly
millions, of people. The Border Consortium’s (TBC’s) community-based partners have documented the
destruction, forced relocation and abandonment of more than 3,700 villages in 36 townships since 1996.
They have estimated around 450,000 persons displaced. For the IDPs and communities in conflict-
affected areas, their key needs are physical security, legal security and material security. As TBC pointed
13 According to Ashley South (2011), the historical prominence of KNU in the Karen struggle brought with it the
dominance of Christian, Sgaw-speaking elite, resulting to the frustration of the non- Christian Karen. This led to the
emergence and breakaway of the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (majority are Buddhist and Pwo speaking
Karen) from KNU. Later, DKBA was transformed into Border Guard Force under the leadership of the Tatmadaw. 14 ibid 15 ibid 16 ibid 17 South, Ashley, Burma’s Longest War Anatomy of the Karen Conflict, 2011
17
out, “ the challenge remains to create conditions which will support the sustainability of these initial
population movements and facilitate the voluntary return in safety and with dignity of internally displaced
persons in Myanmar and refugees from Thailand. Voluntary return incorporates informed consent and free
choice without any form of political, physical, psychological or material coercion. Returning in safety
implies physical security (including protection from armed conflict and landmines), legal security (including
public assurances of non-discrimination and access to justice) and material security (including access to
land and support from humanitarian agencies). Returning with dignity relates to the full restoration of
human rights including access to citizenship”18.
To date, peace is very fragile in conflict-affected areas of the southeast. The ceasefire agreement still
needs to be consolidated. Talks about political settlement to resolve the core grievances of the non-state
armed actors have not yet started. Along the Thailand border, the Tatmadaw continues to operate and
there are reports of occasional skirmishes between the Tatmadaw/ Border Guard Force and the local KNLA
units. Practices such as portering/ forced labour, recruitment of child soldiers and burning of houses
persist. Meanwhile, resource-based companies and major infrastructure projects are aggressively
occupying vast tracts of land dispossessing communities and returning IDPs. Unregulated, these
business “development” projects could in fact be potential drivers of conflict.
18 The Border Consortium, Changing Realities Poverty and Displacement in South East Burma/Myanmar, 2012
18
III. IDP CHILDREN AND THEIR VILLAGES
GEOGRAPHIC AND ACCESS INFORMATION
Map of IDP
settlements in the Kayin and Northern Tanintharyi
Figure 2: Map of the location of IDP settlements assessed
A total of 131 villages were assessed in 7 townships of Kayin, 5 townships Tanintharyi and 2 townships
of Bago East. Majority of these villages are populated by Kayin ethnic groups. The list of these villages are
in Annex A.
STATE TOWNSHIPS VILLAGES
Bago (East) Kyaukkyi 1
Taungoo 1
KAYIN Hlaingbwe 12
Hpa-An 1
Hpapun 6
Kawkareik 10
Kyainseikgyi 32
Myawaddy 9
Thandaunggyi 19
TANINTHARYI Dawei 11
Launglon 1
Palaw 10
Thayetchaung 7
Yebyu 11
There are 32 newly-resettled villages, some were previously abandoned due to protracted conflict and
the names are already deleted in the government records. A total of 15 villages cannot be located in
the map in the absence of GPS coordinates19. These villages that cannot be located in the map are the
following:
Townships Village Tract Names Village
Names
Remark
Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-
township)
Htee Phoe
Wai
Kyainseikgyi (New Village); No
coordinates
19Due to unavailability of GPS coordinates, of the total known villages, only 56% of Kayin villages and 60% of
Tanintharyi villages can be mapped by MIMU in Feb. 2013.
19
Hlaingbwe Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Sub-
township)
Htee Hpoe
Khee
No coordinates
Myawaddy Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li
Sub-township)
Chaung Sone No coordinates
Myawaddy Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li
Sub-township)
Taw Oke No coordinates
Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-
township)
Hpa Aung No coordinates
Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-
township)
Hpar Naw
Mee
No coordinates
Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta Dawt Ka Kyar Hlaingbwe (New Village); No
coordinates
Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta War Hae Hta Hlaingbwe (New Village)
Thandaunggyi Lel Kho Doe Kar Ka Mu Do Coordinates given are in Bago
Region
Thandaunggyi Dar War Law Chee Lo Lar Way Coordinates given are in Bago
Region
Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Lit Gyi No coordinates
Palaw Pa La Pa La Oke
Htar
Palaw (New Village); No
coordinates
Thayetchaung Yae Pu Yae Pu Thayet Chaung Group
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet No coordinates
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Htaw Ta Li Palaw (New Village)
ACCESS AND MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION: Most of the identified 131 settlements can be accessed by
motorcycles. Some settlements can be reached by 4-wheel drive cars, htaw lar gyi ( a small truck), and
some can be reached using boats. A significant number of settlements can be accessed only by foot due
to damaged roads and/ or bridges. It is more difficult to reach these villages during the rainy season.
Aside from geographical and transportation difficulties are political, bureaucratic, logistical and security
concerns. As mentioned, permission from both the government and NSAG is required. There is also the
presence of landmine in some areas. Just this year (January 2013), in Kataing Hti village, Parpun, 4
persons died, and in Tadar U village, one man died, all due to landmine explosion. There are reports that
some DKBA soldiers set landmines to protect themselves from the pursuit of government forces.
Landmine explosions are reported in the forested area of Dawei township and Thayetchaung. In Bawgali,
Thandaung, mines exploded in March 2012, and another one in January 2013, in the forest killing 4
soldiers and damaging 1 bulldozer and 1 truck.
Before doing any assessment on these villages, the volunteer enumerators sought the permission of the
local authorities (both state and non-state actors operating in the village). They were also advised to take
with them some local guides and residents. In Northern Kayin, the assessment was welcomed by both
the government and KNU authorities and they urged the enumerators to reach as many villages possible
with the hope that those assessed are more likely to receive assistance. While in Parpun, the enumerators
were not allowed to assess the IDP villages unless given permission from KNU central committee. Also in
20
Parpun, there was tension between the KNU and government troops, reports of villagers fleeing
whenever government troops approach the villages, and houses burned by these government troops. In
a village in Thayetchaung, northern Tanintharyi , some villagers were wary of the assessment because
of ‘broken promises’ by one UN organization to provide them with shelters. The village authority also told
the enumerators that they should not ask any more question if there is no support coming to the village.
Figure 3: Access by Land and Water
Hlaingb
weHpa-An Hpapun
Kawkar
eik
Kyainse
ikgyi
Kyaukk
yi
Myawa
ddyPalaw
Launglo
nDawei
Thayetc
haungYebyu
Water 3 1 1 1 10 3 1 2
Land 12 1 6 10 32 1 9 10 1 11 7 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Nu
mb
er o
f V
illa
ges
Access
21
Figure 4: Means of Transportation
Figure 5: Hard-to-Reach Villages
4WD Boat By Foot CarHtaw Lar
Gyi
Motorbik
eOther Truck
No of Villages 11 1 80 53 10 117 7 5
11
1
80
53
10
117
7 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Means of Transportation
Broken bridge FloodGeneral
remotenessOther River crossing
No of Villages 6 2 23 11 26
6
2
23
11
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Villages with Access Problems
22
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
There are 10,960 households and 58,484 individuals in the identified 131 communities. There are more
females than males in the total population count of all age groups.
The enumerators failed to complete the population count of IDPs in all 131 villages and only counted them
in 72 villages. Thus, it may seem to comprise only 20% of the total residents, but this percentage should
increase had they counted all the IDPs in 131 villages. Returning refugees are estimated to be 0.2 per
cent, and economic migrants 3.5 per cent of the total households. Child-headed households comprise
1.3 per cent while women-headed households reach 10.4 per cent.
Vulnerable individuals include: 20 HIV/AIDs positive, 550 persons with disability, 140 unaccompanied
children, 320 unaccompanied adults, 322 orphans and 2,504 working minors.
Figure 6: Numbers of Migrants, IDPs, Refugee Refugees
Location of Returning Refugees in 18 villages
State/ Region Township Village Tract Village Households Individual
s
Kayin Thandaunggyi Ho Thaw Pa Lo (Leik Tho Sub-
township)
Ho Thaw Pa Lo 1 4
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-
township)
Se Yoe (Kalar Pa
Soke)
5 25
Kayin Hpa-An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin 3 19
Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Htee Par 2 9
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar 2 8
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Hpa Aung 2 11
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-
township)
Htee Phoe Wai 10 56
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon
Sub-township)
Win Lone 1 6
No. of
Economic
Migrants
No. of IDPNo. of Refugee
returnees
No. of
ResidentsTotal number
Total HH 389 2200 59 6208 10960
Total Individuals 1726 11588 280 33751 58484
Number of Vlgs 72 18 131
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
po
pu
lati
on
Migrants, IDPs, Refugee Returnees
23
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-
township)
Hpay Nar Mone 1 4
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Aung Chan Thar 1 5
Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Pa Dat Chaung Taung Zin 2 7
Tanintharyi Yebyu Mi Kyaung Hlaung (Kaleinaung Sub-
township)
Mi Kyaung Hlaung 5 25
Tanintharyi Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub-
township)
Kywe Tha Lin 3 20
Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Ma Yan Chaung 7 21
Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Rar Hpu (Thit) 6 30
Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Mile (60) Ywar 6 24
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) War Taw 1 2
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Wa Zum Oke 1 4
TOTAL 59 280
Figure 7: Returning Refugees
Figure 8: Numbers of Females, Males, Lactating Women, Pregnant Women and Children
Lactating
women
Pregnant
womenTotal Under 1 Under 5 Under 12 Under 18
F 2351 1023 27141 1487 3226 5238 4919
M 25650 1249 3064 4676 4855
2351
1023
27141
1487
3226
5238 4919
25650
1249
3064
4676 4855
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
F
M
24
Figure 9: Vulnerable groups
Languages spoken in the villages: Majority speak Kayin (Sgaw is dominant, followed by Pwo, Gabar and
Bawe) while Bamar is spoken in 49 villages, Dawei in 22 villages and Mon language in 8 villages. This
shows the dominance of Kayin ethnic groups among the IDPs in these villages.
Child
headed
Househol
ds
Female
headed
household
s
Children
with
disability
Children
with
HIV/Aids
Chronical
ly ill
persons
disabled
persons
Orphan
children
Persons
with
HIV/AID
S
Unaccom
panied
elders
(above 60)
Unaccom
panied
minors
(Under
18)
Working
Children
HH 148 1137
F 111 1 266 113 166 6 202 53 1145
M 189 8 178 137 156 5 118 87 1359
148
1137
111
1
266
113166
6
202
53
1145
189
8
178137 156
5
11887
1359
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600Vulnerable Groups
25
Figure 10: Languages spoken
DISPLACEMENT TRENDS
In describing the categories of the IDP settlements, 77 settlements are living with host communities,
77 are places of origin for IDPs, 5 villages are experiencing ongoing displacement. Some villages fit
into different categories. It is assumed that displacement happened in villages of origin, but the
enumerators only identified 23 villages. Many IDPs residing in their host villages are also visiting their
original villages to maintain their farms where they generate their income. Some IDPs are taxed twice
by KNU (as residents in host community and maintaining their farms in their original village).
Shan
(Law)Shan Pa Ohe Mon
Kayin
(Sagaw)
Kayin
(Poe)
Kayin
(Gabar)
Kayin
(Bawe)Kayin Dawei Bawe Bamar
No of Villages 1 1 1 8 79 27 5 2 33 22 1 49
1 1 1
8
79
27
52
33
22
1
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Languages Spoken
26
Figure 11: Description of Settlements
There seems to be a significant population movement in these villages with the coming of new arrivals
in the past 12 months. New arrivals in the villages are mainly IDPs (located in 73 villages), followed by
migrant workers (12 villages), elsewhere in Thailand (potential refuges) and some returning refugees (5
villages). We have no number of individuals/ families. Only 3 villages declared that the IDP population is
decreasing in their village. Most of the villages claimed that the IDP population is increasing. It is not clear
if the IDPs are returning to their original villages or just moving to another location. Although there are
economic migrants in the villages, the trend is for younger villagers to go to Thailand to work
(outmigration).
Figure 12: New Arrivals
5
77
23
3
77
Villages
Description of Settlements
Active displacement is happening in the village
Place of origin for IDPs living in the village
Previous displacement happened in the village
Relocation site
Village has IDPs in host community
7 73 5 12
Villages
Origin of New arrivals since January 2012
From Camps in Thailand (refugees)
Elsewhere in Myanmar (IDPs)
Elsewhere in Thailand (potential refugees)
Myanmar people who moved here to work (economic migrants)
27
Most of the villages host IDPs that have been displaced for a long time. Those who have not yet
returned identified 128 villages where they originated.
Figure 13: Duration of Displacement
When asked why the IDPs chose to stay in their current location, the three main reasons given were:
first, access to community support; second, physical safety; and third, livelihood opportunity.
Figure 14: Reasons for staying in the current settlement
Duration of Displaced
6
14
7
1
14
2932
49
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Nu
mb
er o
f V
illa
ges
Number of Vlgs 6 14 7 1 14 29 32 49 62
a. 1 month b. 3 months c. 6 months d. 9 months e. 1 yearf. More
than 1 year
g. More
than 3
h. More
than 5
i. More
than 10
Birth place
close to
schools and
medical
services
(access to
education,
health
services)
friends and
relatives live
here (access to
community/
social support)
good access Other Reasons
we earn our
income here
(access to
economic/
livelihood
opportunity)
we feel safe
here (physical
safety)
Reason for Staying 15 20 81 3 11 48 61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90Reason for Staying
28
Reasons given for not returning to their original villages: first, limited livelihood opportunity; second,
no road or too far and no access to community/ social services ; third, physical insecurity and risk of
landmines. Despite the stated reason of ‘no livelihood opportunity’ in the original villages, the
enumerators informed that many IDPs continue to go to their original villages to tend to their farms for
economic reasons and even maintain temporary houses there. They refused to stay for fear for their
safety, fear that fighting might resume, and due to lack of social services.
Figure 15: Reasons for not returning to their original village
When the IDPs were asked where they would like to settle permanently if given the opportunity,
majority would like to settle in their current location (76 villages), while 29 IDP settlements would like to
return to their original villages and 35 would like to settle elsewhere. A few (3 settlements) would like
to settle outside Myanmar. We still need to sort out the classification of these 76 villages, if ‘current’
location are places of refuge or places of origin.
fear from
physical harm
frequent
displacements
no access to
social services
(education,
health)
No livelihood
opportunity
No road access/
Too far
original land
occupied by
others
Other reasonsrisk of
landmines
No of Villages 20 2 38 77 41 18 8 19
20
2
38
77
41
18
8
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No.
of
Vil
lag
es
Reasons for Not Returning to Original Village
29
Figure 16: Where the IDPs would like to settle permanently
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS
Out of 131 villages, the respondents estimated that:
• In 10 villages, people have no IDs
• In 59 villages, less than 50% of the population have IDs
• In 41 villages, more than 50% of the population have IDs
• In 21 villages, all have IDs
No of Villages
Elsewhere inside Myanmar 35
Elsewhere outside Myanmar 4
In their original village (not this
village)29
In this current settlement 76
35 villages
4 villages
29 villages
76 villages
Where IDPs Want to Settle Permanently
30
Figure 17: Percentage of ID holders in the villages
Figure 18: Types of Identity Documents
SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS
Number of households in: open shelter 496 (5%), in temporary shelter: 4164 (40%), in solid shelter:
5854 (55%). There are no community center or collective shelter. Shelter (and home lot) is one
8%
45%31%
16%
ID Document
No ID
less than 50% have IDs
50% and more have IDs
everyone has ID
Associated
Scrutiny
Citizenship
Card
Birth
Registration
Certificate
Issued in
Myanmar
Birth
Registration
Certificate
Issued in
Thailand
Citizenship
Scrutiny
Card
(CSCs) Pink
Family List
National
Registration
Card (3
folded card,
green or
pink)
Naturalized
Scrutiny
Citizenship
Card
OtherTemporary
Family List
Temporary
Registration
Card (TRC)
No of Villages 2 27 2 106 41 15 8 3 1 12
2
27
2
106
41
15
8
31
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No.
of
Vil
lag
es
Types of ID Document
31
major concern of the IDPs as compared to the host community households. IDPs usually stay only in
temporary shelters. They are also in need of non-food items and identified this as a priority problem as
compared to host community households.
Figure 19: Shelter types
Number of villages and estimated percentage of households with sufficient non-food items:
Non-food Items 0% <25% 25-45% 50% 55-
75%
75% or
more
100%
Blankets and Bedding 23 14 15 22 19
Clothing 2 26 6 11 25 29
Cooking Utensils 1 19 10 15 32 23
Fuel Wood 1 3 2 2 5 106
Jerry Cans 3 23 15 16 27 12
Mosquito Nets 8 13 9 11 13 58
Plastic Sheeting 44 17 6 2 2 3 6
Sanitary Pads 22 41 15 8 9
Shelter (with roof and
walls)
2 16 15 8 27 45
Soap 2 26 12 19 23 18
Open Shelter
5%
Temporary
shelter
40%
Solid
Shelter
55%
0%
SHELTER
32
LIVELIHOOD AND FOOD SECURITY
Main source of income for most of the villages is daily wage labor while farming is the main livelihood
opportunity (if farmland is available to 48 per cent of the villages).
Figure 20: Sources of Income
.
Aid or
remittance
daily wage
labor
fishing or
hunting
no cash
income in
past month
petty trade regular job
sale of
agricultural
crops
sale of
forest
products
sale of
livestock
No of Villages 6 111 8 40 41 18 41 29 20
6
111
8
40 41
18
41
29
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No. of
Vil
lages
Main Sources of Cash Income
33
Figure 21: Livelihood Opportunities
Land ownership: 48 per cent have no land; 23 per cent own land less than 2 acres; 20 per cent own land
between 2-5 acres and 9 per cent own land more than 5 acres.
Land rights and security is very much connected to displacement. Majority of the IDPs have no land of
their own and are just working in other people’s farms. They cannot build permanent houses on other
people’s land. In Dawei, 9 previously abandoned villages are not recognized by the government thus no
permanent structure is allowed. Returning to their original villages, there are many cases that their land
were already occupied by companies or military (camp or training school). Some of the cases affecting
the IDPs losing their land are:
• In Palau, Tanintharyi, the military took over the land / farms of the IDPs to build a military
training camp;
• One agriculture company occupied the land at the border of Palau and Thayetchaung for
rubber plantation;
• In Dawei township, a rubber plantation company also occupied a forest where villagers
have their farms;
• In Naung Bo village, Kyaukkyi (Bago East), a military camp fenced in the land of the
returning IDPs, including the school and church inside the camp preventing the use of
school and church. This village is listed as a destroyed village (unregistered). There are
35 IDP returnee families.
constru
ction
daily
wages
labour
Educat
ion
work
farmin
gfishing
health
and
social
work
livestoc
kmining other
public
servant
rubber
plantat
ion
trade
No of Villages 7 1 21 119 5 19 36 3 22 7 39 11
71
21
119
5
19
36
3
22
7
39
11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Livelihood Opportunities
34
• The 3 IDP settlements (wards) in Thandaunggyi originated from 16 villages inside the
jungle. Between the IDP settlements to the their original place is the presence of a huge
of military camp. The IDPs cannot go to their original places without the permission of
the military. The IDPs are worried that may lose their land to business companies in their
absence.
• In Kyarinseikkyi, some villagers are warned to be moved to places close to the road by
by the government as road construction will take place for Antimony mine through
their villages. Similar complaints were received from some villages in Tanintharyi.
Figure 22: Land Ownership
Shocks to livelihood: During the previous year, the common livelihood shocks experienced were: loss of
job illness in the family, death of the main breadwinner, destruction or loss of property due to natural
disasters, reduced access to farms, landmines and armed conflict are the major sources of shock that have
occurred in the past 12 months in these villages. Not shared by most of the villages, conflict- related
shocks are identified in 21 villages having landmine problems, 12 villages having reduced access to their
farms and travel restrictions and 6 villages still affected by armed conflict. Loss of farm products and farm
animals are cited. Food stocks vary, from 1 week to 16 weeks, and in 44 villages, some people have no
food stock at all. Only 9 villages in the townships of Dawei, Hlaingbwe and Thandaunggyi received food
assistance. Main forms of coping strategy are borrowing, skipping loan payment, selling of young/
immature livestock, collecting wild products from the forest, harvesting immature crops, consuming seed
stock and begging.
No Land for
Farming
48%less than 2 acres of
land
23%
with 2 to 5 acres of
land
20%
acres 5 plus
9%
Land Ownership for Farming
35
Figure 23: Livelihood Shocks
Figure 24: Loss due to Livelihood Shocks
afraid
Robber
armed
conflict
difficult
road
access
flood/
heavy
rain/
drought
forced
displace
ment
illness
or
injury
landmin
es
loss of
employ
ment or
reduced
wages
loss of
producti
ve assets
no job
opportu
nities or
less job
opportu
nities
others
reduced
access to
farm;
travel
restricti
ons
travel
No of Villages 1 6 1 83 2 98 21 52 22 107 24 12
16
1
83
2
98
21
52
22
107
24
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Difficulties or Shocks to Livelihood
BuffaloChicke
nCow Crops Donkey Duck Geese Goat
Harves
t stocksHorse Pig Turkey
No of Villages 26 31 26 51 1 14 2 9 49 2 17 2
2631
26
51
1
14
2
9
49
2
17
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Loss due to Shock
36
Figure 25: Food stock
Figure 26: Assistance Received
<1 week 1-2 weeks 2-4 weeks 4-8 weeks 8-16 weeksCurrently
not able
No of Villages 52 61 71 74 77 44
52
61
7174
77
44
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Food availability
Dawei Hlaingbwe Thandaunggyi
Clothes 1
Oil 1
Pulses 1
Rice 1 4 1
1 11 1
4
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Assistance Received
37
Figure 27: Coping Strategies
Borrowi
ng
Skip
loan
paymen
ts
Sell
young
livestoc
k
Collecti
ng wild
food
Harvest
immatu
re crops
Consum
e seed
stock
Begging
Sell
non-
product
ive
assets
Sell
livestoc
k or
farm
equipm
ent
less
preferre
d food
Reduce
number
of meals
per day
Limit
portion
sizes at
meals
Consum
e more
livestoc
k
Skip
meals
No.Villages 97 71 71 70 62 59 50 39 35 32 25 24 5 4
97
71 71 70
6259
50
3935
32
25 24
5 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Coping Strategies
38
WATER, SANITATION, HYGIENE
Water availability in the villages:
Of the 131 villages, 57 % have insufficient drinking water, 38 % think that their water is not safe for
drinking, 30 % have insufficient cooking water, and 32 % have insufficient cleaning water.
Township SUFFICIENT
DRINKING
WATER
SAFE for DRINKING? SUFFICIENT
COOKING
WATER
SUFFICIENT CLEANING
WATER
No Yes N.A. No Yes No Yes N.A. No Yes
Dawei 10 1 8 3 5 6 1 3 7
Hlaingbwe 3 9 6 6 2 10 4 8
Hpa-An 1 1 1 1
Hpapun 1 5 2 4 6 1 5
Kawkareik 3 7 1 9 3 7 3 7
Kyainseikgyi 11 21 8 24 11 21 4 6 22
Kyaukkyi 1 1 1 1
Launglon 1 1 1 1
Myawaddy 6 3 1 7 1 5 4 6 3
Palaw 3 7 10 10 2 8
Taungoo 1 1 1 1
Thandaunggyi 8 11 11 8 5 14 2 10 7
Thayetchaung 2 5 3 4 2 5 4 1 2
Yebyu 7 4 2 9 7 4 7 4
TOTAL VILLAGES 56 75 1 50 80 41 90 13 44 74
Figure 28: Availability of drinking water, safe drinking water, cooking water and cleaning water in the villages
Figure 29: Sources of Water
Borehole/PumpNatural spring/
Gravity flow
Piped water
systemRain water River/Stream
No of Villages 66 38 27 21 68
66
38
27
21
68
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Nu
mb
er o
f V
illa
ges
Sources of Water
39
Figure 30: Condition of Borehole
Figure 31: Condition of Pumps
Additional information:
• 67 (51%) of the villages do not boil their water before drinking. The main reason for the practice
is the lack of knowledge on the importance of boiling.
• Only 3 out 131 villages have available water purification methods/ tablets.
Destroyed and not working Working
Number of Borehole 527 886
Number of Villages 61 66
527
886
61 66
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
No
. o
f B
ore
ho
les
Borehole Condition
Destroyed and not working Working
Number of Pump 38 2
Number of Villages 12 2
38
2
12
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
No
. o
f P
um
ps
Pump Condition
40
• In Kyarinseikkyi, some villages have drinking water problem because mines of Antimony are close
to their village and mine tailings have polluted their drinking water.
Sanitation and Hygiene
On the use of latrines: Open defecation is a common practice in all villages. 19 villages have no
functioning latrines at all, while 112 have functioning latrines. Of the 112 villages with functioning latrines,
not all the people have access to these latrines and most latrines are unsanitary and not fly-proof. In
general, around 5-10 persons commonly use one latrine but a few villages declared that 15-30 persons
commonly use a single latrine. In 84 villages, children do not use latrines for defecation. There is no
separate latrine exclsively for women. In 70 villages, the respondents answered that there is no safe access
for women at night. Further details:
• 45 villages have 25% functioning latrines
• 22 villages have 50% functioning latrines
• 24 villages have 75% functioning latrines
• Average of 17% in 68 villages wash with soap after using the latrines
• Average of 90% wash without soap after using the latrines
On sanitation:
• 32 villages have no bathing facilities
• 79 villages have stagnant water ( large puddles) at the site four hours after the rain
• 120 villages have no common waste dump in the site
• 120 villages have freely roaming livestock in the vicinity of their homes
•
41
Figure 32: Availability of Latrines
Figure 33: Number of Persons Using a Latrine
DaweiHlaingb
weHpa-An Hpapun
Kawkar
eik
Kyainse
ikgyi
Kyaukk
yi
Launglo
n
Myawa
ddyPalaw
Taungo
o
Thanda
unggyi
Thayetc
haungYebyu
No 2 9 1 1 4 1 1
Yes 9 3 1 6 10 31 1 5 9 1 18 7 11
2
9
1 1
4
1 1
9
3
1
6
10
31
1
5
9
1
18
7
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
No. of
Vil
lages
Functioning Latrines
05 persons per
latrine
10 persons per
latrine
15 persons per
latrine
20 persons per
latrine
30 persons per
latrine
Number of Villages 29 55 38 3 5 1
29
55
38
35
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
No.
of
Vil
lag
es
No. of Persons per Latrine
42
Figure 34: Percentage of Villagers Using Flyproof or Unsanitary Latrines
32
2
20
8.3
25
38
0
34
38
75
30
3537
72
51
80
92
59
45
100
66
50
94
61 60
99
Type of Latrines Used
Flyproof Unsanitary
43
Figure 35: Percentage of Villages using latrines and openly defecate
Figure 36: Functioning Latrines
Daw
ei
Hlai
ngb
we
Hpa
-An
Hpa
pun
Kaw
kare
ik
Kyai
nsei
kgyi
Kya
ukk
yi
Lau
nglo
n
Mya
wad
dy
Pala
w
Tau
ngoo
Tha
nda
ungg
yi
Tha
yetc
hau
ng
Yeb
yu
Average percentage of Open Defecation 77 96 40 68 58 62 100 70 81 63 25 52 86 23
Average % of people using latrines 71 25 60 49 53 39 30 56 75 75 49 40 94
77
96
40
68
5862
100
70
81
63
25
52
86
23
71
25
60
4953
39
30
56
75 75
49
40
94
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Aver
age
%
Hygiene Practice
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Use of latrines
LATRINES
No latrines
25% have functioning latrines
50% have functioning latrines
75% have functioning latrines
44
HEALTH AND NUTRITION
Only 15 villages have health facilities. These are mainly clinics run by government and NGOs. Only 3
doctors are available; the rest are community traditional birth attendants, healers, midwives, community
and NGO health workers. Birth deliveries are mainly at home and majority are assisted by traditional
birth attendants.
Malaria and diarrhea are prevalent, followed by dysentery, gastritis, respiratory ailments, tuberculosis,
trauma and skin infection. Medicine is generally inadequate. 45% of the villages have not received any
vaccination in 2012.
There are a total of 2,351 lactating women and 1,023 pregnant women in the villages. Around 407 under-
6 months old infants are dependent on infant milk products with Thandaunggyi, Kyainseikgyi (in Kayin)
and Thayetchaung (Tanintharyi) having the highest reported cases. Obvious signs of malnutrition are
reported in 71 villages, 24 of these villages are in Kyainseikgyi. There is no distribution of vitamin A in
68 villages and no deworming in 78 villages.
Children exposed to multiple vulnerabilities because of health reasons include 300 children with
disabilities, and 9 with HIV/AIDS.
45
Figure 37: Availability of health facilities
Health Facilities
Township Community Clinic DKBA clinic General Hospital NGO clinic RHC Sub RHC
Kawkareik 1
Kyainseikgyi 1 3
Myawaddy 1 1
Thandaunggyi 1 1 1 2 1
Palaw 1
Thayetchaung 1
Yebyu 3 1
Hlaingb
weHpa-An Hpapun
Kawkar
eik
Kyainse
ikgyi
Kyaukk
yi
Myawa
ddyDawei
Launglo
nPalaw
Thayetc
haungYebyu
Yes 1 4 2 1 1 4
No 12 1 6 9 28 1 7 11 1 9 6 7
Number of Health
Facilities1 4 2 1 1 4
14
2 1 14
12
1
6
9
28
1
7 11
1
96
7
1
4
2 1
1
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40N
o.
of
Vil
lages
Health Facilities
46
Figure 38: Availability of Health Care Providers
NONE AMW
Army
Health
Worke
r
Comm
unity
Health
Worke
r
DoctorMidwif
e
Midwif
e
(Temp)
NGO
StaffNurse Other PSI
Suppor
t
Midwif
e
Traditi
onal
birth
attenda
nt
Traditi
onal
Healer
NoofVillages 7 2 1 57 3 44 5 21 2 14 1 1 102 50
7
2 1
57
3
44
5
21
2
14
1 1
102
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Health Care Providers
47
Figure 39: Health Services
Figure 40: Recent Main Health Concerns
NAAntenatal
care
Dewormin
g
Distributio
n of
insecticide
nets
Health talkImmunizat
ion
Malaria
diagnosis
and
treatment
Referral
cases
Treatment
of minor
illness
NoofVillages 17 55 68 62 44 79 71 37 55
17
55
68
62
44
79
71
37
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90N
o.
of
Vil
lages
Health Care Services
Diarrh
ea
Dysent
eryFlu
Gastrit
is
Malari
a
Measle
sOthers
Respir
atory
Sexuall
y
Trans
mitted
Diseas
e
Skin
infecti
ons
Traum
a
Tuberc
ulosis
Number of Villages 70 41 2 35 77 10 10 42 3 32 41 44
70
41
2
35
77
10 10
42
3
32
4144
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Main Health Concerns that Occurred During the Last Two Weeks
48
Figure 41: Availability of Medication
Hlaingbw
eHpa-An Hpapun
Kawkarei
k
Kyainseik
gyiKyaukkyi
Myawadd
yDawei Launglon Palaw
Thayetch
aungYebyu
NA 4 1 8 5 2 9 2 6
No 8 1 5 2 26 1 7 2 1 1 2 2
Yes 1 9 3 3
4
1
8
5
2
9
2
6
8
1
5
2
26
1
7
2
1 1
2 2
1
9
3 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No.
of
Vil
lages
Adequate Medication Available
49
Figure 42: Nearest Health Facilities Available
Figure 43: Vaccination Offered in 2012
Hospital NGO Clinic RHC Sub RHC
No. of Villages 53 17 16 44
53
1716
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No.
of
Vil
lages
Nearest Health Facility
no
vaccinations
offered
BCG DPT Measles OPV Penta
TT for
pregnant
women
No. of Villages 59 62 48 62 55 37 63
59
62
48
62
55
37
63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No.
of
Vil
lag
es
Vaccination Offered in 2012
50
Assists in the Delivery Home Hospital NGO clinic RHC Sub RHC
Community Health
Worker
37 2 1
Doctor 1 1 4 1
Husband 3
Midwife 28 2 3 1 1
Midwife (Temp) 1
NGO Staff 9 2
Nurse 3 1 1
Traditional birth
attendant
117 1 2
Traditional Healer 16
TOTAL 215 3 11 5 4
Figure 44: Health Assistance During Delivery of Babies
State Township
No. of under
6 months
depending
on infant
milk
products
No. of
Villages with
Vitamin A
Distributed
No. of
Villages
without
Vitamin A
Distribution
No. of
Villages
Received
Deworming
No. of
Villages No
Deworming
No. of Villages
with Obvious
Sign of
Malnutrition
Bago (East) Kyaukkyi 1 1 1
Bago (East) Taungoo 1 1
Kayin Hlaingbwe 6 1 11 7 5 7
Kayin Hpa-An 1 1 1
Kayin Hpapun 41 4 2 5 1 5
Kayin Kawkareik 8 3 6 4 4 2
Kayin Kyainseikgyi 77 20 12 18 14 24
Kayin Myawaddy 32 3 4 4 4 3
Kayin Thandaunggyi 118 7 12 8 11 8
Tanintharyi Dawei 2 9 4 7 8
Tanintharyi Launglon 1 1 1
Tanintharyi Palaw 38 3 7 9 1 7
Tanintharyi Thayetchaung 81 5 2 7 2
Tanintharyi Yebyu 5 10 1 9 2 3
TOTAL 407 60 68 78 50 71
Figure 45: Nutrition Information
51
EDUCATION
Education facilities:
Nine villages have high schools, 26 villages have middle schools, 119 have primary schools, 39 have
preschools and 28 villages have temporary learning facilities. Of the 119 primary schools, 57 are
community supported, 58 are government schools and 3 are already affiliated school. Preschools are
available only in 39 villages, 29 are community supported and 10 are government preschools.
Classroom -students ratio is 1: 28 for pre-school, 1:49 for primary school, 1:30 for middle school and 1:
30 for high school. Seventy six villages have insufficient school latrines. Fifty two villages have no drinking
water at school. Sixty five per cent of the school buildings need major repair and 35 per cent need minor
repair. Only 10 schools have washing facilities.
School fees: Pre- schools collect from 500 to 3,000 monthly and around; primary schools collect from
1,000 to 6,500; middle schools collect from 2,000 to as much as 8,000; high school fee is 20,000.
Services Government Community Affiliated
Pre School 500 – 3,000
1000-3000
15,000- 20,000 annual
Primary 1,000 – 3,000
1000 – 6,500
2,000
12,000-50,000 annual 10,500 – 60,000 30,000
Middle 2,000
2,000
2,500, 8,000
32,000- 65000 annual 10,500 – 60,000 annual 100,000 annual
High School 20,000 Not known Figure 46: School Fees
Curriculum: 84 per cent use the government curriculum. School supplies are generally insufficient in 62
villages.
Students: There are a total of 13,598 students, majority are in primary schools. Only 1 out of 4 under five
are attending pre-schools. There are only 415 high school students in a population of 9,463 children
under 18 years old (12-18 years old) or around 4 per cent of this age group are in high school. 2269 IDP
children are not attending schools in 63 villages. In the population count, around 2,504 children are
already working (child laborers). 2269 IDP children are not attending schools in 63 villages. Lack of
interest, domestic chores, unable to pay for schools fees and transportation cost/ schools far from the
villages and illness are the common reasons for children not attending schools. In 38 villages, the children
need to work and in 15 villages, the movement of families from one site to another is one reason why
the children cannot go to school. Majority of the students speak Kayin (Sgaw is most dominant, followed
by Pwo). A small number can speak Bamar, Dawei, and Mon.
Teachers: There are 558 teachers and 239 are paid by the community. The teachers in in 81 villages can
speak the local language (Kayin mainly). Most teachers receive low salary. Teacher’s absenteeism is one
52
reason for children not attending school. Base on the figures given, teacher-student ratio is: 1: 24 in High
school; 1:29 in middle school; 1:15 in pre school, and 1:25 primary school.
Education
Villages Education Students Teachers Teacher
Student
Ratio
Classrooms
Classroom
Student
Ratio
9 High school (15-16 years old) 415 17 1: 24 14 1:30
26 Middle school (10-14 years old) 2523 88 1: 29 65 1:38
39 Pre school (3-5 years old) 1271 82 1: 15 45 1:28
119 Primary (5-9 years old) 9389 371 1: 25 192 1:49
9 NA
TOTAL 13598 558 316
Figure 47: Total Number of Students, Teachers, Classrooms
Figure 48: Number and Location of Temporary Learning Facilities
1 1
11
1 1 1
3
10
2
4
6
8
10
12
No
. o
f V
illa
ges
Temporary Learning Facilities
53
TYPES OF SCHOOL:
Figure 49: Types of School
Villages with more than twenty out-of-school IDP children
Township Village Tract Village Out of
school
IDP
Children
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat 408
Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township)
Baw Kyo Lel 200
Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward 100
Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township)
Lay Hpoe Hta
(East)
100
Dawei Taung Thone Lone (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Htaung Ni 90
Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Naung Ta Khu 76
Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township)
Yae Pu 76
Hpapun War Kaw Kyay (Kamamaung Sub-township) Ta Dar U 75
Palaw Nan Taung Nan Taung 61
Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward 60
Government
Schools, 90
Community
Schools, 92
Affiliated Schools, 8 Unknown, 3
54
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet 50
Kyainseikgyi Lan Hpar (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Me Ta Law 50
Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Lawt Thaing 50
Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon 50
Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township)
Shwe Yay 50
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Htaw Ta Li 50
Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ah Mo 50
Thandaunggyi Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub-township) Thauk Yae Khat 44
Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Hpar He Kwee 40
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi 35
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) R Zar Ni Kone 32
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein
(Middle)
30
Palaw Sin Htoe Gyi (Palauk Sub-township) Inn Ma 26
Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar 25
Thandaunggyi Yae Thoe Gyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Yae Thoe Ka Lay 25
Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Ya Thayt 25
Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Khoke Khwar 20
Palaw Hta Min Ma Sar Ka Mar Aing 20
Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar 20
Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Naung Ta Man 20
Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Hu Than 20 Figure 50: List of Villages with 20+ out- of- school IDP children
55
Figure 51: Reasons for Children not Attending Schools
child
not
interest
ed to
attend
school
child
needed
for
domesti
c
chores
cannot
pay
school
fees
cannot
pay
transpo
rtation
cost/
school
is too
far
illness
or
handica
p
child
works
for cash
or food
child is
moving
with
family
to
another
site
other
teacher
is
absent
security
situatio
n is not
safe
flood
Villages 78 68 64 58 55 38 15 5 5 3 1
78
6864
5855
38
15
5 5 3 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No
. o
f V
illa
ge
sReasons for Children Not Attending Schools
56
Figure 52: Sufficiency of School Supplies
Figure 53: School Latrines
3 32
1 1 1 12 2
1
5
2
15
1
7
9
1
15
2
67
1
6
16
1 1
3
7
9
School Supplies
No Answer Not Sufficient Sufficient
43
1
4
1
433 3
1
45
25
1
7
4
13
5 54
6
1 1
7
1 12
1
32
6
School Latrines
No Answer Not Sufficent Sufficient
57
Figure 54: School Building Repair Information
43
12
12
3
1 12
8
11
1
6
12
5 56
8
1
3
21
12
8
1
4
2
6
Drinking Water at School
No Answer Not Sufficient Sufficient
Major repair needed,
74, 65%
Minor repair needed,
39, 35%
School Building Repair Information
Major repair needed
Minor repair needed
58
Figure 55: Teaching Curriculum
Government, 110,
84%
No Answer, 17, 13%
Other, 4, 3%
Teaching Curriculum
Government No Answer Other
59
CHILD PROTECTION
Figure 56: Vulnerable Children
Child-headed households: In 26 villages
Township Village Tract Village Child headed
Households
Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub-
township)
Win Lone 40
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi 20
Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward 20
Yebyu Zin Bar (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Zin Bar 10
Kyainseikgyi Lan Hpar (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Me Ta Law 7
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet 5
Palaw Sin Htoe Gyi (Palauk Sub-township) Inn Ma 5
Hpapun Me Pa Li (Kamamaung Sub-township) Kyauk Twin 5
Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward 4
Child
headed
Households
Families
with
Missing
Children
Working
Children
Unaccompa
nied
Children
Total
Children
Missing
Separated
ChildrenOrphans
With
HIV/Aids
With
disability
Family 20
Households 148
Female 1145 53 12 63 166 1 111
Male 1359 87 18 71 156 8 189
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Vulnerable Children
60
Thayetchaun
g
Yae Pu Yae Pu 3
Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon 3
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein (Middle) 3
Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Lay Htaw Hta 3
Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Naung Ta Khu 3
Thandaunggyi Htee Thar Saw (Leik Tho Sub-township) Htee Thar Saw
(Lower)
2
Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Hpa Aung 2
Palaw Nan Taung Nan Taung 2
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Wa Zum Oke 2
Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township)
Baw Kyo Lel 2
Yebyu Urban Kawt Hlaing 1
Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar 1
Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Hu Than 1
Palaw Hta Min Ma Sar Ka Mar Aing 1
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) R Zar Ni Kone 1
Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub-
township)
Pa Law Hpar Htaw 1
Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni 1
The highest number of children with disabilities are seen in the following villages:
Township Village Tract Village Sex With disability
Thandaunggyi Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub-township) Thauk Yae Khat M 8
Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward F 9
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi M 10
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi F 12
Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Me Ka Taw M 40
Children with HIV/ Aids are located in 3 villages
Township Village Tract Village Childre
n with
HIV
Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward 7 (M)
Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Rar Hpu (Thit) 1 (M)
Thayetchaung Urban Laung Min Ba 1 (F)
The highest number of orphans are located in the ff:
Township Village Tract Village Sex Orphans
Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward M 75
61
Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward F 61
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi M 26
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi F 24
Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward M 18
Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward F 15
Separated Children:
Township Village Tract Village Name Sex/ Separat
e
Children
Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward M 25
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi M 22
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi F 20
Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward F 20
Myawaddy Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub-
township)
Ti Thea Lei (Maw
Khee)
M 15
Myawaddy Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub-
township)
Ti Thea Lei (Maw
Khee)
F 10
Kyainseikgyi Taung Waing (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Meit Ta Khet F 5
Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar F 5
Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar M 3
Kyainseikgyi Taung Waing (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Meit Ta Khet M 2
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet M 2
Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni F 2
Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Kha Lel M 2
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet F 1
Missing Children: mainly in Nga Poe, Leik Tho
Township Village Tract Village
Name
Sex Total
Children
Missing
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-
township)
Nga Poe
Gyi
M 18
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-
township)
Nga Poe
Gyi
F 12
Working Children: The highest number can be found in Thandaunggyi and Kyainseikgyi
Township Village Tract Village
Name
Sex Working
Children
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-
township)
Nga Poe
Gyi
M 215
62
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat M 208
Thandaunggyi Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-
township)
Nga Poe
Gyi
F 200
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat F 200
10 Local monasteries/ churches assisting vulnerable children
Township Village Tract Village Name of Sites
Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet Naw Di Boe
Yan
Hpa-An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin Monastery
Hpapun Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung
Sub-township)
Baw Kyo Lel Monastery
Hpapun War Kaw Kyay (Kamamaung Sub-
township)
Ta Dar U Monastery
Kawkareik Dauk Pa Lan Dauk Pa Lan Monastery
Kawkareik Kawt Nwe Myo Haung Monastery
Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Ya Thayt Monastery
Thandaunggyi Htee Thar Saw (Leik Tho Sub-
township)
Htee Thar Saw (Lower) Monastery
Myawaddy Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay
sub-township)
Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) KBC Church
Hpapun Me Pa Li (Kamamaung Sub-
township)
Kyauk Twin Church
Figure 57: Monasteries assisting vulnerable children
ASSISTANCE
ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING ASSISTANCE
COORDINATION���� To be verified:
Township Village
COORDINATING
ORG’s
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat DST
Kyainseikgyi
Hpay
Nar
Mone K.K.B.A
Kyainseikgyi
Htee
Phoe
Wai
K.K.B.A
(C.S.S.D.D)
Myawaddy
Hto Thu
Khee
K.K.B.A
(C.S.S.D.D.)
Thandaunggyi
Htar Hpo
Chee
Myanmar
Gayunar
Township Village
COORDINATING
ORG’s
Thandaunggyi
Htee
Thar Saw
(Lower)
Myanmar
Gayunar
Thandaunggyi
Thauk
Yae Khat
Myanmar
Gayunar
Kawkareik
Dauk Pa
Lan
Save the
Children
Yebyu
Mi
Kyaung
Hlaung Total
Yebyu
Kawt
Hlaing Total Figure 58: Organizations doing Coordination
63
EDUCATION:
Township Village
EDUCATION
ORGs
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat DST
Thayetchaung Taung Zin Government
Kyainseikgyi
Khoke
Khwar K.S.E.A.G
Kawkareik Hti Hu Than KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Pa Law Hpar
Htaw KNU
Kyainseikgyi Win Lone KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Noet Ta Pa
Lar KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Ta Po Hpoe
Htar KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Yar Thae
Kar (Nan Pat
Chaung) KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Naung Ta
Khu KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Naung Ta
Man KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Hnget Pyaw
Taw KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Lay Htaw
Hta KNU
Thandaunggyi
Khaw Thaw
Khaw KNU
Dawei
Ka Htaung
Ni KNU
Kyainseikgyi Khaw Khat KSEAG
Kyainseikgyi
Htee Phoe
Wai KSEAG
Kyaukkyi Naung Bo
Myanmar
Gayunar
Yebyu Pay Ta Kha Red Cross
Hlaingbwe
Kwee The
Hpoo
Saturday
Team (Yae
Pu)
Township Village
EDUCATION
ORGs
Kawkareik Dauk Pa Lan
Save the
Children
Yebyu
Mi Kyaung
Hlaung Total
Yebyu Kawt Hlaing Total
Dawei
Tha Byu
Chaung UNICEF
Thayetchaung
Kayin Taung
Pyauk UNICEF
Thayetchaung
Laung Min
Ba UNICEF
Thandaunggyi
Htar Hpo
Chee UNICEF
Thandaunggyi
Htee Thar
Saw (Lower) UNICEF
Thandaunggyi
Thauk Yae
Khat UNICEF
Kawkareik Hti Saw Si Ni
UNICEF,
KNU
Kyainseikgyi Me Ka Taw
UNICEF,
KNU
Kyainseikgyi Shwe Doe
UNICEF,
KNU
Kyainseikgyi Me Ta Law
UNICEF,
KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Aung Chan
Thar
UNICEF,
KNU
Kyainseikgyi Bi Sa Khat
UNICEF,
KNU
Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt
UNICEF,
KNU
Yebyu
Ma Yan
Chaung
Yadana
Project
Hotel Figure 59: Organizations doing Education
64
FOOD SECURITY:
Township Village Tract Village FOOD SECURITY ORG’S
Kyaukkyi Naung Bo Naung Bo Myanmar Gayunar
Thandaunggyi Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub-township) Thauk Yae Khat Myanmar Gayunar
Figure 60: Organizations doing Food Security
HEALTH:
Township Village HEALTH ORG’NS
Dawei War Taw
3 D Fund+ WHO,
Government
Kyainseikgyi
Lay Htaw
Hta ARC
Thayetchaung Yae Byat AZG
Hlaingbwe
Me Ka Taw
Khee Bag Group
Kyainseikgyi
Pa Law
Hpar Htaw Best
Kyainseikgyi
Noet Ta Pa
Lar Best
Kyainseikgyi
Yar Thae
Kar (Nan
Pat
Chaung) Best
Kyainseikgyi
Hnget
Pyaw Taw Best
Kyainseikgyi
Khoke
Khwar Best+Government
Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat DST
Kyainseikgyi Win Lone Government
Kyainseikgyi
Naung Ta
Khu Government
Kyainseikgyi
Naung Ta
Man Government
Thayetchaung Yae Pu
Government,
AZG, World Vision
Thandaunggyi
Khaw Thaw
Khaw KNU
Kyainseikgyi
Htee Phoe
Wai KNU
Hpapun
Lay Hpoe
Hta (East) KSEG
Yebyu Pay Ta Kha MARC
Taungoo
Yae Sin
kone
Myanmar
Gayunar
Township Village HEALTH ORG’NS
Thandaunggyi Lo Lar Way
Myanmar
Gayunar
Thandaunggyi
Pyar Sa
Khan
Myanmar
Gayunar
Thandaunggyi
Htee Thar
Saw
(Lower)
Myanmar
Gayunar
Hlaingbwe
Hpar He
Kwee Save the Children
Hlaingbwe Htee Par Save the Children
Hlaingbwe
Oh Lar Ka
Lo Save the Children
Kawkareik
Mi Hpa
Nyar Save the Children
Yebyu
Mi Kyaung
Hlaung Total
Yebyu
Kawt
Hlaing Total
Kawkareik
Hti Hu
Than UNICEF
Kyainseikgyi Me Ka Taw UNICEF
Dawei Ah Mo URC
Dawei
Ka Maw
Haw URC
Dawei
Kat Ta Yar
Sei URC
Dawei
Sin Hpyu
Taing URC
Dawei Ka Lit Gyi World Vision
Dawei
Ka Htaung
Ni World Vision
Yebyu
Ma Yan
Chaung
Yadana Project
Hotel
Figure 61: Organizations doing Health Assistance
65
NON-FOOD ITEMS:
State Township Village Tract Village
NFI’s
organizations
Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Pa Dat Chaung Taung Zin World Vision
Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Kayin Taung Pyauk
Kayin Taung
Pyauk World Vision
Tanintharyi Dawei
Sin Hpyu Taing
(Myitta Sub-
township) Ah Mo URC
Kayin Kawkareik Ta Ri Ta Khaung Mi Hpa Nyar
Save the
Children
Kayin Thandaunggyi
Htee Thar Saw (Leik
Tho Sub-township)
Htee Thar
Saw (Lower)
Myanmar
Gayunar
Tanintharyi Yebyu Thea Chaung Pay Ta Kha MARC
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Ka Mawt Thea (Win
Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub-
township)
Pa Law Hpar
Htaw CSSDD Figure 62: Organizations providing Non-Food Items
NUTRITION
State Township Village Tract Village Nutrition
Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub-
township)
Ka Lit Gyi World
Vision
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon)
(Kyaikdon Sub-township)
Pa Law Hpar Htaw VA
Figure 63: Organizations providing Nutrition assistance
SHELTER
State Township Village Tract Village Shelter
Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub-
township)
Ka Lit Gyi UNHCR
Figure 64: Organizations in Shelter Assistance
WATER
State Township Village Tract Village WASH
Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub-
township)
Ka Lit Gyi World
Vision
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon)
(Kyaikdon Sub-township)
Pa Law Hpar Htaw Myanmar
Gayunar
Bago (East) Kyaukkyi Naung Bo Naung Bo Myanmar
Gayunar
66
Bago (East) Taungoo Kyauk Taing Yae Sin kone Governme
nt
Kayin Hlaingbwe Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit
Sub-township)
Htee Hpar Ret C.S.S.D.D
Kayin Hlaingbwe Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit
Sub-township)
Htee Hpoe Khee BAJ
Kayin Hlaingbwe Me Tha Mu (Shan Ywar Thit
Sub-township)
Me Ka Taw Khee ADRA
Figure 65: Organizations in WASH
NEEDS PRIORITIZED:
Figure 66: Needs Prioritized
COMMUNITY NEEDS:
The respondents were asked to name the top three priorities of their communities. Top 3 needs in the
order of priority are education, health and water. Listed below are the responses categorized and the
numbers of villages in need:
1. EDUCATION: 95 VILLAGES (Schools and teachers - 73; School repair – 2; Teachers
– 4 ; teacher salary – 1; Pre-schools – 10 ; Supplies and textbooks– 3 )
2. HEALTH: 92 VILLAGES ( Health/ medical knowledge – 40; Health centers -36; Health
center repair – 1; Health worker/ midwife – 8; Medicine – 6; Vaccination-1)
0102030405060708090
100
Needs Prioritized
Community Needs
IDP Needs
67
3. WATER: 74 VILLAGES (Water – 38; Borehole – 16 ; Borehole repair – 1; Water during
summer – 2; Purified water –3 ; Water pump - 1; Water and sanitation - 3 ; Water Pipe
system – 6 ; Repair water pipe system – 4 )
4. INCOME, LAND, LIVELIHOOD, FOOD: 48 VILLAGES ( Increase income, livelihood,
livelihood safety and security – 13 villages; Livelihood security and safety – 2 villages;
Job opportunity – 9 villages; Business – 2; FOOD – 17 villages; Money – 1; LAND – 4)
5. ELECTRICITY: 32 VILLAGES (including generator and solar panels)
6. PROTECTION AND SAFETY: 30 VILLAGES (Safe livelihood – 23; ‘Protection’ – 1;
Safety – 2 villages; Safety and development – 1 village; Safe house – 1 village; Safe
school- 1 village ; Mine clearance – 1 village)
7. ROADS AND BRIDGES: 25 VILLAGES ( Road repair/ road – 18 villages; Bridges and
repair – 7 villages
8. SANITATION: Fly-proof latrines – 17 VILLAGES
9. SHELTER AND- NON FOOD ITEMS: 5 villages (House – 3 villages; Non-food item- 1;
Jerry can per house – 1;
10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /OTHERS: 4 villages (Community development – 2
villages; Library – 1 village; Monastery – 1 village)
IDP NEEDS PRIORITIZED
The IDPs were also asked about their priority needs. Foremost is their need for land and income-
generating livelihood.
1. INCOME, LAND, LIVELIHOOD, FOOD: 58 (9 farm land, jobs and other income
opportunities)
2. EDUCATION: 41 (schools, teachers, text books, preschools for children)
3. HEALTH: 36 (health care, medicine)
4. SHELTER AND- NON FOOD ITEMS: 7 shelter + 33 NFI’s
5. SANITATION: Fly-proof latrines – 19
6. WATER: 14 (source of safe drinking water)
7. PROTECTION AND SAFETY: 8
8. ELECTRICITY: 7
9. ROADS AND BRIDGES: 6
10. LANDMINE – 1
68
IV. FRAMEWORK: PEACE BUILDING AND DURABLE SOLUTIONS TO IDPS
There are indications that the IDPs are slowly returning to their places of origin. However, conditions for
sustainable return must be in place. Interventions in behalf of the IDPs in southeast Myanmar should
focus on durable solutions to their displacement. This means that IDPs no longer have specific assistance
and protection needs that are directly linked to their displacements and can enjoy their human rights
without discrimination on account of their displacements. As in peace building, achieving the conditions
for durable solutions is a gradual, long and complex process.
A solution to internal displacement can be achieved through either of these three modalities20:
a. sustainable return to their place of origin;
b. sustainable local settlement in the area where IDPs have taken refuge; or
c. sustainable settlement elsewhere the country.
The choice of all IDPs to locally integrate or settle elsewhere in the country, in the absence of the option
to return, must not be regarded as a renunciation of his/ her right to return should that choice later
become feasible21.
Durable solutions also means achievement of the following rights without discrimination22:
a. long - term safety, security and freedom of movement;
b. an adequate standard of living, including at a minimum access to adequate food,
water, housing, health care and basic education;
c. access to employment and livelihoods;
d. access to effective mechanisms that restore IDP’s housing, land and property or
provide then with compensation;
e. access to, and replacement of, personal and other documentation especially in
relation to their rights as citizens;
f. voluntary reunification with family members separated during displacement;
g. participation in public affairs at all levels on equal basis with residents; and
h. effective remedies for displacement-related violations, per information gathered.
Efforts towards durable solutions involve linking short-term humanitarian actions to peace building and
long-term development. Specific and distinct needs of the IDPs should also be considered and
mainstreamed in development plans and peace processes. It cannot be over-emphasized here that the
20 Global Protection Cluster Working Group, Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, 2010 21 Ibid 22 ibid
69
voices of IDPs should be heard and their participation ensured if these processes are to be truly inclusive.
Any support given should help stabilize local and national capacities as quickly as possible to encourage a
quicker and sustainable transition to longer term recovery. This should take into consideration assistance
to groups already working with IDPs on the ground.
The most important assumption to remember in seeking durable solutions to IDPs is the principle of
national government’s responsibility for addressing internal displacements., This prerequisite includes
the primary duty of the competent authorities to establish conditions and provide the means to promote
the IDPs to return voluntarily in safety and with dignity23.
Durable solutions for IDPs are determined by the presence of peace and the process of peace building.
Peace building is key and peace processes are necessary to overcome obstacles to durable solutions. The
ceasefires should aim to guarantee inclusive and safe dialogue with important actors and should address
the core grievances of the ethnic groups. Peace building requires conflict and context sensitive
assessments and interventions; trust building; inclusive process of identifying needs and priorities; and
support for local capacities and shared ownership. ‘Do no harm’ principle also must ensure that host
populations and communities whose needs may be similar to those of the IDPs must not be neglected
when IDPs are attended to.
The other alternative would be unbearable. The breakdown of ceasefires would likely reverse the
ceasefire areas into war zones and trigger another round of displacement.
V. INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To contribute in building conditions for durable solutions to displacement, UNICEF should
support and participate actively in peace-building activities that can have positive impact for the
people living in conflict-affected areas and for strengthening peace in general.
2. As peacebuilding is the key in humanitarian/ development assistance in conflict-affected areas,
assistance should be context and conflict- sensitive and should use trust-building/ confidence-
building measures. Sufficient preparation, consultation and buy-in from the government and
non-state armed groups should be secured when supporting projects in areas with strong
presence of NSAGs. Caution should be considered to avoid interpretation that assistance is used
to expand government’s administrative control in conflict-affected areas.
3. UNICEF’ assistance to IDP communities can be delivered through the following modalities:
a. Government township –level authorities in areas where there are existing government
services;
b. Existing service-delivery structures of the NSA’s, NGOs, CBOs, faith-based organizations
operating in areas unreached by government services;
c. Individual volunteers from the affected communities;
23 Global Protection Cluster Working Group, Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, 2010
70
d. Collaboration of the above-mentioned actors. Shared ownership of this process generates
mutual trust.
4. Information collected in this rapid assessment exercise should be shared to relevant agencies and
organizations to avoid unnecessary duplication and waste of resources, ‘assessment fatigue’ on
the part of the targeted communities, and to improve coordination. (note: Initially, this initiative
was coordinated with OCHA, UNHCR and TBC. The list of IDP settlements assessed was shared
with UNHCR and TBC to avoid duplication, and also submitted to MIMU for the purpose of
mapping).
5. Coordination and collaboration with other humanitarian organizations and development
agencies is important so that UNICEF’s assistance are complemented/ supplemented to enhance
the comparative advantage of involved agencies, avoid overwhelming local capacities, avoid dis-
organizing support due to lack of coordination, especially when many agencies are now scaling up
their interventions in conflict-affected areas. Strengthening coordination with UNHCR is
important in supporting durable solutions to displacement in the south east. UNICEF should be
actively involved as a major player in coordination mechanisms in the southeast relevant to
UNICEF’s work in the conflict-affected areas.
6. In providing assistance to IDP and conflict-affected villages, internal coordination among various
UNICEF sections should also be improved. An active sharing of context-specific information within
UNICEF is important to mitigate and manage possible risks and maximize the opportunities on the
ground.
7. State and township authorities should be made aware of the presence and concerns of IDP villages
in their areas of responsibilities. They should be encouraged to include the concerns of the IDPs
in government’s plans, to ensure that their plans are well understood by the IDPs and NSAGs,
as well as to ensure involvement/ participation of the local community stakeholders and NSAGs
in the process.
8. Because of the limitations of this report, additional and more accurate information gathering
will be necessary, depending on the required information needed to start service delivery. For
example, more detailed data for schools which are community- supported should be collected for
better understanding and assistance. Identifying and assessing local capacities may also be
necessary. Collection of information on protection issues is more sensitive in nature and requires
well trained personnel and careful approaches.
9. The southeast IDP database in MS Access will be uploaded in UNICEF’s shared folder so that all
sections can access the information for whatever purpose. The customized database should be
updated when new information on new villages are collected. A short training for the users of this
data base is recommended to ensure maximum benefits in the features offered by the software
developed.
10. In health, it is suggested to recruit and train volunteer health workers for community case
management who can handle malaria, diarrhea and dysentery and other health supported
activities such as age and gender-aggregated data collection, vitamin A distribution, etc. This
report recommends the recruitment and upgrading of skills of AMWs and skilled birth attendants
address the issues of safe deliveries, child mortality and malnutrition. These trained agents can
also strengthen the referral system, to facilitate routine immunization services by supporting
71
government MW, as well as to negotiate with health staff from NSA (with the help of government
health staff) who will conduct immunization in pocket areas.
Note: further recommendations will be discussed with UNICEF section
chiefs.
72
ANNEX A. LIST OF VILLAGES ASSESSED
State/
Region Township Vilage Tract Village
Bago (East) Kyaukkyi Naung Bo Naung Bo
Bago (East) Taungoo Kyauk Taing Yae Sin kone
Kayin Hlaingbwe
Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Sub-
township) Htee Hpar Ret
Kayin Hlaingbwe
Me Law Khee (Shan Ywar Thit Sub-
township) Htee Hpoe Khee
Kayin Hlaingbwe
Me Tha Mu (Shan Ywar Thit Sub-
township) Me Ka Taw Khee
Kayin Hlaingbwe
Me Tha Mu (Shan Ywar Thit Sub-
township) Me Tha Mu
Kayin Hlaingbwe Nwet Pyin Nyar Pa Law Nyar Thi
Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Hpar He Kwee
Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Htee Par
Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Kwee The Hpoo
Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Oh Lar Ka Lo
Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta Dawt Ka Kyar
Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta War Hae Hta
Kayin Hlaingbwe
Yae Ta Khun (Shan Ywar Thit Sub-
township) Htee Hta Pa Lu
Kayin Hpa-An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin
Kayin Hpapun
Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township) Baw Kyo Lel
Kayin Hpapun
Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township) Lay Hpoe Hta (East)
Kayin Hpapun
Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township) Shwe Yay
Kayin Hpapun
Kwin Da La (Yae Pu) (Kamamaung Sub-
township) Yae Pu
Kayin Hpapun Me Pa Li (Kamamaung Sub-township) Kyauk Twin
Kayin Hpapun
War Kaw Kyay (Kamamaung Sub-
township) Ta Dar U
Kayin Kawkareik Dauk Pa Lan Dauk Pa Lan
Kayin Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Hu Than
Kayin Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni
Kayin Kawkareik Kawt Nwe Myo Haung
Kayin Kawkareik Naung Kaing Saw Yu (Ah Yu)
Kayin Kawkareik Naung Kaing Thi War
Kayin Kawkareik Set Ka Wet Aung Hlaing
Kayin Kawkareik Ta Ri Ta Khaung Mi Hpa Nyar
Kayin Kawkareik Tha Pyu (Ka Maw Pi) Ku Lar Chaw
Kayin Kawkareik Tha Pyu (Ka Maw Pi) Thay Khi
73
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub-
township) Pa Law Hpar Htaw
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon Sub-
township) Win Lone
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Ka Sat
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein (Middle)
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ka Sat Kyon Sein (Upper)
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Bar Lu Lar Hay
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Kha Lel
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Pa Law Lar Hay
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Hpay Nar Mone
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Htee Phoe Wai
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Khaw Khat
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-township) Se Yoe (Kalar Pa Soke)
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Khoke Khwar
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Me Ka Taw
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Noet Ta Pa Lar
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Shwe Doe
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe
Yar Thae Kar (Nan Pat
Chaung)
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Lan Hpar (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Me Ta Law
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Nat Chaung Ah Lel Nat Chaung Hpyar
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Naung Ta Khu
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Khu (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Naung Ta Man
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Seik Ka Lay Hnget Pyaw Taw
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ta Khun Taing Hti Man Hto
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Taung Waing (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Meit Ta Khet
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Hpa Aung
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Thar Ka Hta (Kyaikdon Sub-township) Hpar Naw Mee
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Thin Gan Pin Seik (Kyaikdon Sub-
township) Oke Khoe
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Aung Chan Thar
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Bi Sa Khat
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Lay Htaw Hta
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Ya Thayt
Kayin Myawaddy Hpa Lu Htee Mae War Khee
Kayin Myawaddy Hpa Lu Ya Thae Ya
Kayin Myawaddy Hpar Ka Lu Hto Thu Khee
Kayin Myawaddy
Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub-
township) Ah Lel Do
Kayin Myawaddy
Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub-
township) Chaung Sone
74
Kayin Myawaddy
Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub-
township) Taw Oke
Kayin Myawaddy
Mi Hpar / Tha Bawt Boe (Su Ka Li Sub-
township) Thay Baw Boe
Kayin Myawaddy
Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub-
township) Pa Law Hta
Kayin Myawaddy
Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee) (Waw Lay sub-
township) Ti Thea Lei (Maw Khee)
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Dar War Law Chee Lo Lar Way
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Dar Yoe (Leik Tho Sub-township) Htar Hpo Chee
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Ho Thaw Pa Lo (Leik Tho Sub-township) Ho Thaw Pa Lo
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Ho Thaw Pa Lo (Leik Tho Sub-township) Khaw Thaw Khaw
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Htee Thar Saw (Leik Tho Sub-township) Htee Thar Saw (Lower)
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Ka Lay Kho (Leik Tho Sub-township) Thauk Yae Khat
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Kyauk Pon (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Baw Ga Li Ka Lay
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Kyauk Pon (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Kyauk Pon
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Lel Kho Doe Kar Ka Mu Do
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Maing Lun (Leik Tho Sub-township) Nga Poe Gyi
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Pyaung Tho (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Khu Pyaung
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Sa Par Kyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Doe Do
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Sa Par Kyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Me Kyaw
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Urban Lun Bu
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Urban No (1) Ward
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Urban No (2) Ward
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Yae Thoe Gyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Yae Thoe Gyi
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Yae Thoe Gyi (Baw Ga Li sub-township) Yae Thoe Ka Lay
Kayin
Thandaunggy
i Ywar Gyi Pyar Sa Khan
Tanintharyi Dawei Ka Lit Gyi (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Lit Gyi
75
Tanintharyi Dawei Myay Khan Baw (Myitta Sub-township)
Gaung Say Chaung
(Kyay Thar Inn)
Tanintharyi Dawei Myay Khan Baw (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Meik
Tanintharyi Dawei Myay Khan Baw (Myitta Sub-township) Tha Byu Chaung
Tanintharyi Dawei Pyar Thar Chaung Kyauk Twin
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ah Mo
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Maw Haw
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Kat Ta Yar Sei
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Sin Hpyu Taing
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) War Taw
Tanintharyi Dawei Taung Thone Lone (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Htaung Ni
Tanintharyi Launglon Auk Yae Hpyu Kyauk Hpyu
Tanintharyi Palaw Hta Min Ma Sar Ka Mar Aing
Tanintharyi Palaw Nan Taung Nan Taung
Tanintharyi Palaw Pa La Pa La Oke Htar
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Htaw Ta Li
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Mar Gon Mar
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Ngar Tet
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) R Zar Ni Kone
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Wa Zum Oke
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Yae Pu
Tanintharyi Palaw Sin Htoe Gyi (Palauk Sub-township) Inn Ma
Tanintharyi
Thayetchaun
g Kayin Taung Pyauk Kayin Taung Pyauk
Tanintharyi
Thayetchaun
g Pa Dat Chaung Taung Zin
Tanintharyi
Thayetchaun
g Pe Det Ta Khun Taing
Tanintharyi
Thayetchaun
g Urban Laung Min Ba
Tanintharyi
Thayetchaun
g Urban Nyein Chan Yae (1)
Tanintharyi
Thayetchaun
g Yae Pu Yae Byat
Tanintharyi
Thayetchaun
g Yae Pu Yae Pu
Tanintharyi Yebyu Kyauk Shat (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Yae Pone
Tanintharyi Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Kywe Tha Lin
Tanintharyi Yebyu Lawt Thaing (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Lawt Thaing
Tanintharyi Yebyu
Mi Kyaung Hlaung (Kaleinaung Sub-
township) Mi Kyaung Hlaung
Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Ma Yan Chaung
Tanintharyi Yebyu Rar Hpu (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Rar Hpu (Thit)
Tanintharyi Yebyu Thea Chaung Pay Ta Kha
76
Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Kawt Hlaing
Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Mile (60) Ywar
Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon
Tanintharyi Yebyu Zin Bar (Kaleinaung Sub-township) Zin Bar
77
ANNEX B: NEW RESETTLED VILLAGES
StateRegionName TownshipName VTName VName
Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Kawt Hlaing
Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Mile (60) Ywar
Tanintharyi Yebyu Urban Thar Yar Mon
Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Urban Laung Min Ba
Tanintharyi Thayetchaung Urban Nyein Chan Yae (1)
Kayin Thandaunggyi Urban Lun Bu
Kayin Thandaunggyi Urban No (1) Ward
Kayin Thandaunggyi Urban No (2) Ward
Tanintharyi Palaw Pa La Pa La Oke Htar
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Htaw Ta Li
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) R Zar Ni Kone
Tanintharyi Palaw Pyi Char (Palauk Sub-township) Wa Zum Oke
Kayin Kawkareik Hti Hu Than Hti Saw Si Ni
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Ka Mawt Thea (Win Lon) (Kyaikdon
Sub-township) Pa Law Hpar Htaw
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Bar Lu Lar Hay
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kha Lel Pa Law Lar Hay
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-
township) Htee Phoe Wai
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-
township) Khaw Khat
Kayin Kyainseikgyi
Koe Mar (Hpayarthonesu Sub-
township)
Se Yoe (Kalar Pa
Soke)
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe Ta Po Hpoe Htar
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Kyar Inn Shwe Doe
Yar Thae Kar (Nan
Pat Chaung)
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Aung Chan Thar
Kayin Kyainseikgyi Ya Thayt Lay Htaw Hta
Kayin Hpa-An Kawt Ka Dar Hlwa Sin
Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Hpar He Kwee
Kayin Hlaingbwe Tha Mo (Paingkyon Sub-township) Kwee The Hpoo
Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta Dawt Ka Kyar
Kayin Hlaingbwe War Hae Hta War Hae Hta
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ah Mo
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Ka Maw Haw
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) Kat Ta Yar Sei
Tanintharyi Dawei Sin Hpyu Taing (Myitta Sub-township) War Taw
78
ANNEX C: REPORTED IDP VILLAGES (not yet assessed):
Based on the knowledge of the respondents, 38 other villages have IDPs. These are:
Township Village Name
Dawei Ah Mo Dawei Gaung Say Chaung (Kyay
Thar Inn) Dawei Ka Htaung Ni Dawei Ka Lit Gyi Dawei Ka Maw Haw Dawei Ka Meik Dawei Kat Ta Yar Sei Dawe War Taw Hlaingbwe Htee Hta Pa Lu Hlaingbwe Ta Wun Hpan Ya Hpa-An Nat Kone Hpa-An Toke Gyi Hpapun Ko Lu Pyo Hpapun Po Mar Te Htantabin Kayin Ni Kone Htantabin Lay Thit Kawkareik Bawt Daing Kawkareik Hlaing Tan Kawkareik Kyauk Tan Kawkareik Tha Pyu Kawkareik Thein Pa Lein Kawkareik Thi War Kyainseikgyi Hpay Nar Mone
Kyainseikgyi Hti Khine Kyainseikgyi Kyaik Ywar Kyainseikgyi Naung Ta Man Kyainseikgyi Se Yoe (Kalar Pa Soke) Kyainseikgyi Toet See Pu Kyunsu Kan Maw Kyunsu War Aw Palaw Pyi Char Tanintharyi Kyauk Mee Kyaung Thandaunggyi Hta Ye Pa Lo Thandaunggyi Pyar Sa Khan Thandaunggyi Than Taung Ka Lay Thayetchaung Lel Pyin Gyi Ye Kawt Pun
79
Township Village Name
Yebyu Pay Ta Kha ANNEX D: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
Please enter information in the light gray fields or mark tick boxes where it applies (double click on tick box).
1. Surveying General Information
Monitoring Team Responsible Name :
Assessment Date (dd/mm/yyyy) :
Responsible Organizations : Phone 1 :
E-mail : Phone 2 :
Type and Number of survey respondents:
IDP women teacher children
IDP men Health worker other
Community leader Elder
2. Geographic Information
State : Township :
Village Tract/Town : Village/Ward Name :
P-code : Site Name :
Latitude : (dd.ddddd) or (dd mm ss)
Longitude : (dd.ddddd) or (dd mm ss)
Site Type : 1. Hiding site 2. Relocation Site 3. Ethnic Ceasefire area 4. With Host Families
No. of HH in the open shelter No. of HH in temporary shelter
No. of HH in solid shelter No. of HH in community/church buildings
No. of HH in others (specify) _______________________________________________
3. Population Data
Are IDP* present? (IDPs= Individuals outside their village of residence) �If the answer is No, there is no need to fill the rest of the form.
1. Yes 2. No
Which of the following statements would best describe this location? (tick all that apply)
1. A place where displacement of people happened before (previous displacement happened);
2. a place where people are now being asked to leave (active displacement is happening)
3. A place of return for displaced people (place of origin for IDPs living in the village)
4. A place of refuge for people outside this community (village has IDPs in host community)
5. A place where the government asked the displaced people to stay (relocation site)
If there are people who have newly arrived in this community (since January 2012), where they did live before? (Tick all that apply)
1. Camps in Thailand (refugee)
2. elsewhere in Thailand (potential refugee)
3. Elsewhere in Myanmar ( IDP )
4. Myanmar people who moved here to work (economic migrants).
Total number of households and individuals
HH: Individuals:
No. of Refugee returnees (HH/ Individuals) HH: Individuals:
No. of IDP (HH/ Individuals) HH: Individuals:
No. of Economic Migrants (HH/ Individuals) HH: Individuals:
80
No. of Residents (HH/Individuals) HH: Individuals:
If this is not a place of origin for the IDPs, where was their place of origin? (fill in the village and township names)
Village:
township
The IDP population is 1. Increasing 2. Decreasing 3. Stable
How long is the majority of IDPs displaced?
1. 1 month
2. 3 months
3. 6 months
4. 9 months
5. 1 year
6. More than 1 year
7. More than 3 years .
8. More than 5 years
9. More than 10 years
Reasons for staying in this community (tick all that apply)
1. friends and relatives live here (access to community/ social support )
2. we feel safe here (physical safety )
3. we earn our income here (access to economic/ livelihood opportunity )
4. close to schools and medical services (access to education, health services)
5. Other reasons (specify):______________________
Reasons why some IDPs cannot/ do not return to their original village (tick all that apply)
1. risk of landmines
2. original land occupied by others ; loss of land
3. No livelihood opportunity in the village
4. no access to social services (education, health)
5. fear from physical harm
6 . No road access/ Too far
7. Other reasons (specify):______________________
Where do the IDPs and Refugee Returnees want to settle permanently?
1. In this current settlement
2. In their original village (not this village)
3. Elsewhere inside Myanmar
4. Elsewhere outside Myanmar
How many of the people have identity documentation? (Tick one)
1. Almost 100% 2. 50% or more 3. Less than 50% 4. None
What type of identity documents do these people in this village have? (tick all that all apply)
1. Citizenship Scrutiny Card (CSCs) - Pink
2. National Registration Card (3-folded card, green or pink)
3. Naturalized Scrutiny Citizenship Card
4. Associated Scrutiny Citizenship Card
5. Temporary Registration Card (TRC)
6. Family List
7. Birth Registration Certificate Issued in Myanmar
8. Refugee Registration document from Thailand
9. Birth Registration Certificate Issued in Thailand
10. Other
What are the top 3 languages spoken by the IDPs?
1. 2. 3.
Do you know of other villages where there are IDPs? 1. ���� Yes 2. ���� No
If Yes, write the village names /Townships of other locations of IDPs. /
Population (count)
Total Male Under 18 (M/F) / Under 5 (M/F) / Lactating women
Total Female Under 12 (M/F) / Under 1 (M/F) / Pregnant women
3.1 Vulnerable Groups
81
Unaccompanied elders (above 60) (M / F)
/ Children with disability (M/F)
/ disabled persons (M / F)
/ Female headed households
Working Children (M / F)
/ Unaccompanied minors (under 18) (M / F)
/ Chronically ill persons (M / F)
/ Child headed Households (M / F)
Orphan children (M/ F)
/ Persons with HIV/AIDS (M/ F)
/ Children with HIV/ Aids
![歴史書は語る - 東海大学No. 1 Prokopios[Procopius Caesariensis], Historiarum Procopii Cæsariensis libri VIII : nunc primum Græce editi : accessit liber de ædificijs Justiniani,](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/6027e5f89b15702b7f2064e2/e-no-1-prokopiosprocopius-caesariensis-historiarum.jpg)
